@ d61f3bc5:0da6ef4a

I remember the first gathering of Nostr devs two years ago in Costa Rica. We were all psyched because Nostr appeared to solve the problem of self-sovereign online identity and decentralized publishing. The protocol seemed well-suited for textual content, but it wasn't really designed to handle binary files, like images or video.

The Problem

When I publish a note that contains an image link, the note itself is resilient thanks to Nostr, but if the hosting service disappears or takes my image down, my note will be broken forever. We need a way to publish binary data without relying on a single hosting provider.

We were discussing how there really was no reliable solution to this problem even outside of Nostr. Peer-to-peer attempts like IPFS simply didn't work; they were hopelessly slow and unreliable in practice. Torrents worked for popular files like movies, but couldn't be relied on for general file hosting.

Awesome Blossom

A year later, I attended the Sovereign Engineering demo day in Madeira, organized by Pablo and Gigi. Many projects were presented over a three hour demo session that day, but one really stood out for me.

Introduced by hzrd149 and Stu Bowman, Blossom blew my mind because it showed how we can solve complex problems easily by simply relying on the fact that Nostr exists. Having an open user directory, with the corresponding social graph and web of trust is an incredible building block.

Since we can easily look up any user on Nostr and read their profile metadata, we can just get them to simply tell us where their files are stored. This, combined with hash-based addressing (borrowed from IPFS), is all we need to solve our problem.

How Blossom Works

The Blossom protocol (Blobs Stored Simply on Mediaservers) is formally defined in a series of BUDs (Blossom Upgrade Documents). Yes, Blossom is the most well-branded protocol in the history of protocols. Feel free to refer to the spec for details, but I will provide a high level explanation here.

The main idea behind Blossom can be summarized in three points:

1. Users specify which media server(s) they use via their public Blossom settings published on Nostr;
2. All files are uniquely addressable via hashes;
3. If an app fails to load a file from the original URL, it simply goes to get it from the server(s) specified in the user's Blossom settings.

Just like Nostr itself, the Blossom protocol is dead-simple and it works!

Let's use this image as an example:

If you look at the URL for this image, you will notice that it looks like this:

blossom.primal.net/c1aa63f983a44185d039092912bfb7f33adcf63ed3cae371ebe6905da5f688d0.jpg

All Blossom URLs follow this format:

[server]/[file-hash].[extension]

The file hash is important because it uniquely identifies the file in question. Apps can use it to verify that the file they received is exactly the file they requested. It also gives us the ability to reliably get the same file from a different server.

Nostr users declare which media server(s) they use by publishing their Blossom settings. If I store my files on Server A, and they get removed, I can simply upload them to Server B, update my public Blossom settings, and all Blossom-capable apps will be able to find them at the new location. All my existing notes will continue to display media content without any issues.

Blossom Mirroring

Let's face it, re-uploading files to another server after they got removed from the original server is not the best user experience. Most people wouldn't have the backups of all the files, and/or the desire to do this work.

This is where Blossom's mirroring feature comes handy. In addition to the primary media server, a Blossom user can set one one or more mirror servers. Under this setup, every time a file is uploaded to the primary server the Nostr app issues a mirror request to the primary server, directing it to copy the file to all the specified mirrors. This way there is always a copy of all content on multiple servers and in case the primary becomes unavailable, Blossom-capable apps will automatically start loading from the mirror.

Mirrors are really easy to setup (you can do it in two clicks in Primal) and this arrangement ensures robust media handling without any central points of failure. Note that you can use professional media hosting services side by side with self-hosted backup servers that anyone can run at home.

Using Blossom Within Primal

Blossom is natively integrated into the entire Primal stack and enabled by default. If you are using Primal 2.2 or later, you don't need to do anything to enable Blossom, all your media uploads are blossoming already.

To enhance user privacy, all Primal apps use the "/media" endpoint per BUD-05, which strips all metadata from uploaded files before they are saved and optionally mirrored to other Blossom servers, per user settings. You can use any Blossom server as your primary media server in Primal, as well as setup any number of mirrors:

## Conclusion

For such a simple protocol, Blossom gives us three major benefits:

1. Verifiable authenticity. All Nostr notes are always signed by the note author. With Blossom, the signed note includes a unique hash for each referenced media file, making it impossible to falsify.
2. File hosting redundancy. Having multiple live copies of referenced media files (via Blossom mirroring) greatly increases the resiliency of media content published on Nostr.
3. Censorship resistance. Blossom enables us to seamlessly switch media hosting providers in case of censorship.

Thanks for reading; and enjoy! 🌸

@ 6e64b83c:94102ee8

Nostr-static is a powerful static site generator that transforms long-form Nostr content into beautiful, standalone websites. It makes your content accessible to everyone, even those not using Nostr clients. For more information check out my previous blog post How to Create a Blog Out of Nostr Long-Form Articles

What's New in Version 0.7?

RSS and Atom Feeds

Version 0.7 brings comprehensive feed support with both RSS and Atom formats. The system automatically generates feeds for your main content, individual profiles, and tag-specific pages. These feeds are seamlessly integrated into your site's header, making them easily discoverable by feed readers and content aggregators.

This feature bridges the gap between Nostr and traditional web publishing, allowing your content to reach readers who prefer feed readers or automated content distribution systems.

Smart Content Discovery

The new tag discovery system enhances your readers' experience by automatically finding and recommending relevant articles from the Nostr network. It works by:

1. Analyzing the tags in your articles
2. Fetching popular articles from Nostr that share these tags
3. Using configurable weights to rank these articles based on:
4. Engagement metrics (reactions, reposts, replies)
5. Zap statistics (amount, unique zappers, average zap size)
6. Content quality signals (report penalties)

This creates a dynamic "Recommended Articles" section that helps readers discover more content they might be interested in, all while staying within the Nostr ecosystem.

See the new features yourself by visiting our demo at: https://blog.nostrize.me

@ 6e0ea5d6:0327f353

Amico mio, ascolta bene!

Without hesitation, the woman you attract with lies is not truly yours. Davvero, she is the temporary property of the illusion you’ve built to seduce her. And every illusion, sooner or later, crumbles.

Weak men sell inflated versions of themselves. They talk about what they don’t have, promise what they can’t sustain, adorn their empty selves with words that are nothing more than a coat of paint. And they do this thinking that, later, they’ll be able to "show who they really are." Fatal mistake, cazzo!

The truth, amico mio, is not something that appears at the end. It is what holds up the whole beginning.

The woman who approaches a lie may smile at first — but she is smiling at the theater, not at the actor. When the curtains fall, what she will see is not a man. It will be a character tired of performing, begging for love from a self-serving audience in the front row.

That’s why I always point out that lying to win a woman’s heart is the same as sabotaging your own nature. The woman who comes through an invented version of you will be the first to leave when the veil of lies tears apart. Not out of cruelty, but out of consistency with her own interest. Fine... She didn’t leave you, but rather, that version of yourself never truly existed to be left behind.

A worthy man presents himself without deceptive adornments. And those who stay, stay because they know exactly who they are choosing as a man. That’s what differentiates forged seduction from the convenience of love built on honor, loyalty, and respect.

Ah, amico mio, I remember well. It was lunch on an autumn day in Catania. Mediterranean heat, and the Nero D'Avola wine from midday clinging to the lips like dried blood. Sitting in the shade of a lemon tree planted right by my grandfather's vineyard entrance, my uncle — the oldest of my father’s brothers — spoke little, but when he called us to sit by his side, all the nephews would quiet down to listen. And in my youth, he told me something that has never left my mind.

“In Sicily, the woman who endures the silence of a man about his business is more loyal than the one who is enchanted by speeches about what he does or how much he earns. Perchè, figlio mio, the first one has seen the truth. The second one, only a false shine.”

Thank you for reading, my friend!

If this message resonated with you, consider leaving your "🥃" as a token of appreciation.

A toast to our family!

@ 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

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ a008def1:57a3564d

A Vision for #GitViaNostr

Git has long been the standard for version control in software development, but over time, we has lost its distributed nature. Originally, Git used open, permissionless email for collaboration, which worked well at scale. However, the rise of GitHub and its centralized pull request (PR) model has shifted the landscape.

Now, we have the opportunity to revive Git's permissionless and distributed nature through Nostr!

We’ve developed tools to facilitate Git collaboration via Nostr, but there are still significant friction that prevents widespread adoption. This article outlines a vision for how we can reduce those barriers and encourage more repositories to embrace this approach.

First, we’ll review our progress so far. Then, we’ll propose a guiding philosophy for our next steps. Finally, we’ll discuss a vision to tackle specific challenges, mainly relating to the role of the Git server and CI/CD.

I am the lead maintainer of ngit and gitworkshop.dev, and I’ve been fortunate to work full-time on this initiative for the past two years, thanks to an OpenSats grant.

How Far We’ve Come

The aim of #GitViaNostr is to liberate discussions around code collaboration from permissioned walled gardens. At the core of this collaboration is the process of proposing and applying changes. That's what we focused on first.

Since Nostr shares characteristics with email, and with NIP34, we’ve adopted similar primitives to those used in the patches-over-email workflow. This is because of their simplicity and that they don’t require contributors to host anything, which adds reliability and makes participation more accessible.

However, the fork-branch-PR-merge workflow is the only model many developers have known, and changing established workflows can be challenging. To address this, we developed a new workflow that balances familiarity, user experience, and alignment with the Nostr protocol: the branch-PR-merge model.

This model is implemented in ngit, which includes a Git plugin that allows users to engage without needing to learn new commands. Additionally, gitworkshop.dev offers a GitHub-like interface for interacting with PRs and issues. We encourage you to try them out using the quick start guide and share your feedback. You can also explore PRs and issues with gitplaza.

For those who prefer the patches-over-email workflow, you can still use that approach with Nostr through gitstr or the ngit send and ngit list commands, and explore patches with patch34.

The tools are now available to support the core collaboration challenge, but we are still at the beginning of the adoption curve.

Before we dive into the challenges—such as why the Git server setup can be jarring and the possibilities surrounding CI/CD—let’s take a moment to reflect on how we should approach the challenges ahead of us.

Philosophy

Here are some foundational principles I shared a few years ago:

• Let Git be Git
• Let Nostr be Nostr
• Learn from the successes of others

I’d like to add one more:

• Embrace anarchy and resist monolithic development.

Micro Clients FTW

Nostr celebrates simplicity, and we should strive to maintain that. Monolithic developments often lead to unnecessary complexity. Projects like gitworkshop.dev, which aim to cover various aspects of the code collaboration experience, should not stifle innovation.

Just yesterday, the launch of following.space demonstrated how vibe-coded micro clients can make a significant impact. They can be valuable on their own, shape the ecosystem, and help push large and widely used clients to implement features and ideas.

The primitives in NIP34 are straightforward, and if there are any barriers preventing the vibe-coding of a #GitViaNostr app in an afternoon, we should work to eliminate them.

Micro clients should lead the way and explore new workflows, experiences, and models of thinking.

Take kanbanstr.com. It provides excellent project management and organization features that work seamlessly with NIP34 primitives.

From kanban to code snippets, from CI/CD runners to SatShoot—may a thousand flowers bloom, and a thousand more after them.

Friction and Challenges

The Git Server

In #GitViaNostr, maintainers' branches (e.g., master) are hosted on a Git server. Here’s why this approach is beneficial:

• Follows the original Git vision and the "let Git be Git" philosophy.
• Super efficient, battle-tested, and compatible with all the ways people use Git (e.g., LFS, shallow cloning).
• Maintains compatibility with related systems without the need for plugins (e.g., for build and deployment).
• Only repository maintainers need write access.

In the original Git model, all users would need to add the Git server as a 'git remote.' However, with ngit, the Git server is hidden behind a Nostr remote, which enables:

• Hiding complexity from contributors and users, so that only maintainers need to know about the Git server component to start using #GitViaNostr.
• Maintainers can easily swap Git servers by updating their announcement event, allowing contributors/users using ngit to automatically switch to the new one.

Challenges with the Git Server

While the Git server model has its advantages, it also presents several challenges:

1. Initial Setup: When creating a new repository, maintainers must select a Git server, which can be a jarring experience. Most options come with bloated social collaboration features tied to a centralized PR model, often difficult or impossible to disable.

2. Manual Configuration: New repositories require manual configuration, including adding new maintainers through a browser UI, which can be cumbersome and time-consuming.

3. User Onboarding: Many Git servers require email sign-up or KYC (Know Your Customer) processes, which can be a significant turn-off for new users exploring a decentralized and permissionless alternative to GitHub.

Once the initial setup is complete, the system works well if a reliable Git server is chosen. However, this is a significant "if," as we have become accustomed to the excellent uptime and reliability of GitHub. Even professionally run alternatives like Codeberg can experience downtime, which is frustrating when CI/CD and deployment processes are affected. This problem is exacerbated when self-hosting.

Currently, most repositories on Nostr rely on GitHub as the Git server. While maintainers can change servers without disrupting their contributors, this reliance on a centralized service is not the decentralized dream we aspire to achieve.

Vision for the Git Server

The goal is to transform the Git server from a single point of truth and failure into a component similar to a Nostr relay.

Functionality Already in ngit to Support This

1. State on Nostr: Store the state of branches and tags in a Nostr event, removing reliance on a single server. This validates that the data received has been signed by the maintainer, significantly reducing the trust requirement.

2. Proxy to Multiple Git Servers: Proxy requests to all servers listed in the announcement event, adding redundancy and eliminating the need for any one server to match GitHub's reliability.

Implementation Requirements

To achieve this vision, the Nostr Git server implementation should:

1. Implement the Git Smart HTTP Protocol without authentication (no SSH) and only accept pushes if the reference tip matches the latest state event.

2. Avoid Bloat: There should be no user authentication, no database, no web UI, and no unnecessary features.

3. Automatic Repository Management: Accept or reject new repositories automatically upon the first push based on the content of the repository announcement event referenced in the URL path and its author.

Just as there are many free, paid, and self-hosted relays, there will be a variety of free, zero-step signup options, as well as self-hosted and paid solutions.

Some servers may use a Web of Trust (WoT) to filter out spam, while others might impose bandwidth or repository size limits for free tiers or whitelist specific npubs.

Additionally, some implementations could bundle relay and blossom server functionalities to unify the provision of repository data into a single service. These would likely only accept content related to the stored repositories rather than general social nostr content.

The potential role of CI / CD via nostr DVMs could create the incentives for a market of highly reliable free at the point of use git servers.

This could make onboarding #GitViaNostr repositories as easy as entering a name and selecting from a multi-select list of Git server providers that announce via NIP89.

!(image)[https://image.nostr.build/badedc822995eb18b6d3c4bff0743b12b2e5ac018845ba498ce4aab0727caf6c.jpg]

Git Client in the Browser

Currently, many tasks are performed on a Git server web UI, such as:

• Browsing code, commits, branches, tags, etc.
• Creating and displaying permalinks to specific lines in commits.
• Merging PRs.
• Making small commits and PRs on-the-fly.

Just as nobody goes to the web UI of a relay (e.g., nos.lol) to interact with notes, nobody should need to go to a Git server to interact with repositories. We use the Nostr protocol to interact with Nostr relays, and we should use the Git protocol to interact with Git servers. This situation has evolved due to the centralization of Git servers. Instead of being restricted to the view and experience designed by the server operator, users should be able to choose the user experience that works best for them from a range of clients. To facilitate this, we need a library that lowers the barrier to entry for creating these experiences. This library should not require a full clone of every repository and should not depend on proprietary APIs. As a starting point, I propose wrapping the WASM-compiled gitlib2 library for the web and creating useful functions, such as showing a file, which utilizes clever flags to minimize bandwidth usage (e.g., shallow clone, noblob, etc.).

This approach would not only enhance clients like gitworkshop.dev but also bring forth a vision where Git servers simply run the Git protocol, making vibe coding Git experiences even better.

song

nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6 created song with a complementary vision that has shaped how I see the role of the git server. Its a self-hosted, nostr-permissioned git server with a relay baked in. Its currently a WIP and there are some compatability with ngit that we need to work out.

We collaborated on the nostr-permissioning approach now reflected in nip34.

I'm really excited to see how this space evolves.

CI/CD

Most projects require CI/CD, and while this is often bundled with Git hosting solutions, it is currently not smoothly integrated into #GitViaNostr yet. There are many loosely coupled options, such as Jenkins, Travis, CircleCI, etc., that could be integrated with Nostr.

However, the more exciting prospect is to use DVMs (Data Vending Machines).

DVMs for CI/CD

Nostr Data Vending Machines (DVMs) can provide a marketplace of CI/CD task runners with Cashu for micro payments.

There are various trust levels in CI/CD tasks:

• Tasks with no secrets eg. tests.
• Tasks using updatable secrets eg. API keys.
• Unverifiable builds and steps that sign with Android, Nostr, or PGP keys.

DVMs allow tasks to be kicked off with specific providers using a Cashu token as payment.

It might be suitable for some high-compute and easily verifiable tasks to be run by the cheapest available providers. Medium trust tasks could be run by providers with a good reputation, while high trust tasks could be run on self-hosted runners.

Job requests, status, and results all get published to Nostr for display in Git-focused Nostr clients.

Jobs could be triggered manually, or self-hosted runners could be configured to watch a Nostr repository and kick off jobs using their own runners without payment.

But I'm most excited about the prospect of Watcher Agents.

CI/CD Watcher Agents

AI agents empowered with a NIP60 Cashu wallet can run tasks based on activity, such as a push to master or a new PR, using the most suitable available DVM runner that meets the user's criteria. To keep them running, anyone could top up their NIP60 Cashu wallet; otherwise, the watcher turns off when the funds run out. It could be users, maintainers, or anyone interested in helping the project who could top up the Watcher Agent's balance.

As aluded to earlier, part of building a reputation as a CI/CD provider could involve running reliable hosting (Git server, relay, and blossom server) for all FOSS Nostr Git repositories.

This provides a sustainable revenue model for hosting providers and creates incentives for many free-at-the-point-of-use hosting providers. This, in turn, would allow one-click Nostr repository creation workflows, instantly hosted by many different providers.

Progress to Date

nostr:npub1hw6amg8p24ne08c9gdq8hhpqx0t0pwanpae9z25crn7m9uy7yarse465gr and nostr:npub16ux4qzg4qjue95vr3q327fzata4n594c9kgh4jmeyn80v8k54nhqg6lra7 have been working on a runner that uses GitHub Actions YAML syntax (using act) for the dvm-cicd-runner and takes Cashu payment. You can see example runs on GitWorkshop. It currently takes testnuts, doesn't give any change, and the schema will likely change.

Note: The actions tab on GitWorkshop is currently available on all repositories if you turn on experimental mode (under settings in the user menu).

It's a work in progress, and we expect the format and schema to evolve.

Easy Web App Deployment

For those disapointed not to find a 'Nostr' button to import a git repository to Vercel menu: take heart, they made it easy. vercel.com_import_options.png there is a vercel cli that can be easily called in CI / CD jobs to kick of deployments. Not all managed solutions for web app deployment (eg. netlify) make it that easy.

Many More Opportunities

Large Patches via Blossom

I would be remiss not to mention the large patch problem. Some patches are too big to fit into Nostr events. Blossom is perfect for this, as it allows these larger patches to be included in a blossom file and referenced in a new patch kind.

Enhancing the #GitViaNostr Experience

Beyond the large patch issue, there are numerous opportunities to enhance the #GitViaNostr ecosystem. We can focus on improving browsing, discovery, social and notifications. Receiving notifications on daily driver Nostr apps is one of the killer features of Nostr. However, we must ensure that Git-related notifications are easily reviewable, so we don’t miss any critical updates.

We need to develop tools that cater to our curiosity—tools that enable us to discover and follow projects, engage in discussions that pique our interest, and stay informed about developments relevant to our work.

Additionally, we should not overlook the importance of robust search capabilities and tools that facilitate migrations.

Concluding Thoughts

The design space is vast. Its an exciting time to be working on freedom tech. I encourage everyone to contribute their ideas and creativity and get vibe-coding!

I welcome your honest feedback on this vision and any suggestions you might have. Your insights are invaluable as we collaborate to shape the future of #GitViaNostr. Onward.

Contributions

To conclude, I want to acknowledge some the individuals who have made recent code contributions related to #GitViaNostr:

nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6 (gitstr, song, patch34), nostr:npub1useke4f9maul5nf67dj0m9sq6jcsmnjzzk4ycvldwl4qss35fvgqjdk5ks (gitplaza)

nostr:npub1elta7cneng3w8p9y4dw633qzdjr4kyvaparuyuttyrx6e8xp7xnq32cume (ngit contributions, git-remote-blossom),nostr:npub16p8v7varqwjes5hak6q7mz6pygqm4pwc6gve4mrned3xs8tz42gq7kfhdw (SatShoot, Flotilla-Budabit), nostr:npub1ehhfg09mr8z34wz85ek46a6rww4f7c7jsujxhdvmpqnl5hnrwsqq2szjqv (Flotilla-Budabit, Nostr Git Extension), nostr:npub1ahaz04ya9tehace3uy39hdhdryfvdkve9qdndkqp3tvehs6h8s5slq45hy (gnostr and experiments), and others.

nostr:npub1uplxcy63up7gx7cladkrvfqh834n7ylyp46l3e8t660l7peec8rsd2sfek (git-remote-nostr)

Project Management nostr:npub1ltx67888tz7lqnxlrg06x234vjnq349tcfyp52r0lstclp548mcqnuz40t (kanbanstr) Code Snippets nostr:npub1ygzj9skr9val9yqxkf67yf9jshtyhvvl0x76jp5er09nsc0p3j6qr260k2 (nodebin.io) nostr:npub1r0rs5q2gk0e3dk3nlc7gnu378ec6cnlenqp8a3cjhyzu6f8k5sgs4sq9ac (snipsnip.dev)

CI / CD nostr:npub16ux4qzg4qjue95vr3q327fzata4n594c9kgh4jmeyn80v8k54nhqg6lra7 nostr:npub1hw6amg8p24ne08c9gdq8hhpqx0t0pwanpae9z25crn7m9uy7yarse465gr

and for their nostr:npub1c03rad0r6q833vh57kyd3ndu2jry30nkr0wepqfpsm05vq7he25slryrnw nostr:npub1qqqqqq2stely3ynsgm5mh2nj3v0nk5gjyl3zqrzh34hxhvx806usxmln03 and nostr:npub1l5sga6xg72phsz5422ykujprejwud075ggrr3z2hwyrfgr7eylqstegx9z for their testing, feedback, ideas and encouragement.

Thank you for your support and collaboration! Let me know if I've missed you.

@ 6be5cc06:5259daf0

Eu reconheço que Deus, e somente Deus, é o soberano legítimo sobre todas as coisas. Nenhum homem, nenhuma instituição, nenhum parlamento tem autoridade para usurpar aquilo que pertence ao Rei dos reis. O Estado moderno, com sua pretensão totalizante, é uma farsa blasfema diante do trono de Cristo. Não aceito outro senhor.

A Lei que me guia não é a ditada por burocratas, mas a gravada por Deus na própria natureza humana. A razão, quando iluminada pela fé, é suficiente para discernir o que é justo. Rejeito as leis arbitrárias que pretendem legitimar o roubo, o assassinato ou a escravidão em nome da ordem. A justiça não nasce do decreto, mas da verdade.

Acredito firmemente na propriedade privada como extensão da própria pessoa. Aquilo que é fruto do meu trabalho, da minha criatividade, da minha dedicação, dos dons a mim concedidos por Deus, pertence a mim por direito natural. Ninguém pode legitimamente tomar o que é meu sem meu consentimento. Todo imposto é uma agressão; toda expropriação, um roubo. Defendo a liberdade econômica não por idolatria ao mercado, mas porque a liberdade é condição necessária para a virtude.

Assumo o Princípio da Não Agressão como o mínimo ético que devo respeitar. Não iniciarei o uso da força contra ninguém, nem contra sua propriedade. Exijo o mesmo de todos. Mas sei que isso não basta. O PNA delimita o que não devo fazer — ele não me ensina o que devo ser. A liberdade exterior só é boa se houver liberdade interior. O mercado pode ser livre, mas se a alma estiver escravizada pelo vício, o colapso será inevitável.

Por isso, não me basta a ética negativa. Creio que uma sociedade justa precisa de valores positivos: honra, responsabilidade, compaixão, respeito, fidelidade à verdade. Sem isso, mesmo uma sociedade que respeite formalmente os direitos individuais apodrecerá por dentro. Um povo que ama o lucro, mas despreza a verdade, que celebra a liberdade mas esquece a justiça, está se preparando para ser dominado. Trocará um déspota visível por mil tiranias invisíveis — o hedonismo, o consumismo, a mentira, o medo.

Não aceito a falsa caridade feita com o dinheiro tomado à força. A verdadeira generosidade nasce do coração livre, não da coerção institucional. Obrigar alguém a ajudar o próximo destrói tanto a liberdade quanto a virtude. Só há mérito onde há escolha. A caridade que nasce do amor é redentora; a que nasce do fisco é propaganda.

O Estado moderno é um ídolo. Ele promete segurança, mas entrega servidão. Promete justiça, mas entrega privilégios. Disfarça a opressão com linguagem técnica, legal e democrática. Mas por trás de suas máscaras, vejo apenas a velha serpente. Um parasita que se alimenta do trabalho alheio e manipula consciências para se perpetuar.

Resistir não é apenas um direito, é um dever. Obedecer a Deus antes que aos homens — essa é a minha regra. O poder se volta contra a verdade, mas minha lealdade pertence a quem criou o céu e a terra. A tirania não se combate com outro tirano, mas com a desobediência firme e pacífica dos que amam a justiça.

Não acredito em utopias. Desejo uma ordem natural, orgânica, enraizada no voluntarismo. Uma sociedade que se construa de baixo para cima: a partir da família, da comunidade local, da tradição e da fé. Não quero uma máquina que planeje a vida alheia, mas um tecido de relações voluntárias onde a liberdade floresça à sombra da cruz.

Desejo, sim, o reinado social de Cristo. Não por imposição, mas por convicção. Que Ele reine nos corações, nas famílias, nas ruas e nos contratos. Que a fé guie a razão e a razão ilumine a vida. Que a liberdade seja meio para a santidade — não um fim em si. E que, livres do jugo do Leviatã, sejamos servos apenas do Senhor.

@ 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. 👀️️️️️️

@ 30ceb64e:7f08bdf5

Status: Draft
Author: TheWildHustle

Abstract

This NIP defines a framework for storing and sharing health and fitness profile data on Nostr. It establishes a set of standardized event kinds for individual health metrics, allowing applications to selectively access specific health information while preserving user control and privacy.

In this framework exists - NIP-101h.1 Weight using kind 1351 - NIP-101h.2 Height using kind 1352 - NIP-101h.3 Age using kind 1353 - NIP-101h.4 Gender using kind 1354 - NIP-101h.5 Fitness Level using kind 1355

Motivation

I want to build and support an ecosystem of health and fitness related nostr clients that have the ability to share and utilize a bunch of specific interoperable health metrics.

• Selective access - Applications can access only the data they need
• User control - Users can choose which metrics to share
• Interoperability - Different health applications can share data
• Privacy - Sensitive health information can be managed independently

Specification

Kind Number Range

Health profile metrics use the kind number range 1351-1399:

| Kind | Metric | | --------- | ---------------------------------- | | 1351 | Weight | | 1352 | Height | | 1353 | Age | | 1354 | Gender | | 1355 | Fitness Level | | 1356-1399 | Reserved for future health metrics |

Common Structure

All health metric events SHOULD follow these guidelines:

• The content field contains the primary value of the metric
• Required tags:
• ['t', 'health'] - For categorizing as health data
• ['t', metric-specific-tag] - For identifying the specific metric
• ['unit', unit-of-measurement] - When applicable
• Optional tags:
• ['converted_value', value, unit] - For providing alternative unit measurements
• ['timestamp', ISO8601-date] - When the metric was measured
• ['source', application-name] - The source of the measurement

Unit Handling

Health metrics often have multiple ways to be measured. To ensure interoperability:

• Where multiple units are possible, one standard unit SHOULD be chosen as canonical
• When using non-standard units, a converted_value tag SHOULD be included with the canonical unit
• Both the original and converted values should be provided for maximum compatibility

Client Implementation Guidelines

Clients implementing this NIP SHOULD:

• Allow users to explicitly choose which metrics to publish
• Support reading health metrics from other users when appropriate permissions exist
• Support updating metrics with new values over time
• Preserve tags they don't understand for future compatibility
• Support at least the canonical unit for each metric

Extensions

New health metrics can be proposed as extensions to this NIP using the format:

• NIP-101h.X where X is the metric number

Each extension MUST specify: - A unique kind number in the range 1351-1399 - The content format and meaning - Required and optional tags - Examples of valid events

Privacy Considerations

Health data is sensitive personal information. Clients implementing this NIP SHOULD:

• Make it clear to users when health data is being published
• Consider incorporating NIP-44 encryption for sensitive metrics
• Allow users to selectively share metrics with specific individuals
• Provide easy ways to delete previously published health data

---

NIP-101h.1: Weight

Description

This NIP defines the format for storing and sharing weight data on Nostr.

Event Kind: 1351

Content

The content field MUST contain the numeric weight value as a string.

Required Tags

• ['unit', 'kg' or 'lb'] - Unit of measurement
• ['t', 'health'] - Categorization tag
• ['t', 'weight'] - Specific metric tag

Optional Tags

• ['converted_value', value, unit] - Provides the weight in alternative units for interoperability
• ['timestamp', ISO8601 date] - When the weight was measured

Examples

json { "kind": 1351, "content": "70", "tags": [ ["unit", "kg"], ["t", "health"], ["t", "weight"] ] }

json { "kind": 1351, "content": "154", "tags": [ ["unit", "lb"], ["t", "health"], ["t", "weight"], ["converted_value", "69.85", "kg"] ] }

NIP-101h.2: Height

Status: Draft

Description

This NIP defines the format for storing and sharing height data on Nostr.

Event Kind: 1352

Content

The content field can use two formats: - For metric height: A string containing the numeric height value in centimeters (cm) - For imperial height: A JSON string with feet and inches properties

Required Tags

• ['t', 'health'] - Categorization tag
• ['t', 'height'] - Specific metric tag
• ['unit', 'cm' or 'imperial'] - Unit of measurement

Optional Tags

• ['converted_value', value, 'cm'] - Provides height in centimeters for interoperability when imperial is used
• ['timestamp', ISO8601-date] - When the height was measured

Examples

```jsx // Example 1: Metric height Apply to App.jsx

// Example 2: Imperial height with conversion Apply to App.jsx ```

Implementation Notes

• Centimeters (cm) is the canonical unit for height interoperability
• When using imperial units, a conversion to centimeters SHOULD be provided
• Height values SHOULD be positive integers
• For maximum compatibility, clients SHOULD support both formats

---

NIP-101h.3: Age

Status: Draft

Description

This NIP defines the format for storing and sharing age data on Nostr.

Event Kind: 1353

Content

The content field MUST contain the numeric age value as a string.

Required Tags

• ['unit', 'years'] - Unit of measurement
• ['t', 'health'] - Categorization tag
• ['t', 'age'] - Specific metric tag

Optional Tags

• ['timestamp', ISO8601-date] - When the age was recorded
• ['dob', ISO8601-date] - Date of birth (if the user chooses to share it)

Examples

```jsx // Example 1: Basic age Apply to App.jsx

// Example 2: Age with DOB Apply to App.jsx ```

Implementation Notes

• Age SHOULD be represented as a positive integer
• For privacy reasons, date of birth (dob) is optional
• Clients SHOULD consider updating age automatically if date of birth is known
• Age can be a sensitive metric and clients may want to consider encrypting this data

---

NIP-101h.4: Gender

Status: Draft

Description

This NIP defines the format for storing and sharing gender data on Nostr.

Event Kind: 1354

Content

The content field contains a string representing the user's gender.

Required Tags

• ['t', 'health'] - Categorization tag
• ['t', 'gender'] - Specific metric tag

Optional Tags

• ['timestamp', ISO8601-date] - When the gender was recorded
• ['preferred_pronouns', string] - User's preferred pronouns

Common Values

While any string value is permitted, the following common values are recommended for interoperability: - male - female - non-binary - other - prefer-not-to-say

Examples

```jsx // Example 1: Basic gender Apply to App.jsx

// Example 2: Gender with pronouns Apply to App.jsx ```

Implementation Notes

• Clients SHOULD allow free-form input for gender
• For maximum compatibility, clients SHOULD support the common values
• Gender is a sensitive personal attribute and clients SHOULD consider appropriate privacy controls
• Applications focusing on health metrics should be respectful of gender diversity

---

NIP-101h.5: Fitness Level

Status: Draft

Description

This NIP defines the format for storing and sharing fitness level data on Nostr.

Event Kind: 1355

Content

The content field contains a string representing the user's fitness level.

Required Tags

• ['t', 'health'] - Categorization tag
• ['t', 'fitness'] - Fitness category tag
• ['t', 'level'] - Specific metric tag

Optional Tags

• ['timestamp', ISO8601-date] - When the fitness level was recorded
• ['activity', activity-type] - Specific activity the fitness level relates to
• ['metrics', JSON-string] - Quantifiable fitness metrics used to determine level

Common Values

While any string value is permitted, the following common values are recommended for interoperability: - beginner - intermediate - advanced - elite - professional

Examples

```jsx // Example 1: Basic fitness level Apply to App.jsx

// Example 2: Activity-specific fitness level with metrics Apply to App.jsx ```

Implementation Notes

• Fitness level is subjective and may vary by activity
• The activity tag can be used to specify fitness level for different activities
• The metrics tag can provide objective measurements to support the fitness level
• Clients can extend this format to include activity-specific fitness assessments
• For general fitness apps, the simple beginner/intermediate/advanced scale is recommended

@ 91bea5cd:1df4451c

O Contexto Legal Brasileiro e o Consentimento

No ordenamento jurídico brasileiro, o consentimento do ofendido pode, em certas circunstâncias, afastar a ilicitude de um ato que, sem ele, configuraria crime (como lesão corporal leve, prevista no Art. 129 do Código Penal). Contudo, o consentimento tem limites claros: não é válido para bens jurídicos indisponíveis, como a vida, e sua eficácia é questionável em casos de lesões corporais graves ou gravíssimas.

A prática de BDSM consensual situa-se em uma zona complexa. Em tese, se ambos os parceiros são adultos, capazes, e consentiram livre e informadamente nos atos praticados, sem que resultem em lesões graves permanentes ou risco de morte não consentido, não haveria crime. O desafio reside na comprovação desse consentimento, especialmente se uma das partes, posteriormente, o negar ou alegar coação.

A Lei Maria da Penha (Lei nº 11.340/2006)

A Lei Maria da Penha é um marco fundamental na proteção da mulher contra a violência doméstica e familiar. Ela estabelece mecanismos para coibir e prevenir tal violência, definindo suas formas (física, psicológica, sexual, patrimonial e moral) e prevendo medidas protetivas de urgência.

Embora essencial, a aplicação da lei em contextos de BDSM pode ser delicada. Uma alegação de violência por parte da mulher, mesmo que as lesões ou situações decorram de práticas consensuais, tende a receber atenção prioritária das autoridades, dada a presunção de vulnerabilidade estabelecida pela lei. Isso pode criar um cenário onde o parceiro masculino enfrenta dificuldades significativas em demonstrar a natureza consensual dos atos, especialmente se não houver provas robustas pré-constituídas.

Outros riscos:

Lesão corporal grave ou gravíssima (art. 129, §§ 1º e 2º, CP), não pode ser justificada pelo consentimento, podendo ensejar persecução penal.

Crimes contra a dignidade sexual (arts. 213 e seguintes do CP) são de ação pública incondicionada e independem de representação da vítima para a investigação e denúncia.

Riscos de Falsas Acusações e Alegação de Coação Futura

Os riscos para os praticantes de BDSM, especialmente para o parceiro que assume o papel dominante ou que inflige dor/restrição (frequentemente, mas não exclusivamente, o homem), podem surgir de diversas frentes:

1. Acusações Externas: Vizinhos, familiares ou amigos que desconhecem a natureza consensual do relacionamento podem interpretar sons, marcas ou comportamentos como sinais de abuso e denunciar às autoridades.
2. Alegações Futuras da Parceira: Em caso de término conturbado, vingança, arrependimento ou mudança de perspectiva, a parceira pode reinterpretar as práticas passadas como abuso e buscar reparação ou retaliação através de uma denúncia. A alegação pode ser de que o consentimento nunca existiu ou foi viciado.
3. Alegação de Coação: Uma das formas mais complexas de refutar é a alegação de que o consentimento foi obtido mediante coação (física, moral, psicológica ou econômica). A parceira pode alegar, por exemplo, que se sentia pressionada, intimidada ou dependente, e que seu "sim" não era genuíno. Provar a ausência de coação a posteriori é extremamente difícil.
4. Ingenuidade e Vulnerabilidade Masculina: Muitos homens, confiando na dinâmica consensual e na parceira, podem negligenciar a necessidade de precauções. A crença de que "isso nunca aconteceria comigo" ou a falta de conhecimento sobre as implicações legais e o peso processual de uma acusação no âmbito da Lei Maria da Penha podem deixá-los vulneráveis. A presença de marcas físicas, mesmo que consentidas, pode ser usada como evidência de agressão, invertendo o ônus da prova na prática, ainda que não na teoria jurídica.

Estratégias de Prevenção e Mitigação

Não existe um método infalível para evitar completamente o risco de uma falsa acusação, mas diversas medidas podem ser adotadas para construir um histórico de consentimento e reduzir vulnerabilidades:

1. Comunicação Explícita e Contínua: A base de qualquer prática BDSM segura é a comunicação constante. Negociar limites, desejos, palavras de segurança ("safewords") e expectativas antes, durante e depois das cenas é crucial. Manter registros dessas negociações (e-mails, mensagens, diários compartilhados) pode ser útil.

2. Documentação do Consentimento:

   • Contratos de Relacionamento/Cena: Embora a validade jurídica de "contratos BDSM" seja discutível no Brasil (não podem afastar normas de ordem pública), eles servem como forte evidência da intenção das partes, da negociação detalhada de limites e do consentimento informado. Devem ser claros, datados, assinados e, idealmente, reconhecidos em cartório (para prova de data e autenticidade das assinaturas).

   • Registros Audiovisuais: Gravar (com consentimento explícito para a gravação) discussões sobre consentimento e limites antes das cenas pode ser uma prova poderosa. Gravar as próprias cenas é mais complexo devido a questões de privacidade e potencial uso indevido, mas pode ser considerado em casos específicos, sempre com consentimento mútuo documentado para a gravação.

     Importante: a gravação deve ser com ciência da outra parte, para não configurar violação da intimidade (art. 5º, X, da Constituição Federal e art. 20 do Código Civil).

3. Testemunhas: Em alguns contextos de comunidade BDSM, a presença de terceiros de confiança durante negociações ou mesmo cenas pode servir como testemunho, embora isso possa alterar a dinâmica íntima do casal.

4. Estabelecimento Claro de Limites e Palavras de Segurança: Definir e respeitar rigorosamente os limites (o que é permitido, o que é proibido) e as palavras de segurança é fundamental. O desrespeito a uma palavra de segurança encerra o consentimento para aquele ato.
5. Avaliação Contínua do Consentimento: O consentimento não é um cheque em branco; ele deve ser entusiástico, contínuo e revogável a qualquer momento. Verificar o bem-estar do parceiro durante a cena ("check-ins") é essencial.
6. Discrição e Cuidado com Evidências Físicas: Ser discreto sobre a natureza do relacionamento pode evitar mal-entendidos externos. Após cenas que deixem marcas, é prudente que ambos os parceiros estejam cientes e de acordo, talvez documentando por fotos (com data) e uma nota sobre a consensualidade da prática que as gerou.
7. Aconselhamento Jurídico Preventivo: Consultar um advogado especializado em direito de família e criminal, com sensibilidade para dinâmicas de relacionamento alternativas, pode fornecer orientação personalizada sobre as melhores formas de documentar o consentimento e entender os riscos legais específicos.

Observações Importantes

• Nenhuma documentação substitui a necessidade de consentimento real, livre, informado e contínuo.
• A lei brasileira protege a "integridade física" e a "dignidade humana". Práticas que resultem em lesões graves ou que violem a dignidade de forma não consentida (ou com consentimento viciado) serão ilegais, independentemente de qualquer acordo prévio.
• Em caso de acusação, a existência de documentação robusta de consentimento não garante a absolvição, mas fortalece significativamente a defesa, ajudando a demonstrar a natureza consensual da relação e das práticas.

• A alegação de coação futura é particularmente difícil de prevenir apenas com documentos. Um histórico consistente de comunicação aberta (whatsapp/telegram/e-mails), respeito mútuo e ausência de dependência ou controle excessivo na relação pode ajudar a contextualizar a dinâmica como não coercitiva.

• Cuidado com Marcas Visíveis e Lesões Graves Práticas que resultam em hematomas severos ou lesões podem ser interpretadas como agressão, mesmo que consentidas. Evitar excessos protege não apenas a integridade física, mas também evita questionamentos legais futuros.

O que vem a ser consentimento viciado

No Direito, consentimento viciado é quando a pessoa concorda com algo, mas a vontade dela não é livre ou plena — ou seja, o consentimento existe formalmente, mas é defeituoso por alguma razão.

O Código Civil brasileiro (art. 138 a 165) define várias formas de vício de consentimento. As principais são:

Erro: A pessoa se engana sobre o que está consentindo. (Ex.: A pessoa acredita que vai participar de um jogo leve, mas na verdade é exposta a práticas pesadas.)

Dolo: A pessoa é enganada propositalmente para aceitar algo. (Ex.: Alguém mente sobre o que vai acontecer durante a prática.)

Coação: A pessoa é forçada ou ameaçada a consentir. (Ex.: "Se você não aceitar, eu termino com você" — pressão emocional forte pode ser vista como coação.)

Estado de perigo ou lesão: A pessoa aceita algo em situação de necessidade extrema ou abuso de sua vulnerabilidade. (Ex.: Alguém em situação emocional muito fragilizada é induzida a aceitar práticas que normalmente recusaria.)

No contexto de BDSM, isso é ainda mais delicado: Mesmo que a pessoa tenha "assinado" um contrato ou dito "sim", se depois ela alegar que seu consentimento foi dado sob medo, engano ou pressão psicológica, o consentimento pode ser considerado viciado — e, portanto, juridicamente inválido.

Isso tem duas implicações sérias:

1. O crime não se descaracteriza: Se houver vício, o consentimento é ignorado e a prática pode ser tratada como crime normal (lesão corporal, estupro, tortura, etc.).

2. A prova do consentimento precisa ser sólida: Mostrando que a pessoa estava informada, lúcida, livre e sem qualquer tipo de coação.

   Consentimento viciado é quando a pessoa concorda formalmente, mas de maneira enganada, forçada ou pressionada, tornando o consentimento inútil para efeitos jurídicos.

Conclusão

Casais que praticam BDSM consensual no Brasil navegam em um terreno que exige não apenas confiança mútua e comunicação excepcional, mas também uma consciência aguçada das complexidades legais e dos riscos de interpretações equivocadas ou acusações mal-intencionadas. Embora o BDSM seja uma expressão legítima da sexualidade humana, sua prática no Brasil exige responsabilidade redobrada. Ter provas claras de consentimento, manter a comunicação aberta e agir com prudência são formas eficazes de se proteger de falsas alegações e preservar a liberdade e a segurança de todos os envolvidos. Embora leis controversas como a Maria da Penha sejam "vitais" para a proteção contra a violência real, os praticantes de BDSM, e em particular os homens nesse contexto, devem adotar uma postura proativa e prudente para mitigar os riscos inerentes à potencial má interpretação ou instrumentalização dessas práticas e leis, garantindo que a expressão de sua consensualidade esteja resguardada na medida do possível.

---

Importante: No Brasil, mesmo com tudo isso, o Ministério Público pode denunciar por crime como lesão corporal grave, estupro ou tortura, independente de consentimento. Então a prudência nas práticas é fundamental.

Aviso Legal: Este artigo tem caráter meramente informativo e não constitui aconselhamento jurídico. As leis e interpretações podem mudar, e cada situação é única. Recomenda-se buscar orientação de um advogado qualificado para discutir casos específicos.

Se curtiu este artigo faça uma contribuição, se tiver algum ponto relevante para o artigo deixe seu comentário.

@ 8125b911:a8400883

In Nostr, all data is stored as events. Decentralization is achieved by storing events on multiple relays, with signatures proving the ownership of these events. However, if you truly want to own your events, you should run your own relay to store them. Otherwise, if the relays you use fail or intentionally delete your events, you'll lose them forever.

For most people, running a relay is complex and costly. To solve this issue, I developed nostr-relay-tray, a relay that can be easily run on a personal computer and accessed over the internet.

Project URL: https://github.com/CodyTseng/nostr-relay-tray

This article will guide you through using nostr-relay-tray to run your own relay.

Download

Download the installation package for your operating system from the GitHub Release Page.

| Operating System | File Format | | --------------------- | ---------------------------------- | | Windows | nostr-relay-tray.Setup.x.x.x.exe | | macOS (Apple Silicon) | nostr-relay-tray-x.x.x-arm64.dmg | | macOS (Intel) | nostr-relay-tray-x.x.x.dmg | | Linux | You should know which one to use |

Installation

Since this app isn’t signed, you may encounter some obstacles during installation. Once installed, an ostrich icon will appear in the status bar. Click on the ostrich icon, and you'll see a menu where you can click the "Dashboard" option to open the relay's control panel for further configuration.

macOS Users:

• On first launch, go to "System Preferences > Security & Privacy" and click "Open Anyway."
• If you encounter a "damaged" message, run the following command in the terminal to remove the restrictions:

bash sudo xattr -rd com.apple.quarantine /Applications/nostr-relay-tray.app

Windows Users:

• On the security warning screen, click "More Info > Run Anyway."

Connecting

By default, nostr-relay-tray is only accessible locally through ws://localhost:4869/, which makes it quite limited. Therefore, we need to expose it to the internet.

In the control panel, click the "Proxy" tab and toggle the switch. You will then receive a "Public address" that you can use to access your relay from anywhere. It's that simple.

Next, add this address to your relay list and position it as high as possible in the list. Most clients prioritize connecting to relays that appear at the top of the list, and relays lower in the list are often ignored.

Restrictions

Next, we need to set up some restrictions to prevent the relay from storing events that are irrelevant to you and wasting storage space. nostr-relay-tray allows for flexible and fine-grained configuration of which events to accept, but some of this is more complex and will not be covered here. If you're interested, you can explore this further later.

For now, I'll introduce a simple and effective strategy: WoT (Web of Trust). You can enable this feature in the "WoT & PoW" tab. Before enabling, you'll need to input your pubkey.

There's another important parameter, Depth, which represents the relationship depth between you and others. Someone you follow has a depth of 1, someone they follow has a depth of 2, and so on.

• Setting this parameter to 0 means your relay will only accept your own events.
• Setting it to 1 means your relay will accept events from you and the people you follow.
• Setting it to 2 means your relay will accept events from you, the people you follow, and the people they follow.

Currently, the maximum value for this parameter is 2.

Conclusion

You've now successfully run your own relay and set a simple restriction to prevent it from storing irrelevant events.

If you encounter any issues during use, feel free to submit an issue on GitHub, and I'll respond as soon as possible.

Not your relay, not your events.

@ e691f4df:1099ad65

Viewing Bitcoin Through the Light of Awakening

Ankh & Ohm Capital’s Overview of the Psycho-Spiritual Nature of Bitcoin

---

Glossary:

I. Preface: The Logos of Our Logo

II. An Oracular Introduction

III. Alchemizing Greed

IV. Layers of Fractalized Thought

V. Permissionless Individuation

VI. Dispelling Paradox Through Resonance

VII. Ego Deflation

VIII. The Coin of Great Price

Preface: The Logos of Our Logo

Before we offer our lens on Bitcoin, it’s important to illuminate the meaning behind Ankh & Ohm’s name and symbol. These elements are not ornamental—they are foundational, expressing the cosmological principles that guide our work.

Our mission is to bridge the eternal with the practical. As a Bitcoin-focused family office and consulting firm, we understand capital not as an end, but as a tool—one that, when properly aligned, becomes a vehicle for divine order. We see Bitcoin not simply as a technological innovation but as an emanation of the Divine Logos—a harmonic expression of truth, transparency, and incorruptible structure. Both the beginning and the end, the Alpha and Omega.

The Ankh (☥), an ancient symbol of eternal life, is a key to the integration of opposites. It unites spirit and matter, force and form, continuity and change. It reminds us that capital, like Life, must not only be generative, but regenerative; sacred. Money must serve Life, not siphon from it.

The Ohm (Ω) holds a dual meaning. In physics, it denotes a unit of electrical resistance—the formative tension that gives energy coherence. In the Vedic tradition, Om (ॐ) is the primordial vibration—the sound from which all existence unfolds. Together, these symbols affirm a timeless truth: resistance and resonance are both sacred instruments of the Creator.

Ankh & Ohm, then, represents our striving for union, for harmony —between the flow of life and intentional structure, between incalculable abundance and measured restraint, between the lightbulb’s electrical impulse and its light-emitting filament. We stand at the threshold where intention becomes action, and where capital is not extracted, but cultivated in rhythm with the cosmos. 

We exist to shepherd this transformation, as guides of this threshold —helping families, founders, and institutions align with a deeper order, where capital serves not as the prize, but as a pathway to collective Presence, Purpose, Peace and Prosperity.

---

An Oracular Introduction

Bitcoin is commonly understood as the first truly decentralized and secure form of digital money—a breakthrough in monetary sovereignty. But this view, while technically correct, is incomplete and spiritually shallow. Bitcoin is more than a tool for economic disruption. Bitcoin represents a mythic threshold: a symbol of the psycho-spiritual shift that many ancient traditions have long foretold.

For millennia, sages and seers have spoken of a coming Golden Age. In the Vedic Yuga cycles, in Plato’s Great Year, in the Eagle and Condor prophecies of the Americas—there exists a common thread: that humanity will emerge from darkness into a time of harmony, cooperation, and clarity. That the veil of illusion (maya, materiality) will thin, and reality will once again become transparent to the transcendent. In such an age, systems based on scarcity, deception, and centralization fall away. A new cosmology takes root—one grounded in balance, coherence, and sacred reciprocity.

But we must ask—how does such a shift happen? How do we cross from the age of scarcity, fear, and domination into one of coherence, abundance, and freedom?

One possible answer lies in the alchemy of incentive.

Bitcoin operates not just on the rules of computer science or Austrian economics, but on something far more old and subtle: the logic of transformation. It transmutes greed—a base instinct rooted in scarcity—into cooperation, transparency, and incorruptibility.

In this light, Bitcoin becomes more than code—it becomes a psychoactive protocol, one that rewires human behavior by aligning individual gain with collective integrity. It is not simply a new form of money. It is a new myth of value. A new operating system for human consciousness.

Bitcoin does not moralize. It harmonizes. It transforms the instinct for self-preservation into a pathway for planetary coherence.

---

Alchemizing Greed

At the heart of Bitcoin lies the ancient alchemical principle of transmutation: that which is base may be refined into gold.

Greed, long condemned as a vice, is not inherently evil. It is a distorted longing. A warped echo of the drive to preserve life. But in systems built on scarcity and deception, this longing calcifies into hoarding, corruption, and decay.

Bitcoin introduces a new game. A game with memory. A game that makes deception inefficient and truth profitable. It does not demand virtue—it encodes consequence. Its design does not suppress greed; it reprograms it.

In traditional models, game theory often illustrates the fragility of trust. The Prisoner’s Dilemma reveals how self-interest can sabotage collective well-being. But Bitcoin inverts this. It creates an environment where self-interest and integrity converge—where the most rational action is also the most truthful.

Its ledger, immutable and transparent, exposes manipulation for what it is: energetically wasteful and economically self-defeating. Dishonesty burns energy and yields nothing. The network punishes incoherence, not by decree, but by natural law.

This is the spiritual elegance of Bitcoin: it does not suppress greed—it transmutes it. It channels the drive for personal gain into the architecture of collective order. Miners compete not to dominate, but to validate. Nodes collaborate not through trust, but through mathematical proof.

This is not austerity. It is alchemy.

Greed, under Bitcoin, is refined. Tempered. Re-forged into a generative force—no longer parasitic, but harmonic.

---

Layers of Fractalized Thought Fragments

All living systems are layered. So is the cosmos. So is the human being. So is a musical scale.

At its foundation lies the timechain—the pulsing, incorruptible record of truth. Like the heart, it beats steadily. Every block, like a pulse, affirms its life through continuity. The difficulty adjustment—Bitcoin’s internal calibration—functions like heart rate variability, adapting to pressure while preserving coherence.

Above this base layer is the Lightning Network—a second layer facilitating rapid, efficient transactions. It is the nervous system: transmitting energy, reducing latency, enabling real-time interaction across a distributed whole.

Beyond that, emerging tools like Fedimint and Cashu function like the capillaries—bringing vitality to the extremities, to those underserved by legacy systems. They empower the unbanked, the overlooked, the forgotten. Privacy and dignity in the palms of those the old system refused to see.

And then there is NOSTR—the decentralized protocol for communication and creation. It is the throat chakra, the vocal cords of the “freedom-tech” body. It reclaims speech from the algorithmic overlords, making expression sovereign once more. It is also the reproductive system, as it enables the propagation of novel ideas and protocols in fertile, uncensorable soil.

Each layer plays its part. Not in hierarchy, but in harmony. In holarchy. Bitcoin and other open source protocols grow not through exogenous command, but through endogenous coherence. Like cells in an organism. Like a song.

Imagine the cell as a piece of glass from a shattered holographic plate —by which its perspectival, moving image can be restructured from the single shard. DNA isn’t only a logical script of base pairs, but an evolving progressive song. Its lyrics imbued with wise reflections on relationships.  The nucleus sings, the cell responds—not by command, but by memory. Life is not imposed; it is expressed. A reflection of a hidden pattern.

Bitcoin chants this. Each node, a living cell, holds the full timechain—Truth distributed, incorruptible. Remove one, and the whole remains. This isn’t redundancy. It’s a revelation on the power of protection in Truth.

Consensus is communion. Verification becomes a sacred rite—Truth made audible through math. 

Not just the signal; the song. A web of self-expression woven from Truth.

No center, yet every point alive with the whole. Like Indra’s Net, each reflects all. This is more than currency and information exchange. It is memory; a self-remembering Mind, unfolding through consensus and code. A Mind reflecting the Truth of reality at the speed of thought.

Heuristics are mental shortcuts—efficient, imperfect, alive. Like cells, they must adapt or decay. To become unbiased is to have self-balancing heuristics which carry feedback loops within them: they listen to the environment, mutate when needed, and survive by resonance with reality. Mutation is not error, but evolution. Its rules are simple, but their expression is dynamic. 

What persists is not rigidity, but pattern. 

To think clearly is not necessarily to be certain, but to dissolve doubt by listening, adjusting, and evolving thought itself.

To understand Bitcoin is simply to listen—patiently, clearly, as one would to a familiar rhythm returning.

---

Permissionless Individuation

Bitcoin is a path. One that no one can walk for you.

Said differently, it is not a passive act. It cannot be spoon-fed. Like a spiritual path, it demands initiation, effort, and the willingness to question inherited beliefs.

Because Bitcoin is permissionless, no one can be forced to adopt it. One must choose to engage it—compelled by need, interest, or intuition. Each person who embarks undergoes their own version of the hero’s journey.

Carl Jung called this process Individuation—the reconciliation of fragmented psychic elements into a coherent, mature Self. Bitcoin mirrors this: it invites individuals to confront the unconscious assumptions of the fiat paradigm, and to re-integrate their relationship to time, value, and agency.

In Western traditions—alchemy, Christianity, Kabbalah—the individual is sacred, and salvation is personal. In Eastern systems—Daoism, Buddhism, the Vedas—the self is ultimately dissolved into the cosmic whole. Bitcoin, in a paradoxical way, echoes both: it empowers the individual, while aligning them with a holistic, transcendent order.

To truly see Bitcoin is to allow something false to die. A belief. A habit. A self-concept.

In that death—a space opens for deeper connection with the Divine itSelf. 

In that dissolution, something luminous is reborn. 

After the passing, Truth becomes resurrected.  

---

Dispelling Paradox Through Resonance

There is a subtle paradox encoded into the hero’s journey: each starts in solidarity, yet the awakening affects the collective.

No one can be forced into understanding Bitcoin. Like a spiritual truth, it must be seen. And yet, once seen, it becomes nearly impossible to unsee—and easier for others to glimpse. The pattern catches.

This phenomenon mirrors the concept of morphic resonance, as proposed and empirically tested by biologist Rupert Sheldrake. Once a critical mass of individuals begins to embody a new behavior or awareness, it becomes easier—instinctive—for others to follow suit. Like the proverbial hundredth monkey who begins to wash the fruit in the sea water, and suddenly, monkeys across islands begin doing the same—without ever meeting.

When enough individuals embody a pattern, it ripples outward. Not through propaganda, but through field effect and wave propagation. It becomes accessible, instinctive, familiar—even across great distance.

Bitcoin spreads in this way. Not through centralized broadcast, but through subtle resonance. Each new node, each individual who integrates the protocol into their life, strengthens the signal for others. The protocol doesn’t shout; it hums, oscillates and vibrates——persistently, coherently, patiently.

One awakens. Another follows. The current builds. What was fringe becomes familiar. What was radical becomes obvious.

This is the sacred geometry of spiritual awakening. One awakens, another follows, and soon the fluidic current is strong enough to carry the rest. One becomes two, two become many, and eventually the many become One again. This tessellation reverberates through the human aura, not as ideology, but as perceivable pattern recognition.

Bitcoin’s most powerful marketing tool is truth. Its most compelling evangelist is reality. Its most unstoppable force is resonance.

Therefore, Bitcoin is not just financial infrastructure—it is psychic scaffolding. It is part of the subtle architecture through which new patterns of coherence ripple across the collective field. 

The training wheels from which humanity learns to embody Peace and Prosperity.

---

Ego Deflation

The process of awakening is not linear, and its beginning is rarely gentle—it usually begins with disruption, with ego inflation and destruction.

To individuate is to shape a center; to recognize peripherals and create boundaries—to say, “I am.” But without integration, the ego tilts—collapsing into void or inflating into noise. Fiat reflects this pathology: scarcity hoarded, abundance simulated. Stagnation becomes disguised as safety, and inflation masquerades as growth.

In other words, to become whole, the ego must first rise—claiming agency, autonomy, and identity. However, when left unbalanced, it inflates, or implodes. It forgets its context. It begins to consume rather than connect. And so the process must reverse: what inflates must deflate.

In the fiat paradigm, this inflation is literal. More is printed, and ethos is diluted. Savings decay. Meaning erodes. Value is abstracted. The economy becomes bloated with inaudible noise. And like the psyche that refuses to confront its own shadow, it begins to collapse under the weight of its own illusions.

But under Bitcoin, time is honored. Value is preserved. Energy is not abstracted but grounded.

Bitcoin is inherently deflationary—in both economic and spiritual senses. With a fixed supply, it reveals what is truly scarce. Not money, not status—but the finite number of heartbeats we each carry.

To see Bitcoin is to feel that limit in one’s soul. To hold Bitcoin is to feel Time’s weight again. To sense the importance of Bitcoin is to feel the value of preserved, potential energy. It is to confront the reality that what matters cannot be printed, inflated, or faked. In this way, Bitcoin gently confronts the ego—not through punishment, but through clarity.

Deflation, rightly understood, is not collapse—it is refinement. It strips away illusion, bloat, and excess. It restores the clarity of essence.

Spiritually, this is liberation.

---

The Coin of Great Price

There is an ancient parable told by a wise man:

“The kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking fine pearls, who, upon finding one of great price, sold all he had and bought it.”

Bitcoin is such a pearl.

But the ledger is more than a chest full of treasure. It is a key to the heart of things.

It is not just software—it is sacrament.

A symbol of what cannot be corrupted. A mirror of divine order etched into code. A map back to the sacred center.

It reflects what endures. It encodes what cannot be falsified. It remembers what we forgot: that Truth, when aligned with form, becomes Light once again.

Its design is not arbitrary. It speaks the language of life itself— 

The elliptic orbits of the planets mirrored in its cryptography,

The logarithmic spiral of the nautilus shell discloses its adoption rate,

The interconnectivity of mycelium in soil reflect the network of nodes in cyberspace, 

A webbed breadth of neurons across synaptic space fires with each new confirmed transaction.

It is geometry in devotion. Stillness in motion.

It is the Logos clothed in protocol.

What this key unlocks is beyond external riches. It is the eternal gold within us.

Clarity. Sovereignty. The unshakeable knowing that what is real cannot be taken. That what is sacred was never for sale.

Bitcoin is not the destination.

It is the Path.

And we—when we are willing to see it—are the Temple it leads back to.

@ 40b9c85f:5e61b451

Introduction

Data Vending Machines (DVMs) have emerged as a crucial component of the Nostr ecosystem, offering specialized computational services to clients across the network. As defined in NIP-90, DVMs operate on an apparently simple principle: "data in, data out." They provide a marketplace for data processing where users request specific jobs (like text translation, content recommendation, or AI text generation)

While DVMs have gained significant traction, the current specification faces challenges that hinder widespread adoption and consistent implementation. This article explores some ideas on how we can apply the reflection pattern, a well established approach in RPC systems, to address these challenges and improve the DVM ecosystem's clarity, consistency, and usability.

The Current State of DVMs: Challenges and Limitations

The NIP-90 specification provides a broad framework for DVMs, but this flexibility has led to several issues:

1. Inconsistent Implementation

As noted by hzrd149 in "DVMs were a mistake" every DVM implementation tends to expect inputs in slightly different formats, even while ostensibly following the same specification. For example, a translation request DVM might expect an event ID in one particular format, while an LLM service could expect a "prompt" input that's not even specified in NIP-90.

2. Fragmented Specifications

The DVM specification reserves a range of event kinds (5000-6000), each meant for different types of computational jobs. While creating sub-specifications for each job type is being explored as a possible solution for clarity, in a decentralized and permissionless landscape like Nostr, relying solely on specification enforcement won't be effective for creating a healthy ecosystem. A more comprehensible approach is needed that works with, rather than against, the open nature of the protocol.

3. Ambiguous API Interfaces

There's no standardized way for clients to discover what parameters a specific DVM accepts, which are required versus optional, or what output format to expect. This creates uncertainty and forces developers to rely on documentation outside the protocol itself, if such documentation exists at all.

The Reflection Pattern: A Solution from RPC Systems

The reflection pattern in RPC systems offers a compelling solution to many of these challenges. At its core, reflection enables servers to provide metadata about their available services, methods, and data types at runtime, allowing clients to dynamically discover and interact with the server's API.

In established RPC frameworks like gRPC, reflection serves as a self-describing mechanism where services expose their interface definitions and requirements. In MCP reflection is used to expose the capabilities of the server, such as tools, resources, and prompts. Clients can learn about available capabilities without prior knowledge, and systems can adapt to changes without requiring rebuilds or redeployments. This standardized introspection creates a unified way to query service metadata, making tools like grpcurl possible without requiring precompiled stubs.

How Reflection Could Transform the DVM Specification

By incorporating reflection principles into the DVM specification, we could create a more coherent and predictable ecosystem. DVMs already implement some sort of reflection through the use of 'nip90params', which allow clients to discover some parameters, constraints, and features of the DVMs, such as whether they accept encryption, nutzaps, etc. However, this approach could be expanded to provide more comprehensive self-description capabilities.

1. Defined Lifecycle Phases

Similar to the Model Context Protocol (MCP), DVMs could benefit from a clear lifecycle consisting of an initialization phase and an operation phase. During initialization, the client and DVM would negotiate capabilities and exchange metadata, with the DVM providing a JSON schema containing its input requirements. nip-89 (or other) announcements can be used to bootstrap the discovery and negotiation process by providing the input schema directly. Then, during the operation phase, the client would interact with the DVM according to the negotiated schema and parameters.

2. Schema-Based Interactions

Rather than relying on rigid specifications for each job type, DVMs could self-advertise their schemas. This would allow clients to understand which parameters are required versus optional, what type validation should occur for inputs, what output formats to expect, and what payment flows are supported. By internalizing the input schema of the DVMs they wish to consume, clients gain clarity on how to interact effectively.

3. Capability Negotiation

Capability negotiation would enable DVMs to advertise their supported features, such as encryption methods, payment options, or specialized functionalities. This would allow clients to adjust their interaction approach based on the specific capabilities of each DVM they encounter.

Implementation Approach

While building DVMCP, I realized that the RPC reflection pattern used there could be beneficial for constructing DVMs in general. Since DVMs already follow an RPC style for their operation, and reflection is a natural extension of this approach, it could significantly enhance and clarify the DVM specification.

A reflection enhanced DVM protocol could work as follows: 1. Discovery: Clients discover DVMs through existing NIP-89 application handlers, input schemas could also be advertised in nip-89 announcements, making the second step unnecessary. 2. Schema Request: Clients request the DVM's input schema for the specific job type they're interested in 3. Validation: Clients validate their request against the provided schema before submission 4. Operation: The job proceeds through the standard NIP-90 flow, but with clearer expectations on both sides

Parallels with Other Protocols

This approach has proven successful in other contexts. The Model Context Protocol (MCP) implements a similar lifecycle with capability negotiation during initialization, allowing any client to communicate with any server as long as they adhere to the base protocol. MCP and DVM protocols share fundamental similarities, both aim to expose and consume computational resources through a JSON-RPC-like interface, albeit with specific differences.

gRPC's reflection service similarly allows clients to discover service definitions at runtime, enabling generic tools to work with any gRPC service without prior knowledge. In the REST API world, OpenAPI/Swagger specifications document interfaces in a way that makes them discoverable and testable.

DVMs would benefit from adopting these patterns while maintaining the decentralized, permissionless nature of Nostr.

Conclusion

I am not attempting to rewrite the DVM specification; rather, explore some ideas that could help the ecosystem improve incrementally, reducing fragmentation and making the ecosystem more comprehensible. By allowing DVMs to self describe their interfaces, we could maintain the flexibility that makes Nostr powerful while providing the structure needed for interoperability.

For developers building DVM clients or libraries, this approach would simplify consumption by providing clear expectations about inputs and outputs. For DVM operators, it would establish a standard way to communicate their service's requirements without relying on external documentation.

I am currently developing DVMCP following these patterns. Of course, DVMs and MCP servers have different details; MCP includes capabilities such as tools, resources, and prompts on the server side, as well as 'roots' and 'sampling' on the client side, creating a bidirectional way to consume capabilities. In contrast, DVMs typically function similarly to MCP tools, where you call a DVM with an input and receive an output, with each job type representing a different categorization of the work performed.

Without further ado, I hope this article has provided some insight into the potential benefits of applying the reflection pattern to the DVM specification.

@ 6e64b83c:94102ee8

How to Run Your Own Nostr Relay on Android with Cloudflare Domain

Prerequisites

1. Install Citrine on your Android device:
2. Visit https://github.com/greenart7c3/Citrine/releases
3. Download the latest release using:
   • zap.store
   • Obtainium
   • F-Droid
   • Or download the APK directly

4. Note: You may need to enable "Install from Unknown Sources" in your Android settings

5. Domain Requirements:

6. Purchase a domain if you don't have one

7. Transfer your domain to Cloudflare if it's not already there (for free SSL certificates and cloudflared support)

8. Tools to use:

9. nak (the nostr army knife):
   • Download from https://github.com/fiatjaf/nak/releases
   • Installation steps:

   • For Linux/macOS: ```bash # Download the appropriate version for your system wget https://github.com/fiatjaf/nak/releases/latest/download/nak-linux-amd64 # for Linux # or wget https://github.com/fiatjaf/nak/releases/latest/download/nak-darwin-amd64 # for macOS

     # Make it executable chmod +x nak-*

     # Move to a directory in your PATH sudo mv nak-* /usr/local/bin/nak - For Windows:batch # Download the Windows version curl -L -o nak.exe https://github.com/fiatjaf/nak/releases/latest/download/nak-windows-amd64.exe

     # Move to a directory in your PATH (e.g., C:\Windows) move nak.exe C:\Windows\nak.exe - Verify installation:bash nak --version ```

Setting Up Citrine

1. Open the Citrine app
2. Start the server
3. You'll see it running on ws://127.0.0.1:4869 (local network only)
4. Go to settings and paste your npub into "Accept events signed by" inbox and press the + button. This prevents others from publishing events to your personal relay.

Installing Required Tools

1. Install Termux from Google Play Store
2. Open Termux and run:

bash pkg update && pkg install wget wget https://github.com/cloudflare/cloudflared/releases/latest/download/cloudflared-linux-arm64.deb dpkg -i cloudflared-linux-arm64.deb

Cloudflare Authentication

1. Run the authentication command: bash cloudflared tunnel login
2. Follow the instructions:
3. Copy the provided URL to your browser
4. Log in to your Cloudflare account
5. If the URL expires, copy it again after logging in

Creating the Tunnel

1. Create a new tunnel: bash cloudflared tunnel create <TUNNEL_NAME>
2. Choose any name you prefer for your tunnel

3. Copy the tunnel ID after creating the tunnel

4. Create and configure the tunnel config: bash touch ~/.cloudflared/config.yml nano ~/.cloudflared/config.yml

5. Add this configuration (replace the placeholders with your values): ```yaml tunnel: credentials-file: /data/data/com.termux/files/home/.cloudflared/.json ingress:

6. hostname: nostr.yourdomain.com service: ws://localhost:4869
7. service: http_status:404 ```
8. Note: In nano editor:
   • CTRL+O and Enter to save
   • CTRL+X to exit

9. Note: Check the credentials file path in the logs

10. Validate your configuration: bash cloudflared tunnel validate

11. Start the tunnel: bash cloudflared tunnel run my-relay

Preventing Android from Killing the Tunnel

Run these commands to maintain tunnel stability: bash date && apt install termux-tools && termux-setup-storage && termux-wake-lock echo "nameserver 1.1.1.1" > $PREFIX/etc/resolv.conf

Tip: You can open multiple Termux sessions by swiping from the left edge of the screen while keeping your tunnel process running.

Updating Your Outbox Model Relays

Once your relay is running and accessible via your domain, you'll want to update your relay list in the Nostr network. This ensures other clients know about your relay and can connect to it.

Decoding npub (Public Key)

Private keys (nsec) and public keys (npub) are encoded in bech32 format, which includes: - A prefix (like nsec1, npub1 etc.) - The encoded data - A checksum

This format makes keys: - Easy to distinguish - Hard to copy incorrectly

However, most tools require these keys in hexadecimal (hex) format.

To decode an npub string to its hex format:

bash nak decode nostr:npub1dejts0qlva8mqzjlrxqkc2tmvs2t7elszky5upxaf3jha9qs9m5q605uc4

Change it with your own npub.

bash { "pubkey": "6e64b83c1f674fb00a5f19816c297b6414bf67f015894e04dd4c657e94102ee8" }

Copy the pubkey value in quotes.

Create a kind 10002 event with your relay list:

• Include your new relay with write permissions
• Include other relays you want to read from and write to, omit 3rd parameter to make it both read and write

Example format:

json { "kind": 10002, "tags": [ ["r", "wss://your-relay-domain.com", "write"], ["r", "wss://eden.nostr.land/"], ["r", "wss://nos.lol/"], ["r", "wss://nostr.bitcoiner.social/"], ["r", "wss://nostr.mom/"], ["r", "wss://relay.primal.net/"], ["r", "wss://nostr.wine/", "read"], ["r", "wss://relay.damus.io/"], ["r", "wss://relay.nostr.band/"], ["r", "wss://relay.snort.social/"] ], "content": "" }

Save it to a file called event.json

Note: Add or remove any relays you want. To check your existing 10002 relays: - Visit https://nostr.band/?q=by%3Anpub1dejts0qlva8mqzjlrxqkc2tmvs2t7elszky5upxaf3jha9qs9m5q605uc4+++kind%3A10002 - nostr.band is an indexing service, it probably has your relay list. - Replace npub1xxx in the URL with your own npub - Click "VIEW JSON" from the menu to see the raw event - Or use the nak tool if you know the relays bash nak req -k 10002 -a <your-pubkey> wss://relay1.com wss://relay2.com

Replace `<your-pubkey>` with your public key in hex format (you can get it using `nak decode <your-npub>`)

1. Sign and publish the event:
2. Use a Nostr client that supports kind 10002 events
3. Or use the nak command-line tool: bash nak event --sec ncryptsec1... wss://relay1.com wss://relay2.com $(cat event.json)

Important Security Notes: 1. Never share your nsec (private key) with anyone 2. Consider using NIP-49 encrypted keys for better security 3. Never paste your nsec or private key into the terminal. The command will be saved in your shell history, exposing your private key. To clear the command history: - For bash: use history -c - For zsh: use fc -W to write history to file, then fc -p to read it back - Or manually edit your shell history file (e.g., ~/.zsh_history or ~/.bash_history) 4. if you're using zsh, use fc -p to prevent the next command from being saved to history 5. Or temporarily disable history before running sensitive commands:

bash unset HISTFILE nak key encrypt ... set HISTFILE

How to securely create NIP-49 encypted private key

```bash

Read your private key (input will be hidden)

read -s SECRET

Read your password (input will be hidden)

read -s PASSWORD

encrypt command

echo "$SECRET" | nak key encrypt "$PASSWORD"

copy and paste the ncryptsec1 text from the output

read -s ENCRYPTED nak key decrypt "$ENCRYPTED"

clear variables from memory

unset SECRET PASSWORD ENCRYPTED ```

On a Windows command line, to read from stdin and use the variables in nak commands, you can use a combination of set /p to read input and then use those variables in your command. Here's an example:

```bash @echo off set /p "SECRET=Enter your secret key: " set /p "PASSWORD=Enter your password: "

echo %SECRET%| nak key encrypt %PASSWORD%

:: Clear the sensitive variables set "SECRET=" set "PASSWORD=" ```

If your key starts with ncryptsec1, the nak tool will securely prompt you for a password when using the --sec parameter, unless the command is used with a pipe < > or |.

bash nak event --sec ncryptsec1... wss://relay1.com wss://relay2.com $(cat event.json)

1. Verify the event was published:
2. Check if your relay list is visible on other relays

3. Use the nak tool to fetch your kind 10002 events: bash nak req -k 10002 -a <your-pubkey> wss://relay1.com wss://relay2.com

4. Testing your relay:

5. Try connecting to your relay using different Nostr clients
6. Verify you can both read from and write to your relay
7. Check if events are being properly stored and retrieved
8. Tip: Use multiple Nostr clients to test different aspects of your relay

Note: If anyone in the community has a more efficient method of doing things like updating outbox relays, please share your insights in the comments. Your expertise would be greatly appreciated!

@ 7460b7fd:4fc4e74b

背景与研究范围

Backpack 是由多名前 FTX 和 Alameda 员工在 FTX 崩盘后创立的一家加密交易平台，与 Amber Group（一家大型加密金融服务商）和已倒闭的交易所 FTX 之间可能存在多重隐秘关联。本研究超越公开新闻，从团队延续、资金路径、合规架构、基础设施复用和链上迹象等角度，推理分析三者之间的联系。下文将分别讨论：团队与股权延续性、法币出金（稳定币清算）架构、Amber Group 的支持角色、Circle/Equals Money 等第三方的关联，以及“交叉代币解锁”机制的可能性，并给出关键证据与信息缺口。

团队与股权上的延续性

首先，在团队方面，Backpack 由多名 FTX/Alameda 前成员创立。据报道，Backpack 的联合创始人包括前 Alameda Research 早期员工 Armani Ferrante，以及 FTX 前总法律顾问 Can Suncoinspeaker.com；另一位联合创始人 Tristan Yver 也曾任职于 FTX/Alamedanftgators.com。据 CoinSpeaker 披露，Backpack 40名员工中至少有5人是 FTX 前员工coinspeaker.com。这表明 Backpack 在团队传承上与 FTX 存在明显延续。一方面，创始团队直接来自原 FTX 帝国的核心人员；另一方面，他们将过往在大型交易所积累的经验带入了 Backpack。

其次，在股权投资方面也有延续痕迹。早在2022年9月，Backpack 背后的公司 Coral 即获得了由 FTX Ventures 领投的2000万美元种子轮融资，用于开发 Backpack xNFT 钱包等产品nftgators.com。然而由于2022年11月FTX暴雷，这笔来自 FTX 的投资资金大部分被冻结损失nftgators.com。在经历了资金困难的“蟑螂生存模式”后，Backpack 团队于2023-2024年重新融资，成功在2024年2月完成1700万美元的 A 轮融资nftgators.com。值得注意的是，此轮融资的投资阵容中出现了 Amber Group 的身影nftgators.com。Amber Group 与 Placeholder、Hashed、Wintermute 等知名机构共同参与了该轮融资coinspeaker.com。这意味着 Amber 已经成为 Backpack 股东之一，在股权上建立了联系。此外，Jump Crypto 和 Delphi Digital 等与 FTX时代关系密切的机构也参与了投资nftgators.com。综上， Backpack 的股东和团队构成反映出明显的历史延续：既有原FTX系资本（FTX Ventures）和人员直接过渡，也有 Amber Group 等行业巨头在FTX倒台后入场接棒投资，为 Backpack 提供资金和资源支持。

法币出金架构与 USDC 清算渠道

FTX 时代的稳定币清算： 为了解 Backpack 是否继承了 FTX 的 USDC 清算架构，需要回顾 FTX 过往的法币出入金体系。FTX 在运营高峰时期，以其流畅的出入金和稳定币兑换闻名。用户可以将 USDC 等稳定币充值到 FTX 并直接视同美元资产使用，提取时又能以银行电汇方式取出美元，过程中几乎无汇兑损耗。这背后可能依赖于 FTX 与 Circle 等机构的直接清算合作，以及自有银行网络的支持。例如，Circle 提供的企业账户服务可以让像FTX这样的平台在后台实现USDC与美元的1:1兑换与清算circle.com。事实上，FTX 曾是 USDC 的主要场景之一，大量用户通过将美元换成 USDC 再转入FTX进行交易，从而绕过昂贵的跨境汇款费用。FTX 很可能建立了高效的稳定币兑换通道——例如通过 Silvergate 银行网络或与稳定币发行方直接交割——来实现低成本、快速的法币⇄USDC 转换。这套“USDC 清算架构”是FTX业务成功的重要基础之一。

Backpack 的出金方案： Backpack 作为新兴交易所，近期正式推出了类似的法币⇄稳定币出入金功能，并号称实现了“0费率”的美元/USDC转换panewslab.com。根据官方公告，从2025年5月起，Backpack Exchange 用户可以通过电汇方式充值和提取美元，且美元与USDC的兑换不收取任何手续费panewslab.com。这与FTX当年提供的低成本稳定币出入金体验如出一辙，表明 Backpack 很可能在复用或重建一种高效的清算架构。

与FTX相比，Backpack 并未公开具体采用了何种技术/金融渠道来实现0手续费。但通过社区测试和代码线索，可以推测其架构与FTX思路相似：首先， Backpack 将美元法币与USDC稳定币视为等价资产开放存取，用户电汇美元到账后在平台得到USDC或美元余额，提币时可用USDC直接提走或兑换成美元汇出。其次， Backpack 可能通过与稳定币发行方Circle的合作，或通过场外流动性方，将用户的USDC和法币进行实时对冲清算。Circle提供的API允许合规企业账户方便地将USDC兑换为美元存入银行账户circle.com；Backpack 很可能利用了这一渠道，在后台完成USDC的兑换，再通过银行网络把美元汇给用户。虽然Backpack官方未明言使用Circle，但其USDC通道开放的举措本身就体现了Circle所倡导的稳定币跨境支付应用场景circle.com。因此，从设计上看，Backpack 的法币出入金体系是对FTX模式的一种延续和致敬，即充分利用稳定币作为清算中介，实现跨境汇款的低成本与高效率。

银行网络与 Equals Money： 更有意思的是，有社区用户实测 Backpack 的美元提现，发现汇款发起方显示为“Equals Money PLC”btcxiaolinzi.top。Equals Money 是英国一家持有FCA牌照的电子货币机构(EMI)，为企业提供银行转账和外汇服务btcxiaolinzi.top。测试者推断，Backpack 可能在 Equals Money 开立了企业账户，用于代替传统银行向用户汇出美元btcxiaolinzi.top。这一细节揭示了Backpack出金架构的实现路径：Backpack 很可能将待提现的USDC通过某种方式兑换成法币并存入其在Equals Money的账户，由后者完成跨境电汇至用户收款银行。由于Equals Money本质上连接着欧洲和国际支付网络，Backpack借助它可以避开美国传统银行的限制，为全球用户（包括无法直接与美国持牌银行打交道的用户）提供出金服务。这一点在FTX时代并未被广泛报道，但符合FTX/Alameda团队擅长搭建复杂金融通道的作风。由此推断， Backpack 确实在承袭FTX时期的清算理念：利用多层金融机构合作（如稳定币发行方、电子货币机构等），构筑高效的全球资金出入网络。在表面0手续费的背后，可能是由Backpack或其合作方（如做市商）承担了兑换成本，以吸引用户panewslab.com。目前这一体系已进入公开测试及运营阶段，随着更多支付方式（ACH、SEPA）的推出，Backpack正逐步完善其全球法币出入金矩阵panewslab.com。

Amber Group 的潜在支持角色

作为Backpack的重要战略投资方，Amber Group 在该体系中可能扮演多重支持角色。首先是资金层面： Amber参与了Backpack的A轮融资nftgators.com并获得股权，这意味着Amber对Backpack的发展具有直接利益。在FTX倒闭后，Amber选择投资由FTX前团队创立的新交易所，体现出其对这支团队能力和商业模式的认可。Amber本身是知名的加密市场做市和金融服务公司，管理着庞大的资产并具备深厚的流动性提供能力dailycoin.com。因此可以合理推测，Amber除了资本投入，还可能作为做市商为Backpack的交易提供充足的流动性支持，确保用户在Backpack上交易时有良好的市场深度和稳定的价格。这种隐性支持符合许多交易所背后有大做市商“站台”的行业惯例。尤其Backpack定位要提供低成本的稳定币兑换和跨链流动性，Amber在稳定币交易市场的经验和库存或可帮助其维持汇率稳定。

其次是技术与基础设施支持： Amber Group 多年来构建了自己的交易系统（包括托管、风控和前端应用，如之前面向零售的 WhaleFin 应用）。尽管目前未有公开信息表明Backpack直接复用了Amber的技术，但不排除Amber在底层架构上提供咨询或授权支持的可能。例如，Amber深耕多链资产管理和清算，其内部API或合规方案可能对Backpack搭建跨法币/加密的基础设施有所启发。双方如果有合作，极有可能保持低调以避免监管敏感。还有一种支持形式是隐性投资或子基金合作： Amber可能通过旗下基金或关联投资工具，持有Backpack相关业务的权益而不公开身份。然而截至目前，我们尚未发现明确证据证明Amber有这种“隐形”持股行为——Amber作为领投方之一出现于公开融资名单，说明其支持主要还是以正式股权投资和业务协作的方式进行coinspeaker.com。

第三是合规与网络资源： Amber在全球（尤其亚洲）拥有广泛的业务网络和合规资源。Backpack注册在阿联酋迪拜，并计划拓展美国、日本、欧洲等市场learn.backpack.exchangelearn.backpack.exchange。Amber总部位于亚洲（最初在香港，新加坡等地开展业务），对东亚和东南亚市场非常了解。Amber的联合创始人团队中有合规专家，曾帮助公司获取多地牌照。Backpack的联合创始人之一（Can Sun）本身是前FTX法务，这保证了内部合规经验，但Amber的外部资源也可能提供协助。例如，Amber在香港与监管机构打交道的经验，或许有助于Backpack寻求香港或东南亚牌照；Amber在银行业和支付领域的关系网络，也可能帮助Backpack连接银行通道（如引荐像Equals Money这样的机构）。虽然这方面多属于推测，但考虑到Amber投资后通常会积极赋能被投企业，Backpack有理由从Amber处获得合规咨询、市场拓展等方面的帮助。

总的来看，Amber Group 对 Backpack 的支持可能是**“润物细无声”**式的：既体现在台前的融资与做市合作，也体现在幕后的资源共享和经验输出。这种支持帮助Backpack在短时间内补齐了从交易技术到法币通道的诸多要素，使其有能力低成本快速上线类似FTX当年的核心功能（如稳定币快速出入金）。然而，由于双方都未公开详述合作细节，我们对Amber介入的深度仍缺乏直接证据，只能从结果倒推其可能性。

Circle、Equals Money 等第三方的关联

在Backpack、FTX与Amber的关系网络中，Circle和Equals Money等第三方机构扮演了关键“节点”，它们的出现为三者合作提供了基础设施支撑：

• Circle（USDC发行方）： Circle公司本身与FTX及Backpack都有千丝万缕的业务联系。FTX在世时是USDC重要的使用方，帮助USDC拓展了交易所场景；FTX垮台后，Backpack继续扛起“稳定币交易所”的大旗，大量采用USDC作为美元计价和清算工具panewslab.com。虽然我们没有公开材料直接指出Backpack已与Circle签署合作协议，但Backpack推出USD/USDC通道的举措实际是在推动USDC的使用，这与Circle致力于扩大USDC应用的战略不谋而合circle.com。Circle近年来打造跨境支付网络，与多家交易平台和金融机构合作提供法币-稳定币转换服务circle.com。因此，有理由相信Backpack在后台利用了Circle的流动性或API来实现用户提币时的USDC兑换和赎回。比如，当用户在Backpack提取美元，Backpack可能将等额USDC通过Circle赎回成美元，Circle则将该美元汇入Backpack的银行账户进行出金。这种模式其实正是Circle提供给企业客户的“稳定币托管清算”服务之一circle.com。换言之，Circle充当了Backpack法币出金链条中的关键一环，尽管普通用户感知不到它的存在。反过来看Amber，作为全球领先的做市商，也大量使用USDC进行交易和结算，Amber与Circle之间亦可能有直接合作关系（如参与Circle的伙伴计划等）。可以说，Circle及其USDC网络构成了FTX时代和Backpack时代连接传统金融和加密世界的桥梁：FTX和Backpack都踩在这座桥上快速发展，而Amber作为市场参与者，同样频繁走这座桥，为自身和伙伴创造价值。

• Equals Money（英国电子货币机构）： 前文提及，Equals Money PLC 在Backpack的出金过程中显现出来btcxiaolinzi.top。这家公司提供面向企业的银行即服务(BaaS)，允许像Backpack这样的客户通过其平台发起全球付款。Equals Money的出现意味着Backpack选择了一条灵活的合规路径来实现银行转账功能：相比直接开设传统银行账户，使用EMI能更快获取支付能力且准入门槛较低。FTX时期并未传出使用EMI的消息，因为当时FTX可直接依赖自己的银行关系网（例如通过位于美国、欧洲的自有账户）来处理汇款。然而在后FTX时代，许多加密公司（包括Amber）都在寻找新的银行替代方案，EMI因此受到青睐。具体联系： 根据实测，Backpack用户提现美元到Wise时，Wise收到的汇款来自Equals Moneybtcxiaolinzi.top。Wise作为跨境汇款平台，其收款机制对资金来源要求严格，但Equals Money持有FCA牌照，属于受监管机构，Wise接收来自Equals的资金被视为合规btcxiaolinzi.top。由此推断，Backpack通过Equals的企业账户，将兑换好的美元直接打给用户填入的收款账号（包括Wise提供的虚拟账号）。这表明Backpack和Equals Money之间有直接业务往来，Equals是Backpack法币出金服务链条上的合作伙伴。值得一提的是，Amber Group 此前在欧洲也曾探索电子货币牌照或合作渠道的可能，尽管无法确认Amber是否也使用Equals，但不排除Amber为Backpack牵线搭桥、推荐了Equals这类服务商的可能性。

综合来看， Circle和Equals Money分别代表了稳定币清算层和法币支付层的基础设施，与Backpack/FTX/Amber的联系体现为：Circle提供“链上到链下”的美元流动性支持，Equals提供“链下”最后一公里的银行网络接口。三者之所以都选择/使用这些渠道，是因为它们共享了对加密法币融合效率的追求。对于FTX和Backpack而言，这些渠道是业务方案的一部分；对于Amber而言，这些渠道是服务布局和投资的一环（Amber支持的交易所采用了这些方案，也间接符合Amber推动行业基础设施完善的利益）。

“交叉代币解锁”机制与链上协作迹象

“交叉代币解锁”是指Amber、Backpack（或其关联项目）之间通过持有彼此发行的代币，并利用协议合作、解锁计划或链上交易，实现协同利益的一种机制。鉴于Backpack尚处于发展初期，我们需要探讨哪些代币或资产可能涉及双方的互动：

• Backpack 平台代币的潜在发行： 根据Backpack社区的信息，平台计划通过交易积分空投方式向活跃用户发放代币资格btcxiaolinzi.top。这暗示Backpack未来会推出自己的平台代币。若真如此，早期投资方（包括Amber Group）很可能在代币经济中占有一席之地，例如通过投资协议获得一定比例的平台代币配额。在代币正式解锁流通时，Amber等机构投资者将持有相应份额。这就产生了潜在的“交叉代币”联系：Amber持有Backpack的代币，并可在协议允许的时间窗口解锁出售或利用。这种关系一方面绑定了Amber与Backpack的长期利益，另一方面也为Amber提供了在二级市场获利或支持Backpack代币市值的机会。如果Backpack设计代币经济时有锁仓解锁期，那么Amber的代币解锁时间和数量将受到协议约束。从链上数据看，未来可以观察这些大额代币解锁地址是否与Amber的钱包存在关联，以验证Amber对Backpack代币的处置行为。当前，由于Backpack代币尚未发行，我们只能提出这一推测性机制，等待后续链上数据来印证。

• Amber 持仓代币与Backpack业务的协同： 反之，Amber Group 或其子基金本身持有众多加密资产，是否有与Backpack生态互动的情况？例如，Amber可能持有某些与Backpack生态有关的项目代币（如Solana链上资产，Backpack钱包支持的特定NFT/代币等）。一个案例是Backpack团队曾在Solana上发行受欢迎的 xNFT系列“Mαd Lads”NFTlearn.backpack.exchange。Amber或其投资部门是否参与了该NFT的投资或持有尚无公开资料，但不排除Amber透过场内交易购买一些以支持Backpack生态热度。再者，如果Amber在其他项目上持有代币，而Backpack平台上线这些资产交易，Amber可能通过链上转账将流动性注入Backpack，从而实现双方受益——Amber获得流动性做市收益，Backpack获得交易量和资产丰富度。这可以视作一种链上协作。例如Amber持有大量某种代币X，在Backpack上新上线代币X交易对时，Amber账户向Backpack的热钱包充值代币X提供初始流动性。这样的行为在链上会呈现Amber已知地址向Backpack地址的大额转账。如果将来这些数据出现，将成为印证双方链上合作的直接证据。目前，此类链上轨迹还未有公开披露，我们只能假设其存在的可能性。

• FTX 遗留资产与Backpack 的关联： 另一个值得一提的链上观察维度是FTX/Alameda遗留资产的动向。FTX倒闭后，其相关钱包曾多次异动。Backpack团队作为前员工，有可能知晓某些地址或资产的情况。但由于破产清算在法庭监管下进行，直接将FTX遗留资产转给新项目不太现实。不过，不排除某些前Alameda投资的项目代币后来为Backpack团队所用。例如，Alameda早期投资的项目若代币解锁，Backpack团队个人可能持有部分并用于新平台的流动性。这种间接关联较难确认，但链上仍可寻找蛛丝马迹，比如监测前Alameda标识的钱包与Backpack相关地址之间的交易。如果有频繁互动，可能暗示Backpack获取了Alameda旧有资产的支持。至今未见显著证据，推测空间大于实证。

小结： “交叉代币解锁”机制目前更多停留在理论推演层面。我们确认了Backpack未来存在发行平台代币的规划btcxiaolinzi.top；也确认Amber作为投资方大概率会获得并持有该代币份额。但具体的锁仓解锁安排、双方是否会通过特殊协议（如做市激励、流动性挖矿等）进行合作，还有待官方披露或链上数据验证。链上分析工具可以在未来帮助捕捉Amber地址与Backpack生态代币/NFT的交互，从而揭示深层协作。如果发现Amber旗下地址在Backpack代币解锁后立即大量转入交易所，可能意味着Amber选择变现；反之，若锁定期内就有灰度交易发生，甚至可能存在双方提前约定的场外交换。这些都是值得持续监测的方向，但就目前信息来看，尚无定论。

\ 图：FTX、Amber Group 与 Backpack 三者关系示意图。红色/橙色线表示团队和股权延续（FTX前员工和投资延续到Backpack，Amber参与投资并可能提供流动性）；蓝色线表示Backpack法币出金所依赖的稳定币清算和银行通道（通过USDC及Equals Money实现）；灰色虚线表示FTX和Amber分别与USDC发行方Circle在业务上的联系。这些关系共同构成了Backpack在FTX余荫和Amber支持下快速搭建全球业务的基础。

关键证据与信息缺口

通过上述分析，我们梳理了已知的信息链条，并挖掘了若干可能的隐秘关联，同时也识别出需要进一步调查的信息空白：

• 明确的证据链： 我们找到了多项公开资料证明Backpack与FTX/Amber的联系：包括创始团队来自FTX/Alamedacoinspeaker.com、FTX Ventures 曾投资Backpack母公司nftgators.com、Amber Group 参与了Backpack的融资coinspeaker.com、多名FTX旧部现在Backpack任职coinspeaker.com等。这些形成了人员和资金延续的直接证据。另外，通过用户分享和代码库，我们确认Backpack法币出金使用了Equals Money通道btcxiaolinzi.top并提供了0手续费的USD/USDC转换panewslab.com——这证明了Backpack确实建立了类似FTX当年的稳定币清算架构，只是技术实现上借助了新的合作方(Equals Money)。这些证据支撑了本文的大部分推论基础。

• 合理的推测与佐证： 有些关联尚无官方公告证明，但基于行业惯例和现有线索推测合理，并有部分侧面佐证。例如，Amber 为Backpack提供做市流动性支援一事，没有直接新闻来源，但考虑到Amber投资交易所的动机和能力，此推断具有高概率可靠性。再如，Backpack疑似使用Circle的USDC清算服务，虽无明示，但从其业务模式和Circle的产品定位来看circle.com，这一幕后合作应该存在。同样地，Amber可能通过非公开方式向Backpack输出技术/合规支持，也是基于双方利益绑定关系而做出的推断。这些推测目前缺乏直接证据，只能算作可能性假设，需要后续留意更多细节披露。

• 信息缺口与待验证点： 首先，关于Backpack具体的清算路径，我们仍不清楚它如何在链上/链下转换巨额USDC为法币。虽然Equals Money出现在汇款端btcxiaolinzi.top，但在那之前USDC的结算或许涉及Circle或其他做市商（如Amber）——这部分交易发生在后台，需更多技术信息或链上监控来捕捉。其次，Amber与Backpack之间除股权外是否存在合同约定的业务合作（如Amber成为指定做市商、提供信贷支持等）目前尚未公开，属于信息真空。第三，Backpack未来的代币发行和分配细节未知，Amber等投资方将如何参与、解锁周期如何，将直接影响“交叉代币”协作的发生与否，需等官方白皮书出台。第四，更多链上证据的挖掘：由于没有公开的钱包标签，很难直接将某条链上交易指认属于Amber或Backpack。但如果未来Backpack发行代币或大型交易上线，链上必然会出现相关资金流，我们可以通过已知Amber常用地址（如果有披露）来交叉比对，看其是否与Backpack生态有交互。这是一块需要进一步研究的领域，可能借助区块链分析工具和交易图谱来补全证据。最后，还有监管和法律结构的信息：例如Backpack在不同司法管辖区的注册实体与银行账号详情，FTX遗产处理过程中是否对Backpack团队有约束，这些在公开资料中都尚无答案。

结论

综合全篇分析，Backpack、Amber Group 与已倒闭的FTX之间确实存在千丝万缕的延续和关联。Backpack可以被视作FTX精神和技术路线的“继承者”之一——由FTX旧将创建，在FTX垮台造成的市场空白中迅速崛起coinspeaker.com。Amber Group 则扮演了重要的扶持者角色，通过投资和可能的资源注入，参与了Backpack的重建过程coinspeaker.com。在具体业务层面，Backpack延续了FTX时代的创新，如高效的稳定币清算和全球化业务布局，但为了适应新的环境，它也采用了新的工具（如Equals Money的出金渠道）和更严格的合规措施（迪拜等地的牌照）coinspeaker.com。这一切背后，隐现着Amber等老牌加密公司的身影支持，以及Circle等基础设施提供商的支撑。

当然，隐秘关联并不意味着不正当行为，上述关系很多是基于正常的商业合作和延续，只是未明言于公众。例如，前FTX团队利用自己的经验和人脉创建新平台，本身无可厚非；Amber投资新交易所也是市场行为。从推理和现有证据看，并没有直接迹象显示三者存在违法的秘密勾连。然而，对于研究者和行业观察者而言，了解这些联系有助于洞察加密行业格局的演变：FTX的倒下并未让其积累的人才和思想消失，反而通过创业和投资，以新的形式（Backpack）继续影响市场；Amber等老牌玩家则通过战略投资，将自己的版图延伸到新兴平台，以保持竞争力。

未来展望： 随着Backpack进一步发展，我们预计会有更多信息浮出水面来验证或修正上述假设。例如，Backpack若推出平台代币，其投资人持仓和解锁情况将记录在链，从而揭示Amber等的参与细节；再比如，Backpack进入美国市场时需要公开其合作银行或支付伙伴，届时我们可能印证Circle等在其中的角色。如果出现新的合作公告或监管披露文件，也能帮助我们更清晰地绘制三者关系网。目前的信息不对称使我们只能尽力拼凑一幅关联图景，并针对关键环节提供已知证据支持。仍存在的一些信息缺口需要持续跟进调查。总之，Backpack、Amber Group 与FTX的故事折射出加密行业的新旧交替与传承。在FTX的余烬上，新火花正在由熟悉旧世界的人点燃，而这些火花能否照亮一个更加合规稳健的未来，还有待时间检验。 nftgators.comcoinspeaker.com

@ f32184ee:6d1c17bf

Ads Fueling Freedom

Ross Ulbricht’s "Decentralize Social Media" painted a picture of a user-centric, decentralized future that transcended the limitations of platforms like the tech giants of today. Though focused on social media, his concept provided a blueprint for decentralized content systems writ large. The PROMO Protocol, designed by NextBlock while participating in Sovereign Engineering, embodies this blueprint in the realm of advertising, leveraging Nostr and Bitcoin’s Lightning Network to give individuals control, foster a multi-provider ecosystem, and ensure secure value exchange. In this way, Ulbricht’s 2021 vision can be seen as a prescient prediction of the PROMO Protocol’s structure. This is a testament to the enduring power of his ideas, now finding form in NextBlock’s innovative approach.

[Current Platform-Centric Paradigm, source: Ross Ulbricht's Decentralize Social Media]

Ulbricht’s Vision: A Decentralized Social Protocol

In his 2021 Medium article Ulbricht proposed a revolutionary vision for a decentralized social protocol (DSP) to address the inherent flaws of centralized social media platforms, such as privacy violations and inconsistent content moderation. Writing from prison, Ulbricht argued that decentralization could empower users by giving them control over their own content and the value they create, while replacing single, monolithic platforms with a competitive ecosystem of interface providers, content servers, and advertisers. Though his focus was on social media, Ulbricht’s ideas laid a conceptual foundation that strikingly predicts the structure of NextBlock’s PROMO Protocol, a decentralized advertising system built on the Nostr protocol.

[A Decentralized Social Protocol (DSP), source: Ross Ulbricht's Decentralize Social Media]

Ulbricht’s Principles

Ulbricht’s article outlines several key principles for his DSP: * User Control: Users should own their content and dictate how their data and creations generate value, rather than being subject to the whims of centralized corporations. * Decentralized Infrastructure: Instead of a single platform, multiple interface providers, content hosts, and advertisers interoperate, fostering competition and resilience. * Privacy and Autonomy: Decentralized solutions for profile management, hosting, and interactions would protect user privacy and reduce reliance on unaccountable intermediaries. * Value Creation: Users, not platforms, should capture the economic benefits of their contributions, supported by decentralized mechanisms for transactions.

These ideas were forward-thinking in 2021, envisioning a shift away from the centralized giants dominating social media at the time. While Ulbricht didn’t specifically address advertising protocols, his framework for decentralization and user empowerment extends naturally to other domains, like NextBlock’s open-source offering: the PROMO Protocol.

NextBlock’s Implementation of PROMO Protocol

The PROMO Protocol powers NextBlock's Billboard app, a decentralized advertising protocol built on Nostr, a simple, open protocol for decentralized communication. The PROMO Protocol reimagines advertising by: * Empowering People: Individuals set their own ad prices (e.g., 500 sats/minute), giving them direct control over how their attention or space is monetized. * Marketplace Dynamics: Advertisers set budgets and maximum bids, competing within a decentralized system where a 20% service fee ensures operational sustainability. * Open-Source Flexibility: As an open-source protocol, it allows multiple developers to create interfaces or apps on top of it, avoiding the single-platform bottleneck Ulbricht critiqued. * Secure Payments: Using Strike Integration with Bitcoin Lightning Network, NextBlock enables bot-resistant and intermediary-free transactions, aligning value transfer with each person's control.

This structure decentralizes advertising in a way that mirrors Ulbricht’s broader vision for social systems, with aligned principles showing a specific use case: monetizing attention on Nostr.

Aligned Principles

Ulbricht’s 2021 article didn’t explicitly predict the PROMO Protocol, but its foundational concepts align remarkably well with NextBlock's implementation the protocol’s design: * Autonomy Over Value: Ulbricht argued that users should control their content and its economic benefits. In the PROMO Protocol, people dictate ad pricing, directly capturing the value of their participation. Whether it’s their time, influence, or digital space, rather than ceding it to a centralized ad network. * Ecosystem of Providers: Ulbricht envisioned multiple providers replacing a single platform. The PROMO Protocol’s open-source nature invites a similar diversity: anyone can build interfaces or tools on top of it, creating a competitive, decentralized advertising ecosystem rather than a walled garden. * Decentralized Transactions: Ulbricht’s DSP implied decentralized mechanisms for value exchange. NextBlock delivers this through the Bitcoin Lightning Network, ensuring that payments for ads are secure, instantaneous and final, a practical realization of Ulbricht’s call for user-controlled value flows. * Privacy and Control: While Ulbricht emphasized privacy in social interactions, the PROMO Protocol is public by default. Individuals are fully aware of all data that they generate since all Nostr messages are signed. All participants interact directly via Nostr.

[Blueprint Match, source NextBlock]

---

Who We Are

NextBlock is a US-based new media company reimagining digital ads for a decentralized future. Our founders, software and strategy experts, were hobbyist podcasters struggling to promote their work online without gaming the system. That sparked an idea: using new tech like Nostr and Bitcoin to build a decentralized attention market for people who value control and businesses seeking real connections.

Our first product, Billboard, is launching this June.

Open for All

Our model’s open-source! Check out the PROMO Protocol, built for promotion and attention trading. Anyone can join this decentralized ad network. Run your own billboard or use ours. This is a growing ecosystem for a new ad economy.

Our Vision

NextBlock wants to help build a new decentralized internet. Our revolutionary and transparent business model will bring honest revenue to companies hosting valuable digital spaces. Together, we will discover what our attention is really worth.

Read our Manifesto to learn more.

NextBlock is registered in Texas, USA.

@ 9bde4214:06ca052b

"It's gonna be permissionless or hell."

Gigi and gzuuus are vibing towards dystopia.

Books & articles mentioned:

• AI 2027
• DVMs were a mistake
• Careless People by Sarah Wynn-Williams
• Takedown by Laila michelwait
• The Ultimate Resource by Julian L. Simon
• Harry Potter by J.K. Rowling
• Momo by Michael Ende

In this dialogue:

• Pablo's Roo Setup
• Tech Hype Cycles
• AI 2027
• Prompt injection and other attacks
• Goose and DVMCP
• Cursor vs Roo Code
• Staying in control thanks to Amber and signing delegation
• Is YOLO mode here to stay?
• What agents to trust?
• What MCP tools to trust?
• What code snippets to trust?
• Everyone will run into the issues of trust and micropayments
• Nostr solves Web of Trust & micropayments natively
• Minimalistic & open usually wins
• DVMCP exists thanks to Totem
• Relays as Tamagochis
• Agents aren't nostr experts, at least not right now
• Fix a mistake once & it's fixed forever
• Giving long-term memory to LLMs
• RAG Databases signed by domain experts
• Human-agent hybrids & Chess
• Nostr beating heart
• Pluggable context & experts
• "You never need an API key for anything"
• Sats and social signaling
• Difficulty-adjusted PoW as a rare-limiting mechanism
• Certificate authorities and centralization
• No solutions to policing speech!
• OAuth and how it centralized
• Login with nostr
• Closed vs open-source models
• Tiny models vs large models
• The minions protocol (Stanford paper)
• Generalist models vs specialized models
• Local compute & encrypted queries
• Blinded compute
• "In the eyes of the state, agents aren't people"
• Agents need identity and money; nostr provides both
• "It's gonna be permissionless or hell"
• We already have marketplaces for MCP stuff, code snippets, and other things
• Most great stuff came from marketplaces (browsers, games, etc)
• Zapstore shows that this is already working
• At scale, central control never works. There's plenty scams and viruses in the app stores.
• Using nostr to archive your user-generated content
• HAVEN, blossom, novia
• The switcharoo from advertisements to training data
• What is Truth?
• What is Real?
• "We're vibing into dystopia"
• Who should be the arbiter of Truth?
• First Amendment & why the Logos is sacred
• Silicon Valley AI bros arrogantly dismiss wisdom and philosophy
• Suicide rates & the meaning crisis
• Are LLMs symbiotic or parasitic?
• The Amish got it right
• Are we gonna make it?
• Careless People by Sarah Wynn-Williams
• Takedown by Laila michelwait
• Harry Potter dementors & Momo's time thieves
• Facebook & Google as non-human (superhuman) agents
• Zapping as a conscious action
• Privacy and the internet
• Plausible deniability thanks to generative models
• Google glasses, glassholes, and Meta's Ray Ben's
• People crave realness
• Bitcoin is the realest money we ever had
• Nostr allows for real and honest expression
• How do we find out what's real?
• Constraints, policing, and chilling effects
• Jesus' plans for DVMCP
• Hzrd's article on how DVMs are broken (DVMs were a mistake)
• Don't believe the hype
• DVMs pre-date MCP tools
• Data Vending Machines were supposed to be stupid: put coin in, get stuff out.
• Self-healing vibe-coding
• IP addresses as scarce assets
• Atomic swaps and the ASS protocol
• More marketplaces, less silos
• The intensity of #SovEng and the last 6 weeks
• If you can vibe-code everything, why build anything?
• Time, the ultimate resource
• What are the LLMs allowed to think?
• Natural language interfaces are inherently dialogical
• Sovereign Engineering is dialogical too

@ 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.

@ 4ba8e86d:89d32de4

Tutorial feito por nostr:nostr:npub1rc56x0ek0dd303eph523g3chm0wmrs5wdk6vs0ehd0m5fn8t7y4sqra3tk poste original abaixo:

Parte 1 : http://xh6liiypqffzwnu5734ucwps37tn2g6npthvugz3gdoqpikujju525yd.onion/263585/tutorial-debloat-de-celulares-android-via-adb-parte-1

Parte 2 : http://xh6liiypqffzwnu5734ucwps37tn2g6npthvugz3gdoqpikujju525yd.onion/index.php/263586/tutorial-debloat-de-celulares-android-via-adb-parte-2

Quando o assunto é privacidade em celulares, uma das medidas comumente mencionadas é a remoção de bloatwares do dispositivo, também chamado de debloat. O meio mais eficiente para isso sem dúvidas é a troca de sistema operacional. Custom Rom’s como LineageOS, GrapheneOS, Iodé, CalyxOS, etc, já são bastante enxutos nesse quesito, principalmente quanto não é instalado os G-Apps com o sistema. No entanto, essa prática pode acabar resultando em problemas indesejados como a perca de funções do dispositivo, e até mesmo incompatibilidade com apps bancários, tornando este método mais atrativo para quem possui mais de um dispositivo e separando um apenas para privacidade.   Pensando nisso, pessoas que possuem apenas um único dispositivo móvel, que são necessitadas desses apps ou funções, mas, ao mesmo tempo, tem essa visão em prol da privacidade, buscam por um meio-termo entre manter a Stock rom, e não ter seus dados coletados por esses bloatwares. Felizmente, a remoção de bloatwares é possível e pode ser realizada via root, ou mais da maneira que este artigo irá tratar, via adb.

O que são bloatwares?

Bloatware é a junção das palavras bloat (inchar) + software (programa), ou seja, um bloatware é basicamente um programa inútil ou facilmente substituível — colocado em seu dispositivo previamente pela fabricante e operadora — que está no seu dispositivo apenas ocupando espaço de armazenamento, consumindo memória RAM e pior, coletando seus dados e enviando para servidores externos, além de serem mais pontos de vulnerabilidades.

O que é o adb?

O Android Debug Brigde, ou apenas adb, é uma ferramenta que se utiliza das permissões de usuário shell e permite o envio de comandos vindo de um computador para um dispositivo Android exigindo apenas que a depuração USB esteja ativa, mas também pode ser usada diretamente no celular a partir do Android 11, com o uso do Termux e a depuração sem fio (ou depuração wifi). A ferramenta funciona normalmente em dispositivos sem root, e também funciona caso o celular esteja em Recovery Mode.

Requisitos:

Para computadores:

• Depuração USB ativa no celular; • Computador com adb; • Cabo USB;

Para celulares:

• Depuração sem fio (ou depuração wifi) ativa no celular; • Termux; • Android 11 ou superior;

Para ambos:

• Firewall NetGuard instalado e configurado no celular; • Lista de bloatwares para seu dispositivo;

Ativação de depuração:

Para ativar a Depuração USB em seu dispositivo, pesquise como ativar as opções de desenvolvedor de seu dispositivo, e lá ative a depuração. No caso da depuração sem fio, sua ativação irá ser necessária apenas no momento que for conectar o dispositivo ao Termux.

Instalação e configuração do NetGuard

O NetGuard pode ser instalado através da própria Google Play Store, mas de preferência instale pela F-Droid ou Github para evitar telemetria.

F-Droid: https://f-droid.org/packages/eu.faircode.netguard/

Github: https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/releases

Após instalado, configure da seguinte maneira:

Configurações → padrões (lista branca/negra) → ative as 3 primeiras opções (bloquear wifi, bloquear dados móveis e aplicar regras ‘quando tela estiver ligada’);

Configurações → opções avançadas → ative as duas primeiras (administrar aplicativos do sistema e registrar acesso a internet);

Com isso, todos os apps estarão sendo bloqueados de acessar a internet, seja por wifi ou dados móveis, e na página principal do app basta permitir o acesso a rede para os apps que você vai usar (se necessário). Permita que o app rode em segundo plano sem restrição da otimização de bateria, assim quando o celular ligar, ele já estará ativo.

Lista de bloatwares

Nem todos os bloatwares são genéricos, haverá bloatwares diferentes conforme a marca, modelo, versão do Android, e até mesmo região.

Para obter uma lista de bloatwares de seu dispositivo, caso seu aparelho já possua um tempo de existência, você encontrará listas prontas facilmente apenas pesquisando por elas. Supondo que temos um Samsung Galaxy Note 10 Plus em mãos, basta pesquisar em seu motor de busca por:

Samsung Galaxy Note 10 Plus bloatware list

Provavelmente essas listas já terão inclusas todos os bloatwares das mais diversas regiões, lhe poupando o trabalho de buscar por alguma lista mais específica.

Caso seu aparelho seja muito recente, e/ou não encontre uma lista pronta de bloatwares, devo dizer que você acaba de pegar em merda, pois é chato para um caralho pesquisar por cada aplicação para saber sua função, se é essencial para o sistema ou se é facilmente substituível.

De antemão já aviso, que mais para frente, caso vossa gostosura remova um desses aplicativos que era essencial para o sistema sem saber, vai acabar resultando na perda de alguma função importante, ou pior, ao reiniciar o aparelho o sistema pode estar quebrado, lhe obrigando a seguir com uma formatação, e repetir todo o processo novamente.

Download do adb em computadores

Para usar a ferramenta do adb em computadores, basta baixar o pacote chamado SDK platform-tools, disponível através deste link: https://developer.android.com/tools/releases/platform-tools. Por ele, você consegue o download para Windows, Mac e Linux.

Uma vez baixado, basta extrair o arquivo zipado, contendo dentro dele uma pasta chamada platform-tools que basta ser aberta no terminal para se usar o adb.

Download do adb em celulares com Termux.

Para usar a ferramenta do adb diretamente no celular, antes temos que baixar o app Termux, que é um emulador de terminal linux, e já possui o adb em seu repositório. Você encontra o app na Google Play Store, mas novamente recomendo baixar pela F-Droid ou diretamente no Github do projeto.

F-Droid: https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.termux/

Github: https://github.com/termux/termux-app/releases

Processo de debloat

Antes de iniciarmos, é importante deixar claro que não é para você sair removendo todos os bloatwares de cara sem mais nem menos, afinal alguns deles precisam antes ser substituídos, podem ser essenciais para você para alguma atividade ou função, ou até mesmo são insubstituíveis.

Alguns exemplos de bloatwares que a substituição é necessária antes da remoção, é o Launcher, afinal, é a interface gráfica do sistema, e o teclado, que sem ele só é possível digitar com teclado externo. O Launcher e teclado podem ser substituídos por quaisquer outros, minha recomendação pessoal é por aqueles que respeitam sua privacidade, como Pie Launcher e Simple Laucher, enquanto o teclado pelo OpenBoard e FlorisBoard, todos open-source e disponíveis da F-Droid.

Identifique entre a lista de bloatwares, quais você gosta, precisa ou prefere não substituir, de maneira alguma você é obrigado a remover todos os bloatwares possíveis, modifique seu sistema a seu bel-prazer. O NetGuard lista todos os apps do celular com o nome do pacote, com isso você pode filtrar bem qual deles não remover.

Um exemplo claro de bloatware insubstituível e, portanto, não pode ser removido, é o com.android.mtp, um protocolo onde sua função é auxiliar a comunicação do dispositivo com um computador via USB, mas por algum motivo, tem acesso a rede e se comunica frequentemente com servidores externos. Para esses casos, e melhor solução mesmo é bloquear o acesso a rede desses bloatwares com o NetGuard.

MTP tentando comunicação com servidores externos:

Executando o adb shell

No computador

Faça backup de todos os seus arquivos importantes para algum armazenamento externo, e formate seu celular com o hard reset. Após a formatação, e a ativação da depuração USB, conecte seu aparelho e o pc com o auxílio de um cabo USB. Muito provavelmente seu dispositivo irá apenas começar a carregar, por isso permita a transferência de dados, para que o computador consiga se comunicar normalmente com o celular.

Já no pc, abra a pasta platform-tools dentro do terminal, e execute o seguinte comando:

./adb start-server

O resultado deve ser:

daemon not running; starting now at tcp:5037 daemon started successfully

E caso não apareça nada, execute:

./adb kill-server

E inicie novamente.

Com o adb conectado ao celular, execute:

./adb shell

Para poder executar comandos diretamente para o dispositivo. No meu caso, meu celular é um Redmi Note 8 Pro, codinome Begonia.

Logo o resultado deve ser:

begonia:/ $

Caso ocorra algum erro do tipo:

adb: device unauthorized. This adb server’s $ADB_VENDOR_KEYS is not set Try ‘adb kill-server’ if that seems wrong. Otherwise check for a confirmation dialog on your device.

Verifique no celular se apareceu alguma confirmação para autorizar a depuração USB, caso sim, autorize e tente novamente. Caso não apareça nada, execute o kill-server e repita o processo.

No celular

Após realizar o mesmo processo de backup e hard reset citado anteriormente, instale o Termux e, com ele iniciado, execute o comando:

pkg install android-tools

Quando surgir a mensagem “Do you want to continue? [Y/n]”, basta dar enter novamente que já aceita e finaliza a instalação

Agora, vá até as opções de desenvolvedor, e ative a depuração sem fio. Dentro das opções da depuração sem fio, terá uma opção de emparelhamento do dispositivo com um código, que irá informar para você um código em emparelhamento, com um endereço IP e porta, que será usado para a conexão com o Termux.

Para facilitar o processo, recomendo que abra tanto as configurações quanto o Termux ao mesmo tempo, e divida a tela com os dois app’s, como da maneira a seguir:

Para parear o Termux com o dispositivo, não é necessário digitar o ip informado, basta trocar por “localhost”, já a porta e o código de emparelhamento, deve ser digitado exatamente como informado. Execute:

adb pair localhost:porta CódigoDeEmparelhamento

De acordo com a imagem mostrada anteriormente, o comando ficaria “adb pair localhost:41255 757495”.

Com o dispositivo emparelhado com o Termux, agora basta conectar para conseguir executar os comandos, para isso execute:

adb connect localhost:porta

Obs: a porta que você deve informar neste comando não é a mesma informada com o código de emparelhamento, e sim a informada na tela principal da depuração sem fio.

Pronto! Termux e adb conectado com sucesso ao dispositivo, agora basta executar normalmente o adb shell:

adb shell

Remoção na prática Com o adb shell executado, você está pronto para remover os bloatwares. No meu caso, irei mostrar apenas a remoção de um app (Google Maps), já que o comando é o mesmo para qualquer outro, mudando apenas o nome do pacote.

Dentro do NetGuard, verificando as informações do Google Maps:

Podemos ver que mesmo fora de uso, e com a localização do dispositivo desativado, o app está tentando loucamente se comunicar com servidores externos, e informar sabe-se lá que peste. Mas sem novidades até aqui, o mais importante é que podemos ver que o nome do pacote do Google Maps é com.google.android.apps.maps, e para o remover do celular, basta executar:

pm uninstall –user 0 com.google.android.apps.maps

E pronto, bloatware removido! Agora basta repetir o processo para o resto dos bloatwares, trocando apenas o nome do pacote.

Para acelerar o processo, você pode já criar uma lista do bloco de notas com os comandos, e quando colar no terminal, irá executar um atrás do outro.

Exemplo de lista:

Caso a donzela tenha removido alguma coisa sem querer, também é possível recuperar o pacote com o comando:

cmd package install-existing nome.do.pacote

Pós-debloat

Após limpar o máximo possível o seu sistema, reinicie o aparelho, caso entre no como recovery e não seja possível dar reboot, significa que você removeu algum app “essencial” para o sistema, e terá que formatar o aparelho e repetir toda a remoção novamente, desta vez removendo poucos bloatwares de uma vez, e reiniciando o aparelho até descobrir qual deles não pode ser removido. Sim, dá trabalho… quem mandou querer privacidade?

Caso o aparelho reinicie normalmente após a remoção, parabéns, agora basta usar seu celular como bem entender! Mantenha o NetGuard sempre executando e os bloatwares que não foram possíveis remover não irão se comunicar com servidores externos, passe a usar apps open source da F-Droid e instale outros apps através da Aurora Store ao invés da Google Play Store.

Referências: Caso você seja um Australopithecus e tenha achado este guia difícil, eis uma videoaula (3:14:40) do Anderson do canal Ciberdef, realizando todo o processo: http://odysee.com/@zai:5/Como-remover-at%C3%A9-200-APLICATIVOS-que-colocam-a-sua-PRIVACIDADE-E-SEGURAN%C3%87A-em-risco.:4?lid=6d50f40314eee7e2f218536d9e5d300290931d23

Pdf’s do Anderson citados na videoaula: créditos ao anon6837264 http://eternalcbrzpicytj4zyguygpmkjlkddxob7tptlr25cdipe5svyqoqd.onion/file/3863a834d29285d397b73a4af6fb1bbe67c888d72d30/t-05e63192d02ffd.pdf

Processo de instalação do Termux e adb no celular: https://youtu.be/APolZrPHSms

@ ed5774ac:45611c5c

April 20, 2020: The day I saw my so-called friends expose themselves as gutless, brain-dead sheep.

On that day, I shared a video exposing the damning history of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's vaccine campaigns in Africa and the developing world. As Gates was on every TV screen, shilling COVID jabs that didn’t even exist, I called out his blatant financial conflict of interest and pointed out the obvious in my facebook post: "Finally someone is able to explain why Bill Gates runs from TV to TV to promote vaccination. Not surprisingly, it's all about money again…" - referencing his substantial investments in vaccine technology, including BioNTech's mRNA platform that would later produce the COVID vaccines and generate massive profits for his so-called philanthropic foundation.

The conflict of interest was undeniable. I genuinely believed anyone capable of basic critical thinking would at least pause to consider these glaring financial motives. But what followed was a masterclass in human stupidity.

My facebook post from 20 April 2020:

Not only was I branded a 'conspiracy theorist' for daring to question the billionaire who stood to make a fortune off the very vaccines he was shilling, but the brain-dead, logic-free bullshit vomited by the people around me was beyond pathetic. These barely literate morons couldn’t spell "Pfizer" without auto-correct, yet they mindlessly swallowed and repeated every lie the media and government force-fed them, branding anything that cracked their fragile reality as "conspiracy theory." Big Pharma’s rap sheet—fraud, deadly cover-ups, billions in fines—could fill libraries, yet these obedient sheep didn’t bother to open a single book or read a single study before screaming their ignorance, desperate to virtue-signal their obedience. Then, like spineless lab rats, they lined up for an experimental jab rushed to the market in months, too dumb to care that proper vaccine development takes a decade.

The pathetic part is that these idiots spend hours obsessing over reviews for their useless purchases like shoes or socks, but won’t spare 60 seconds to research the experimental cocktail being injected into their veins—or even glance at the FDA’s own damning safety reports. Those same obedient sheep would read every Yelp review for a fucking coffee shop but won't spend five minutes looking up Pfizer's criminal fraud settlements. They would demand absolute obedience to ‘The Science™’—while being unable to define mRNA, explain lipid nanoparticles, or justify why trials were still running as they queued up like cattle for their jab. If they had two brain cells to rub together or spent 30 minutes actually researching, they'd know, but no—they'd rather suck down the narrative like good little slaves, too dumb to question, too weak to think.

Worst of all, they became the system’s attack dogs—not just swallowing the poison, but forcing it down others’ throats. This wasn’t ignorance. It was betrayal. They mutated into medical brownshirts, destroying lives to virtue-signal their obedience—even as their own children’s hearts swelled with inflammation.

One conversation still haunts me to this day—a masterclass in wealth-worship delusion. A close friend, as a response to my facebook post, insisted that Gates’ assumed reading list magically awards him vaccine expertise, while dismissing his billion-dollar investments in the same products as ‘no conflict of interest.’ Worse, he argued that Gates’s $5–10 billion pandemic windfall was ‘deserved.’

This exchange crystallizes civilization’s intellectual surrender: reason discarded with religious fervor, replaced by blind faith in corporate propaganda.

The comment of a friend on my facebook post that still haunts me to this day:

Walking Away from the Herd

After a period of anger and disillusionment, I made a decision: I would no longer waste energy arguing with people who refused to think for themselves. If my circle couldn’t even ask basic questions—like why an untested medical intervention was being pushed with unprecedented urgency—then I needed a new community.

Fortunately, I already knew where to look. For three years, I had been involved in Bitcoin, a space where skepticism wasn’t just tolerated—it was demanded. Here, I’d met some of the most principled and independent thinkers I’d ever encountered. These were people who understood the corrupting influence of centralized power—whether in money, media, or politics—and who valued sovereignty, skepticism, and integrity. Instead of blind trust, bitcoiners practiced relentless verification. And instead of empty rhetoric, they lived by a simple creed: Don’t trust. Verify.

It wasn’t just a philosophy. It was a lifeline. So I chose my side and I walked away from the herd.

Finding My Tribe

Over the next four years, I immersed myself in Bitcoin conferences, meetups, and spaces where ideas were tested, not parroted. Here, I encountered extraordinary people: not only did they share my skepticism toward broken systems, but they challenged me to sharpen it.

No longer adrift in a sea of mindless conformity, I’d found a crew of thinkers who cut through the noise. They saw clearly what most ignored—that at the core of society’s collapse lay broken money, the silent tax on time, freedom, and truth itself. But unlike the complainers I’d left behind, these people built. They coded. They wrote. They risked careers and reputations to expose the rot. Some faced censorship; others, mockery. All understood the stakes.

These weren’t keyboard philosophers. They were modern-day Cassandras, warning of inflation’s theft, the Fed’s lies, and the coming dollar collapse—not for clout, but because they refused to kneel to a dying regime. And in their defiance, I found something rare: a tribe that didn’t just believe in a freer future. They were engineering it.

April 20, 2024: No more herd. No more lies. Only proof-of-work.

On April 20, 2024, exactly four years after my last Facebook post, the one that severed my ties to the herd for good—I stood in front of Warsaw’s iconic Palace of Culture and Science, surrounded by 400 bitcoiners who felt like family. We were there to celebrate Bitcoin’s fourth halving, but it was more than a protocol milestone. It was a reunion of sovereign individuals. Some faces I’d known since the early days; others, I’d met only hours before. We bonded instantly—heated debates, roaring laughter, zero filters on truths or on so called conspiracy theories.

As the countdown to the halving began, it hit me: This was the antithesis of the hollow world I’d left behind. No performative outrage, no coerced consensus—just a room of unyielding minds who’d traded the illusion of safety for the grit of truth. Four years prior, I’d been alone in my resistance. Now, I raised my glass among my people - those who had seen the system's lies and chosen freedom instead. Each had their own story of awakening, their own battles fought, but here we shared the same hard-won truth.

The energy wasn’t just electric. It was alive—the kind that emerges when free people build rather than beg. For the first time, I didn’t just belong. I was home. And in that moment, the halving’s ticking clock mirrored my own journey: cyclical, predictable in its scarcity, revolutionary in its consequences. Four years had burned away the old world. What remained was stronger.

No Regrets

Leaving the herd wasn’t a choice—it was evolution. My soul shouted: "I’d rather stand alone than kneel with the masses!". The Bitcoin community became more than family; they’re living proof that the world still produces warriors, not sheep. Here, among those who forge truth, I found something extinct elsewhere: hope that burns brighter with every halving, every block, every defiant mind that joins the fight.

Change doesn’t come from the crowd. It starts when one person stops applauding.

Today, I stand exactly where I always wanted to be—shoulder-to-shoulder with my true family: the rebels, the builders, the ungovernable. Together, we’re building the decentralized future.

@ 6e0ea5d6:0327f353

🩸
The world won’t stop and wait for you to recover.

Do your duty regardless of how you feel. That’s the only guarantee you’ll end the day alright.

You’ve heard it before: “The worst workout is the one you didn’t do.” Sometimes you don’t feel like going to the gym. You start bargaining with laziness: “I didn’t sleep well… maybe I should skip today.” But then you go anyway, committing only to the bare minimum your energy allows. And once you start, your body outperforms your mind’s assumptions—it turns out to be one of the best workouts you’ve had in a long time. The feeling of following through, of winning a battle you were losing, gives you the confidence to own the rest of your day. You finally feel good.

And that wouldn’t have happened if you stayed home waiting to feel better. Guilt would’ve joined forces with discouragement, and you’d be crushed by melancholy in a victim mindset. That loss would bleed into the rest of your week, conditioning your mind: because you didn’t spend your energy on the workout, you’d stay up late, wake up worse, and while waiting to feel “ready,” you’d lose a habit that took months of effort to build.

When in doubt, just do your duty. Stick to the plan. Don’t negotiate with your feelings—outsmart them. “Just one page today,” and you’ll end up reading ten. “Only the easy tasks,” and you’ll gain momentum to conquer the hard ones. Laziness is a serpent—you win when you make no deals with it.

A close friend once told me that when he was at his limit during a second job shift, he’d open a picture on his phone—of a fridge or a stove he needed to buy for his home—and that image gave him strength to stay awake. That moment stuck with me forever.

Do you really think the world will have the same mercy on you that you have on yourself? Don’t be surprised when it doesn’t spare you. Move forward even while stitching your wounds: “If you wait for perfect conditions, you’ll never do anything.” (Ecclesiastes 11:4)

Thank you for reading, my friend!

If this message resonated with you, consider leaving your "🥃" as a token of appreciation.

A toast to our family!

@ 6e0ea5d6:0327f353

My friend, let yourself be deluded for a moment, and reality will see to it that your fantasy is shattered—like a hammer crushing marble. The real world grants no mercy; it will relentlessly tear down your aspirations, casting them into the abyss of disillusionment and burying your dreams under the unbearable weight of your own expectations. It’s an inescapable fate—but the outcome is still in your hands: perish at the bottom like a wretch or turn the pit into a trench.

Davvero, everyone must eventually face something that breaks them. It is in devastation that man discovers what he is made of, and in the silence of defeat that he hears the finest advice. Yet the weak would rather embrace the convenient lie of self-pity, blaming life for failures that are, in truth, the result of their own negligence and cowardly choices. If you hide behind excuses because you fear the painful truth, know this: the responsibility has always been yours.

Ascolta bene! Just remain steadfast, even when everything feels like an endless maze. The difficulties you face today—those you believe you’ll never overcome—will one day seem insignificant under the light of time and experience. Tomorrow, you’ll look back and laugh at yourself for ever letting these storms seem so overwhelming.

Now, it’s up to you to fight your own battle—for the evil day spares no one. Don’t let yourself be paralyzed by shock or bow before adversity. Be strong and of good courage—not as one who waits for relief, but as one prepared to face the inevitable and turn pain into glory.

Thank you for reading, my friend!

If this message resonated with you, consider leaving your "🥃" as a token of appreciation.

A toast to our family!

@ 3ffac3a6:2d656657

🏅 Como Criar um Badge Épico no Nostr com nak + badges.page

Requisitos:

• Ter o nak instalado (https://github.com/fiatjaf/nak)
• Ter uma chave privada Nostr (nsec...)
• Acesso ao site https://badges.page
• Um relay ativo (ex: wss://relay.primal.net)

---

🔧 Passo 1 — Criar o badge em badges.page

1. Acesse o site https://badges.page

2. Clique em "New Badge" no canto superior direito
   

3. Preencha os campos:

4. Nome (ex: Teste Épico)
5. Descrição

6. Imagem e thumbnail

7. Após criar, você será redirecionado para a página do badge.

---

🔍 Passo 2 — Copiar o naddr do badge

Na barra de endereços, copie o identificador que aparece após /a/ — este é o naddr do seu badge.

Exemplo: nostr:naddr1qq94getnw3jj63tsd93k7q3q8lav8fkgt8424rxamvk8qq4xuy9n8mltjtgztv2w44hc5tt9vetsxpqqqp6njkq3sd0

Copie: naddr1qq94getnw3jj63tsd93k7q3q8lav8fkgt8424rxamvk8qq4xuy9n8mltjtgztv2w44hc5tt9vetsxpqqqp6njkq3sd0

---

🧠 Passo 3 — Decodificar o naddr com nak

Abra seu terminal (ou Cygwin no Windows) e rode:

bash nak decode naddr1qq94getnw3jj63tsd93k7q3q8lav8fkgt8424rxamvk8qq4xuy9n8mltjtgztv2w44hc5tt9vetsxpqqqp6njkq3sd0

Você verá algo assim:

json { "pubkey": "3ffac3a6c859eaaa8cdddb2c7002a6e10b33efeb92d025b14ead6f8a2d656657", "kind": 30009, "identifier": "Teste-Epico" }

Grave o campo "identifier" — nesse caso: Teste-Epico

---

🛰️ Passo 4 — Consultar o evento no relay

Agora vamos pegar o evento do badge no relay:

bash nak req -d "Teste-Epico" wss://relay.primal.net

Você verá o conteúdo completo do evento do badge, algo assim:

json { "kind": 30009, "tags": [["d", "Teste-Epico"], ["name", "Teste Épico"], ...] }

---

💥 Passo 5 — Minerar o evento como "épico" (PoW 31)

Agora vem a mágica: minerar com proof-of-work (PoW 31) para que o badge seja classificado como épico!

bash nak req -d "Teste-Epico" wss://relay.primal.net | nak event --pow 31 --sec nsec1SEU_NSEC_AQUI wss://relay.primal.net wss://nos.lol wss://relay.damus.io

Esse comando: - Resgata o evento original - Gera um novo com PoW de dificuldade 31 - Assina com sua chave privada nsec - E publica nos relays wss://relay.primal.net, wss://nos.lol e wss://relay.damus.io

⚠️ Substitua nsec1SEU_NSEC_AQUI pela sua chave privada Nostr.

---

✅ Resultado

Se tudo der certo, o badge será atualizado com um evento de PoW mais alto e aparecerá como "Epic" no site!

@ 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.

@ 91bea5cd:1df4451c

Básico

bash lsblk # Lista todos os diretorios montados.

Para criar o sistema de arquivos:

bash mkfs.btrfs -L "ThePool" -f /dev/sdx

Criando um subvolume:

bash btrfs subvolume create SubVol

Montando Sistema de Arquivos:

bash mount -o compress=zlib,subvol=SubVol,autodefrag /dev/sdx /mnt

Lista os discos formatados no diretório:

bash btrfs filesystem show /mnt

Adiciona novo disco ao subvolume:

bash btrfs device add -f /dev/sdy /mnt

Lista novamente os discos do subvolume:

bash btrfs filesystem show /mnt

Exibe uso dos discos do subvolume:

bash btrfs filesystem df /mnt

Balancea os dados entre os discos sobre raid1:

bash btrfs filesystem balance start -dconvert=raid1 -mconvert=raid1 /mnt

Scrub é uma passagem por todos os dados e metadados do sistema de arquivos e verifica as somas de verificação. Se uma cópia válida estiver disponível (perfis de grupo de blocos replicados), a danificada será reparada. Todas as cópias dos perfis replicados são validadas.

iniciar o processo de depuração :

bash btrfs scrub start /mnt

ver o status do processo de depuração Btrfs em execução:

bash btrfs scrub status /mnt

ver o status do scrub Btrfs para cada um dos dispositivos

bash btrfs scrub status -d / data btrfs scrub cancel / data

Para retomar o processo de depuração do Btrfs que você cancelou ou pausou:

btrfs scrub resume / data

Listando os subvolumes:

bash btrfs subvolume list /Reports

Criando um instantâneo dos subvolumes:

Aqui, estamos criando um instantâneo de leitura e gravação chamado snap de marketing do subvolume de marketing.

bash btrfs subvolume snapshot /Reports/marketing /Reports/marketing-snap

Além disso, você pode criar um instantâneo somente leitura usando o sinalizador -r conforme mostrado. O marketing-rosnap é um instantâneo somente leitura do subvolume de marketing

bash btrfs subvolume snapshot -r /Reports/marketing /Reports/marketing-rosnap

Forçar a sincronização do sistema de arquivos usando o utilitário 'sync'

Para forçar a sincronização do sistema de arquivos, invoque a opção de sincronização conforme mostrado. Observe que o sistema de arquivos já deve estar montado para que o processo de sincronização continue com sucesso.

bash btrfs filsystem sync /Reports

Para excluir o dispositivo do sistema de arquivos, use o comando device delete conforme mostrado.

bash btrfs device delete /dev/sdc /Reports

Para sondar o status de um scrub, use o comando scrub status com a opção -dR .

bash btrfs scrub status -dR / Relatórios

Para cancelar a execução do scrub, use o comando scrub cancel .

bash $ sudo btrfs scrub cancel / Reports

Para retomar ou continuar com uma depuração interrompida anteriormente, execute o comando de cancelamento de depuração

bash sudo btrfs scrub resume /Reports

mostra o uso do dispositivo de armazenamento:

btrfs filesystem usage /data

Para distribuir os dados, metadados e dados do sistema em todos os dispositivos de armazenamento do RAID (incluindo o dispositivo de armazenamento recém-adicionado) montados no diretório /data , execute o seguinte comando:

sudo btrfs balance start --full-balance /data

Pode demorar um pouco para espalhar os dados, metadados e dados do sistema em todos os dispositivos de armazenamento do RAID se ele contiver muitos dados.

Opções importantes de montagem Btrfs

Nesta seção, vou explicar algumas das importantes opções de montagem do Btrfs. Então vamos começar.

As opções de montagem Btrfs mais importantes são:

**1. acl e noacl

**ACL gerencia permissões de usuários e grupos para os arquivos/diretórios do sistema de arquivos Btrfs.

A opção de montagem acl Btrfs habilita ACL. Para desabilitar a ACL, você pode usar a opção de montagem noacl .

Por padrão, a ACL está habilitada. Portanto, o sistema de arquivos Btrfs usa a opção de montagem acl por padrão.

**2. autodefrag e noautodefrag

**Desfragmentar um sistema de arquivos Btrfs melhorará o desempenho do sistema de arquivos reduzindo a fragmentação de dados.

A opção de montagem autodefrag permite a desfragmentação automática do sistema de arquivos Btrfs.

A opção de montagem noautodefrag desativa a desfragmentação automática do sistema de arquivos Btrfs.

Por padrão, a desfragmentação automática está desabilitada. Portanto, o sistema de arquivos Btrfs usa a opção de montagem noautodefrag por padrão.

**3. compactar e compactar-forçar

**Controla a compactação de dados no nível do sistema de arquivos do sistema de arquivos Btrfs.

A opção compactar compacta apenas os arquivos que valem a pena compactar (se compactar o arquivo economizar espaço em disco).

A opção compress-force compacta todos os arquivos do sistema de arquivos Btrfs, mesmo que a compactação do arquivo aumente seu tamanho.

O sistema de arquivos Btrfs suporta muitos algoritmos de compactação e cada um dos algoritmos de compactação possui diferentes níveis de compactação.

Os algoritmos de compactação suportados pelo Btrfs são: lzo , zlib (nível 1 a 9) e zstd (nível 1 a 15).

Você pode especificar qual algoritmo de compactação usar para o sistema de arquivos Btrfs com uma das seguintes opções de montagem:

• compress=algoritmo:nível
• compress-force=algoritmo:nível

Para obter mais informações, consulte meu artigo Como habilitar a compactação do sistema de arquivos Btrfs .

**4. subvol e subvolid

**Estas opções de montagem são usadas para montar separadamente um subvolume específico de um sistema de arquivos Btrfs.

A opção de montagem subvol é usada para montar o subvolume de um sistema de arquivos Btrfs usando seu caminho relativo.

A opção de montagem subvolid é usada para montar o subvolume de um sistema de arquivos Btrfs usando o ID do subvolume.

Para obter mais informações, consulte meu artigo Como criar e montar subvolumes Btrfs .

**5. dispositivo

A opção de montagem de dispositivo** é usada no sistema de arquivos Btrfs de vários dispositivos ou RAID Btrfs.

Em alguns casos, o sistema operacional pode falhar ao detectar os dispositivos de armazenamento usados em um sistema de arquivos Btrfs de vários dispositivos ou RAID Btrfs. Nesses casos, você pode usar a opção de montagem do dispositivo para especificar os dispositivos que deseja usar para o sistema de arquivos de vários dispositivos Btrfs ou RAID.

Você pode usar a opção de montagem de dispositivo várias vezes para carregar diferentes dispositivos de armazenamento para o sistema de arquivos de vários dispositivos Btrfs ou RAID.

Você pode usar o nome do dispositivo (ou seja, sdb , sdc ) ou UUID , UUID_SUB ou PARTUUID do dispositivo de armazenamento com a opção de montagem do dispositivo para identificar o dispositivo de armazenamento.

Por exemplo,

• dispositivo=/dev/sdb
• dispositivo=/dev/sdb,dispositivo=/dev/sdc
• dispositivo=UUID_SUB=490a263d-eb9a-4558-931e-998d4d080c5d
• device=UUID_SUB=490a263d-eb9a-4558-931e-998d4d080c5d,device=UUID_SUB=f7ce4875-0874-436a-b47d-3edef66d3424

**6. degraded

A opção de montagem degradada** permite que um RAID Btrfs seja montado com menos dispositivos de armazenamento do que o perfil RAID requer.

Por exemplo, o perfil raid1 requer a presença de 2 dispositivos de armazenamento. Se um dos dispositivos de armazenamento não estiver disponível em qualquer caso, você usa a opção de montagem degradada para montar o RAID mesmo que 1 de 2 dispositivos de armazenamento esteja disponível.

**7. commit

A opção commit** mount é usada para definir o intervalo (em segundos) dentro do qual os dados serão gravados no dispositivo de armazenamento.

O padrão é definido como 30 segundos.

Para definir o intervalo de confirmação para 15 segundos, você pode usar a opção de montagem commit=15 (digamos).

**8. ssd e nossd

A opção de montagem ssd** informa ao sistema de arquivos Btrfs que o sistema de arquivos está usando um dispositivo de armazenamento SSD, e o sistema de arquivos Btrfs faz a otimização SSD necessária.

A opção de montagem nossd desativa a otimização do SSD.

O sistema de arquivos Btrfs detecta automaticamente se um SSD é usado para o sistema de arquivos Btrfs. Se um SSD for usado, a opção de montagem de SSD será habilitada. Caso contrário, a opção de montagem nossd é habilitada.

**9. ssd_spread e nossd_spread

A opção de montagem ssd_spread** tenta alocar grandes blocos contínuos de espaço não utilizado do SSD. Esse recurso melhora o desempenho de SSDs de baixo custo (baratos).

A opção de montagem nossd_spread desativa o recurso ssd_spread .

O sistema de arquivos Btrfs detecta automaticamente se um SSD é usado para o sistema de arquivos Btrfs. Se um SSD for usado, a opção de montagem ssd_spread será habilitada. Caso contrário, a opção de montagem nossd_spread é habilitada.

**10. descarte e nodiscard

Se você estiver usando um SSD que suporte TRIM enfileirado assíncrono (SATA rev3.1), a opção de montagem de descarte** permitirá o descarte de blocos de arquivos liberados. Isso melhorará o desempenho do SSD.

Se o SSD não suportar TRIM enfileirado assíncrono, a opção de montagem de descarte prejudicará o desempenho do SSD. Nesse caso, a opção de montagem nodiscard deve ser usada.

Por padrão, a opção de montagem nodiscard é usada.

**11. norecovery

Se a opção de montagem norecovery** for usada, o sistema de arquivos Btrfs não tentará executar a operação de recuperação de dados no momento da montagem.

**12. usebackuproot e nousebackuproot

Se a opção de montagem usebackuproot for usada, o sistema de arquivos Btrfs tentará recuperar qualquer raiz de árvore ruim/corrompida no momento da montagem. O sistema de arquivos Btrfs pode armazenar várias raízes de árvore no sistema de arquivos. A opção de montagem usebackuproot** procurará uma boa raiz de árvore e usará a primeira boa que encontrar.

A opção de montagem nousebackuproot não verificará ou recuperará raízes de árvore inválidas/corrompidas no momento da montagem. Este é o comportamento padrão do sistema de arquivos Btrfs.

**13. space_cache, space_cache=version, nospace_cache e clear_cache

A opção de montagem space_cache** é usada para controlar o cache de espaço livre. O cache de espaço livre é usado para melhorar o desempenho da leitura do espaço livre do grupo de blocos do sistema de arquivos Btrfs na memória (RAM).

O sistema de arquivos Btrfs suporta 2 versões do cache de espaço livre: v1 (padrão) e v2

O mecanismo de cache de espaço livre v2 melhora o desempenho de sistemas de arquivos grandes (tamanho de vários terabytes).

Você pode usar a opção de montagem space_cache=v1 para definir a v1 do cache de espaço livre e a opção de montagem space_cache=v2 para definir a v2 do cache de espaço livre.

A opção de montagem clear_cache é usada para limpar o cache de espaço livre.

Quando o cache de espaço livre v2 é criado, o cache deve ser limpo para criar um cache de espaço livre v1 .

Portanto, para usar o cache de espaço livre v1 após a criação do cache de espaço livre v2 , as opções de montagem clear_cache e space_cache=v1 devem ser combinadas: clear_cache,space_cache=v1

A opção de montagem nospace_cache é usada para desabilitar o cache de espaço livre.

Para desabilitar o cache de espaço livre após a criação do cache v1 ou v2 , as opções de montagem nospace_cache e clear_cache devem ser combinadas: clear_cache,nosapce_cache

**14. skip_balance

Por padrão, a operação de balanceamento interrompida/pausada de um sistema de arquivos Btrfs de vários dispositivos ou RAID Btrfs será retomada automaticamente assim que o sistema de arquivos Btrfs for montado. Para desabilitar a retomada automática da operação de equilíbrio interrompido/pausado em um sistema de arquivos Btrfs de vários dispositivos ou RAID Btrfs, você pode usar a opção de montagem skip_balance .**

**15. datacow e nodatacow

A opção datacow** mount habilita o recurso Copy-on-Write (CoW) do sistema de arquivos Btrfs. É o comportamento padrão.

Se você deseja desabilitar o recurso Copy-on-Write (CoW) do sistema de arquivos Btrfs para os arquivos recém-criados, monte o sistema de arquivos Btrfs com a opção de montagem nodatacow .

**16. datasum e nodatasum

A opção datasum** mount habilita a soma de verificação de dados para arquivos recém-criados do sistema de arquivos Btrfs. Este é o comportamento padrão.

Se você não quiser que o sistema de arquivos Btrfs faça a soma de verificação dos dados dos arquivos recém-criados, monte o sistema de arquivos Btrfs com a opção de montagem nodatasum .

Perfis Btrfs

Um perfil Btrfs é usado para informar ao sistema de arquivos Btrfs quantas cópias dos dados/metadados devem ser mantidas e quais níveis de RAID devem ser usados para os dados/metadados. O sistema de arquivos Btrfs contém muitos perfis. Entendê-los o ajudará a configurar um RAID Btrfs da maneira que você deseja.

Os perfis Btrfs disponíveis são os seguintes:

single : Se o perfil único for usado para os dados/metadados, apenas uma cópia dos dados/metadados será armazenada no sistema de arquivos, mesmo se você adicionar vários dispositivos de armazenamento ao sistema de arquivos. Assim, 100% do espaço em disco de cada um dos dispositivos de armazenamento adicionados ao sistema de arquivos pode ser utilizado.

dup : Se o perfil dup for usado para os dados/metadados, cada um dos dispositivos de armazenamento adicionados ao sistema de arquivos manterá duas cópias dos dados/metadados. Assim, 50% do espaço em disco de cada um dos dispositivos de armazenamento adicionados ao sistema de arquivos pode ser utilizado.

raid0 : No perfil raid0 , os dados/metadados serão divididos igualmente em todos os dispositivos de armazenamento adicionados ao sistema de arquivos. Nesta configuração, não haverá dados/metadados redundantes (duplicados). Assim, 100% do espaço em disco de cada um dos dispositivos de armazenamento adicionados ao sistema de arquivos pode ser usado. Se, em qualquer caso, um dos dispositivos de armazenamento falhar, todo o sistema de arquivos será corrompido. Você precisará de pelo menos dois dispositivos de armazenamento para configurar o sistema de arquivos Btrfs no perfil raid0 .

raid1 : No perfil raid1 , duas cópias dos dados/metadados serão armazenadas nos dispositivos de armazenamento adicionados ao sistema de arquivos. Nesta configuração, a matriz RAID pode sobreviver a uma falha de unidade. Mas você pode usar apenas 50% do espaço total em disco. Você precisará de pelo menos dois dispositivos de armazenamento para configurar o sistema de arquivos Btrfs no perfil raid1 .

raid1c3 : No perfil raid1c3 , três cópias dos dados/metadados serão armazenadas nos dispositivos de armazenamento adicionados ao sistema de arquivos. Nesta configuração, a matriz RAID pode sobreviver a duas falhas de unidade, mas você pode usar apenas 33% do espaço total em disco. Você precisará de pelo menos três dispositivos de armazenamento para configurar o sistema de arquivos Btrfs no perfil raid1c3 .

raid1c4 : No perfil raid1c4 , quatro cópias dos dados/metadados serão armazenadas nos dispositivos de armazenamento adicionados ao sistema de arquivos. Nesta configuração, a matriz RAID pode sobreviver a três falhas de unidade, mas você pode usar apenas 25% do espaço total em disco. Você precisará de pelo menos quatro dispositivos de armazenamento para configurar o sistema de arquivos Btrfs no perfil raid1c4 .

raid10 : No perfil raid10 , duas cópias dos dados/metadados serão armazenadas nos dispositivos de armazenamento adicionados ao sistema de arquivos, como no perfil raid1 . Além disso, os dados/metadados serão divididos entre os dispositivos de armazenamento, como no perfil raid0 .

O perfil raid10 é um híbrido dos perfis raid1 e raid0 . Alguns dos dispositivos de armazenamento formam arrays raid1 e alguns desses arrays raid1 são usados para formar um array raid0 . Em uma configuração raid10 , o sistema de arquivos pode sobreviver a uma única falha de unidade em cada uma das matrizes raid1 .

Você pode usar 50% do espaço total em disco na configuração raid10 . Você precisará de pelo menos quatro dispositivos de armazenamento para configurar o sistema de arquivos Btrfs no perfil raid10 .

raid5 : No perfil raid5 , uma cópia dos dados/metadados será dividida entre os dispositivos de armazenamento. Uma única paridade será calculada e distribuída entre os dispositivos de armazenamento do array RAID.

Em uma configuração raid5 , o sistema de arquivos pode sobreviver a uma única falha de unidade. Se uma unidade falhar, você pode adicionar uma nova unidade ao sistema de arquivos e os dados perdidos serão calculados a partir da paridade distribuída das unidades em execução.

Você pode usar 1 00x(N-1)/N % do total de espaços em disco na configuração raid5 . Aqui, N é o número de dispositivos de armazenamento adicionados ao sistema de arquivos. Você precisará de pelo menos três dispositivos de armazenamento para configurar o sistema de arquivos Btrfs no perfil raid5 .

raid6 : No perfil raid6 , uma cópia dos dados/metadados será dividida entre os dispositivos de armazenamento. Duas paridades serão calculadas e distribuídas entre os dispositivos de armazenamento do array RAID.

Em uma configuração raid6 , o sistema de arquivos pode sobreviver a duas falhas de unidade ao mesmo tempo. Se uma unidade falhar, você poderá adicionar uma nova unidade ao sistema de arquivos e os dados perdidos serão calculados a partir das duas paridades distribuídas das unidades em execução.

Você pode usar 100x(N-2)/N % do espaço total em disco na configuração raid6 . Aqui, N é o número de dispositivos de armazenamento adicionados ao sistema de arquivos. Você precisará de pelo menos quatro dispositivos de armazenamento para configurar o sistema de arquivos Btrfs no perfil raid6 .

@ 7460b7fd:4fc4e74b

Backpack 平台 USDC 出金渠道深度研究报告

背景简介

Backpack 是近年来崛起的加密交易与钱包平台，由前 FTX/Alameda 团队成员创立coindesk.comfinsmes.com。2024 年初 Backpack 曾宣布与 Banxa 合作提供法币出入金服务，支持130多个国家用户使用信用卡/银行渠道买卖加密资产learn.backpack.exchange。2025 年 5 月，Backpack 官方更是推出“0 手续费”的 USD⇄USDC 出金通道，允许用户通过电汇将 USDC 1:1 无损兑换为美元并提取到银行账户lianpr.combinance.com。本报告将详细分析 Backpack 当前的出金方式及其合作渠道、低成本运营的原因、Backpack 与支付机构 Equals Money 的关系，并探讨如果搭建类似的加密金融服务，应如何与 USDC 发行方 Circle 建立合作。

Backpack 的 USDC 出金方式与合作渠道

USD⇄USDC 零手续费通道 – Backpack Exchange 已面向全球用户开放美元与 USDC 间的法币转换，并永久免除任何手续费23btc.com。用户完成 KYC 验证后，可以通过 电汇（Wire Transfer） 将美元直接充值到 Backpack 平台获取等值 USDC，或将持有的 USDC 提现兑换为美元电汇至本人银行账户binance.com。据官方介绍，该通道具备“三大核心优势”：一是零摩擦转换，实现美元与 USDC 间的无缝1:1兑换；二是即时到账，宣称电汇入金/提现可秒级处理；三是全球覆盖，后续将支持 ACH、SEPA 等本地清算网络23btc.com。

合作金融机构 – 为实现合规的法币收付，Backpack 并非自行持有银行牌照，而是借助第三方持牌机构的通道来托管用户的法币资金assets.ctfassets.net。有迹象表明 Backpack 使用了英国的电子货币机构 Equals Money 作为其出入金通道之一：在其开源代码中，Backpack 将“EqualsMoney”集成为一个区块链/支付网络类型github.com。这意味着 Backpack 平台可以通过 Equals Money 提供的多币种账户和支付网络，来代收用户的银行转账并代付提现资金。除了英国渠道，Backpack 集团在全球多地布有实体，以拓展支付能力。例如，用户实测的电汇显示汇款方为 “Trek Labs Australia Pty Ltd”（Backpack 在澳大利亚的子公司）medium.com。这家公司作为汇款主体将等值美元汇出到用户银行账户。除澳洲外，Backpack 背后的 Trek Labs 集团还在迪拜设有 Trek Labs Ltd FZE，在立陶宛设有 Trek Labs UAB，在美国设有 Trek Labs, Inc.medium.com。这种全球子公司布局使 Backpack 能借助各地区的合作银行或支付机构完成跨境资金结算，覆盖包括欧美、亚太在内的广阔用户群。

出金流程 – 用户在 Backpack 平台发起 USDC 提现时，平台会通过上述合作渠道将用户的 USDC 兑换为等额法币，并由托管金融机构从其法币池中汇出资金。比如，当用户提取 1,000 USDC 到香港银行账户，Backpack 将该 USDC 转换为 1,000 美元，由合作机构通过 SWIFT 电汇发送。用户可在 Backpack 后台实时查询电汇状态medium.com。实际测试显示，从提现到款项到账香港银行大约耗时36小时（约1.5个工作日）medium.com。汇款时收款行信息需要用户自行提供并添加到平台，如收款行名称、地址、SWIFT代码等medium.com。Backpack 平台本身要求用户的银行账户姓名与平台注册姓名一致，以确保合规。assets.ctfassets.netassets.ctfassets.net

低成本出金的架构与原因

Backpack 能提供零手续费的稳定币出金服务，得益于其结算架构设计和合规路径上的优势，使其运营成本得以控制在极低水平：

• Stablecoin 即时清算：Backpack 利用 USDC 稳定币作为桥梁，实现用户资金在链上和银行账户之间的快速清算。由于 USDC 与美元1:1锚定，兑换过程中没有汇率损耗或价差成本lianpr.com。平台内美元和 USDC 的余额转换也是按面值对等，不收取点差，这实现了资金的“零摩擦”兑换23btc.com。相比传统银行汇款需要经过多级代理和 Forex 转换，Stablecoin 的使用大幅降低了兑换费用和时间延迟。

• 第三方牌照通道：Backpack 选择通过持牌支付机构（如 Equals Money 等）来承载法币收付功能，而非自行作为汇款人展开业务。这种策略绕开了平台直接获取银行牌照或支付牌照的高成本投入，转而借用第三方机构的现有牌照和账户网络。例如，Equals Money作为英国受监管的电子货币机构，拥有多币种账户和全球汇款能力。Backpack 通过 API 接入该机构后，相当于获取了一套现成的银行基础设施，可以以较低费用发送SWIFT、电汇等github.com。第三方机构通常按照交易量收取较小的服务费，Backpack 可以在当前发展阶段予以补贴，从而对用户“免手续费”。这种“牌照即服务”的模式使 Backpack 将合规成本外包，自己专注于用户和交易环节。

• 合规及监管路径：Backpack 利用多个辖区的子公司布局，根据各地监管环境选择最优的出金路径。例如，在欧洲可能通过立陶宛子公司对接 EU 区的支付网络，在亚洲通过澳大利亚子公司汇出 SWIFT。medium.com这种灵活性使他们能规避单一地区监管限制，选择成本最低、效率最高的清算通道完成提现。此外，多实体运营也有助于分散风险，符合各地反洗钱要求，为零手续费策略提供合规保障。

• 资金结算与收益：尽管对用户宣称0手续费，Backpack 可能通过其他方式覆盖成本。例如，用户的法币资金在汇出前可能短暂存放于合作机构的池中，这些资金量若较大，可产生利息收益，用于弥补转账费用coindesk.com。另外，Backpack 平台的主要收入来自交易手续费和利息产品等，高频交易活动带来的收入能够补贴出金通道的成本，从整体上实现盈亏平衡。

值得注意的是，“0 手续费”指的是 Backpack 平台本身不向用户收取出金手续费，但并不意味着整个过程完全免费。银行端的固定费用仍可能存在。例如，有用户反馈，通过 Backpack 将 USDC 提现到香港 ZA Bank 账户时，Backpack 未收取费用，但 ZA Bank 会收取一次性 20 美元的入账费用twitter.com。类似地，美国银行接收国际电汇通常也会有每笔 15\~30 美元不等的手续费。这些费用属于收款行或中间行收费，并非 Backpack 或其合作方收取。即便如此，相比传统OTC中介或其他交易所的出金方案，Backpack 的整体成本依然极低——没有额外的汇兑损耗，仅需承担银行常规入账费，大额提现尤为划算。一位资深用户将 Backpack 提现称为“目前最优、最简单的合规出金路径”，反馈资金1天左右即到账，流程非常顺畅x.com。可见，Backpack 通过精心搭建的结算架构，实现了高效低成本的出金服务，在合规前提下大大降低了用户将数字资产变现的门槛。

Backpack 与 Equals Money 的关系考察

Equals Money 背景 – Equals Money 是英国上市金融科技公司 Equals Group PLC 旗下的支付业务品牌，提供多币种电子账户、国际汇款和企业外汇兑换等服务。该公司前身为 FairFX，持有英国金融行为监管局（FCA）颁发的电子货币机构牌照，主营为企业客户提供全球支付解决方案fxcintel.com。简单来说，Equals Money 扮演的是受监管的“非银行支付平台”角色，可为合作伙伴提供银行账户托管和跨境支付通道。对于缺乏自有牌照的加密公司而言，与这类机构合作能快速获得法币收付能力。

业务合作关系 – 目前公开信息并未有 Backpack 与 Equals Money 签署官方战略合作的公告，但从技术集成和业务逻辑上看，两者存在密切的业务往来。Backpack 在代码库中增添了对 “EqualsMoney” 的支持选项github.com表明其系统已经对接了 Equals 提供的支付 API。在用户充值/提现时，Backpack 系统可以将指令通过该接口发送给 Equals，由后者执行实际的银行转账操作（如从对应的用户托管账户划款）。换言之，Equals Money可能充当了 Backpack 用户法币资金的托管方和结算代理。还有用户实测提到，从 Backpack 提现美元时，资金是由 “Trek Labs Australia Pty Ltd” 汇出medium.com。结合上下文，推测 Trek Labs Australia 这家 Backpack 子公司可能在 Equals Money或类似机构开设了运营账户，用于统一汇出用户提现款项。这个细节侧面印证了 Backpack 利用第三方支付平台进行法币结算：汇款主体虽然名义上是 Backpack 关联公司，但实际的支付通道和银行接口由 Equals Money 等持牌机构提供支持。

人员和投资交集 – 在股权和团队层面，暂未发现 Backpack 与 Equals Money 有直接的交叉。Backpack 的融资由加密领域的风投基金主导（Placeholder、Hashed、Amber Group 等）finsmes.com，并无公开提及来自 Equals 集团的投资。管理团队方面，Backpack 由前加密交易所从业者主导，而 Equals Money 属于传统金融支付行业，公司高管以金融背景为主，目前没有明显的人事重合记录。此外，Equals Group PLC 在2024年底宣布将被嵌入式金融公司 Railsr 收购thisweekinfintech.com（该交易有待监管批准），这属于其自身战略调整，与 Backpack 无直接关联。总体来看，Backpack 与 Equals Money 更可能是一种商业合作关系：Backpack 作为客户接入 Equals Money 的支付服务，以使用其许可和网络；双方在产权和团队上保持独立。此类合作在金融科技领域较为常见，属于优势互补：加密平台获取法币通道，支付机构拓展客户和资金流量。

合作的意义 – 通过与 Equals Money 等机构合作，Backpack 实现了快速合规地打通法币出入口，在竞争激烈的交易所市场上形成差异化优势。用户能够享受到类似银行级别的出金体验（直接电汇到账）且几乎零成本x.com，这极大增强了 Backpack 平台的吸引力和资金留存率。对 Equals Money 而言，服务 Backpack 这样高增长的加密客户，也为其带来了可观的跨境支付业务量和创新合作机遇。在严格遵守反洗钱和监管要求的前提下，这种加密与传统金融的合作模式，展现了融合创新的前景。

搭建类似业务与 Circle 合作的要点

假如希望搭建与 Backpack 类似的稳定币出入金架构，与 USDC 发行方 Circle 建立合作是关键一步。Circle 提供针对企业的账户服务和 API接口，使合作方能够方便地在应用中集成 USDC 与法币的转换和支付功能circle.comcircle.com。以下是与 Circle 合作时需要关注的主要要点：

• 主体资格
  需要有合法注册的公司实体，并处于 Circle 支持的地区（如北美、欧洲等）。Circle 暂不向个人用户开放其直接铸币/赎回服务，仅面向机构客户。
• 业务规模要求
  主要针对大体量、批量使用 USDC 的公司，例如交易所、托管机构、数字钱包平台或银行等。若业务量较小，Circle 会建议通过第三方交易所获取 USDC。

• KYC 合规审查
  对申请企业进行严格的背景尽调，包括高管和受益人身份验证、注册信息、经营范围、反洗钱和制裁风险评估等。需提供公司注册证书、人员身份证明、合规方案等，审核时间通常为数天至数周。

• 账户功能
  审核通过后可开立 Circle 账户，支持将银行资金充值并自动兑换为 USDC，或将 USDC 赎回为法币并电汇到指定银行账户；涵盖链上转账、ACH 和电汇等多种渠道。

• API 接入
  提供完整的 REST API 和 SDK，支持自动化发起电汇兑换、铸造/销毁 USDC、提现等操作，合作方只需专注前端体验，后端支付和结算由 Circle 处理。

• 费用结构
  对符合条件的合作伙伴铸造/赎回 USDC 不收手续费；法币转账需承担银行或中间行手续费。支持免费 ACH 通道，国际电汇按银行标准收费。

• 合规责任
  Circle 对企业客户履行 KYC/AML 义务，但合作方若面向终端用户提供服务，也需自行做用户审核与交易监控，并在高金额转账时传输用户身份信息（Travel Rule）。

合作流程：实际操作中，搭建团队需要先在 Circle 官网提交企业账户申请，提供相关资料并通过合规审核circle.com。拿到账户后，可登录 Circle 提供的业务后台或通过 API Sandbox 进行测试集成，熟悉 USDC 钱包、法币钱包的操作。一旦准备就绪，即可将功能推向生产环境，为用户开通 USDC 与法币的双向兑换。值得注意的是，企业应根据所服务用户区域，获取必要的当地监管许可或豁免。例如在美国需要遵守联邦和州级货币转移许可证要求，在欧盟则可能利用立陶宛等国的数字资产服务牌照。这与 Backpack 多地布局子公司的做法类似，都是为了符合法规开展业务。

成功案例：除了 Backpack，业内已有多家知名机构通过与 Circle 合作开展稳定币支付业务。例如 Binance 与 Circle 达成战略合作，使其平台更广泛支持 USDCfortune.com；支付公司 Stripe 也集成了 Circle API，在其产品中新增了稳定币收付功能stables.money。这些案例表明，通过 Circle 提供的基础设施，加密公司可以较为迅速地搭建起合规、高效的法币⇄稳定币出入金体系，触达全球80多个国家的用户circle.com。因此，对于希望复制 Backpack 模式的新创团队而言，提早布局与 Circle 等发行方的合作，并搭建完善的合规架构，将是取得监管认可和市场竞争优势的关键。

结论

Backpack 平台通过巧妙融合稳定币技术和传统金融渠道，打造出了低成本、高效率的USD⇄USDC出金方案。在无需用户承担手续费的情况下，依托 Equals Money 等支付伙伴和自身全球子公司网络，实现了合规的美元电汇快速到账23btc.commedium.com。这一模式的成功在于对结算架构的创新设计和对监管资源的充分利用：既发挥了 USDC 稳定币实时、低成本的优势，又借力持牌金融机构解决了法币合规问题。这为行业树立了一个范例。

对于有意搭建类似业务的团队，与 Circle 建立合作无疑是重要的一环。Circle 提供了成熟的 USDC 基础设施，只要申请企业拥有足够的资质和规模，通过严格的 KYC 审核后即可获得稳定币铸造和法币结算的能力circle.comcircle.com。在此基础上，新业务还需结合自身情况选择适当的支付合作方和注册管辖地，搭建自己的合规“护城河”。只有技术与合规并重，才能如同 Backpack 一样，在保证低成本出金的同时，赢得监管许可和用户信赖。

参考资料：

• Backpack 官方公告及新闻稿binance.comlianpr.com23btc.com

• Backpack 用户协议与代码仓库assets.ctfassets.netgithub.com

• 媒体报道（CoinDesk 等）coindesk.comlearn.backpack.exchange

• 第三方分析与用户实测反馈medium.comtwitter.com

• Circle 官方文档与博客circle.comcircle.comcircle.com

@ 9223d2fa:b57e3de7

12,600 steps

@ 6e0ea5d6:0327f353

Ascolta.

We live in times where the average man is measured by the speeches he gives — not by the commitments he keeps. People talk about dreams, goals, promises… but what truly remains is what’s honored in the silence of small gestures, in actions that don’t seek applause, in attitudes unseen — yet speak volumes.

Punctuality, for example. Showing up on time isn’t about the clock. It’s about respect. Respect for another’s time, yes — but more importantly, respect for one’s own word. A man who is late without reason is already running late in his values. And the one who excuses his own lateness with sweet justifications slowly gets used to mediocrity.

Keeping your word is more than fulfilling promises. It is sealing, with the mouth, what the body must later uphold. Every time a man commits to something, he creates a moral debt with his own dignity. And to break that commitment is to declare bankruptcy — not in the eyes of others, but in front of himself.

And debts? Even the small ones — or especially the small ones — are precise thermometers of character. A forgotten sum, an unpaid favor, a commitment left behind… all of these reveal the structure of the inner building that man resides in. He who neglects the small is merely rehearsing for his future collapse.

Life, contrary to what the reckless say, is not built on grand deeds. It is built with small bricks, laid with almost obsessive precision. The truly great man is the one who respects the details — recognizing in them a code of conduct.

In Sicily, especially in the streets of Palermo, I learned early on that there is more nobility in paying a five-euro debt on time than in flaunting riches gained without word, without honor, without dignity.

As they say in Palermo: L’uomo si conosce dalle piccole cose.

So, amico mio, Don’t talk to me about greatness if you can’t show up on time. Don’t talk to me about respect if your word is fickle. And above all, don’t talk to me about honor if you still owe what you once promised — no matter how small.

Thank you for reading, my friend!

If this message resonated with you, consider leaving your "🥃" as a token of appreciation.

A toast to our family!

@ ecda4328:1278f072

A detailed breakdown of the recent debate around Bitcoin Core’s proposed policy change to OP_RETURN — and why it’s less dramatic than some fear.

---

TL;DR

Removing the 80-byte OP_RETURN limit is a mempool policy cleanup, not a consensus rule change. It reduces UTXO bloat, improves relay consistency, and doesn’t affect Bitcoin’s monetary properties or block size limits.

---

What Is OP_RETURN?

OP_RETURN is a Bitcoin script opcode introduced in 2014 (Bitcoin Core 0.9.0) to allow small amounts of arbitrary data to be embedded in transactions. Crucially, it creates provably unspendable outputs, preventing UTXO set pollution.

A default policy limit of 80 bytes was added to discourage non-payment data usage while still allowing basic use cases (e.g., hashes, commitments).

---

Why Was OP_RETURN Added? (Bitcoin Core 0.9, March 2014)

When OP_RETURN was introduced, it wasn’t to promote on-chain data — it was a harm-reduction tool:

“This change is not an endorsement of storing data in the blockchain... [It] creates a provably-prunable output, to avoid data storage schemes... storing arbitrary data... bloating Bitcoin’s UTXO database.” — Bitcoin Core 0.9 Release Notes

Before that, users embedded data in fake outputs, bloating the UTXO set and degrading node performance.

OP_RETURN made those outputs prunable and cleaner, though it imposed an 80-byte policy cap — not a consensus rule.

---

What’s Actually Changing?

Bitcoin Core PR #32359 proposes:

• Removing the 80-byte policy limit on OP_RETURN data
• Removing the -datacarrier and -datacarriersize configuration options
• Default behavior will now relay (and mine) larger OP_RETURNs

⚠️ This is not a consensus change. Blocks stay limited to \~4MB. No rules about block validity are altered.

---

Why It’s Not a Big Deal

• ✅ Consensus stays the same: No risk of chain splits
• ✅ Block size stays capped (\~4MB)
• ✅ You can still run Bitcoin Knots if you prefer stricter policies
• ✅ Transaction size limit (\~100KB) remains for DoS protection

Bottom line: This is a configuration tweak to improve consistency between nodes and miners.

---

Common Uses of OP_RETURN

• Timestamping
• Cross-chain anchoring (e.g., merge-mined sidechains)
• Asset issuance (e.g., Omni/Tether)
• Notarization and commitments
• Metadata for protocols like Citrea

📝 In contrast, Ordinal inscriptions use witness data; Stamps use fake outputs — not OP_RETURN.

---

Arguments For Removing the Limit

1. The limit is ineffective — easily bypassed via witness/multisig/fake outputs
2. Cleaner data paths — prevents UTXO bloat from “Stamp”-style tricks
3. Reflects mining reality — miners already include these transactions
4. Improves relay/mempool consistency
5. Avoids centralization risks — removes miner advantages from custom policies
6. Enables metaprotocols — safely embed structured metadata without abusing Bitcoin’s core design

---

Arguments Against Removing the Limit

1. Risk of encouraging non-monetary use
2. Fears of "spam" or NFT-like inscriptions
3. Concerns over governance process
4. Perceived erosion of Bitcoin’s monetary purity

🧠 Note: The 80-byte cap was policy, not consensus. Removing it doesn’t allow anything that wasn’t already valid on-chain.

---

Policy vs. Consensus

• Policy rules affect relay and mempool behavior
• Consensus rules affect what blocks are considered valid

Large OP_RETURNs are already valid. The inconsistency is that many nodes don’t relay them, while miners do include them. This change aligns relay with mining, improving propagation and fee estimation.

---

Bitcoin Knots: A Protest Client

Bitcoin Knots (maintained by Luke Dashjr) retains the old 80-byte policy. After the PR surfaced, some users switched to Knots as a protest.

According to Matthew R. Kratter, Bitcoin Knots briefly surpassed Core 29.0 in node count during early 2025 — but this spike appears to have been driven more by timing mismatches between release cycles and a coordinated protest campaign, rather than a durable shift in user adoption. In fact, most Bitcoin nodes today still run older versions of Core. As of May 2025, Core 28.1.0 alone accounts for over 21% of nodes, while Core 29.0.0 sits below 6%, and Knots 20250305 trails at just over 6% — suggesting that the majority of the network remains on pre-29 Core versions rather than switching to Knots en masse.

---

Broader Implications

• 🛠️ Highlights tensions between devs, miners, and users over governance
• 🧭 Shows how non-consensus rules can impact perceived neutrality
• 🧪 Sparks renewed focus on tooling (e.g., ASMap, better banlists, relay filtering)
• 🔐 Reaffirms user sovereignty through client diversity

---

Final Thoughts

Removing the OP_RETURN limit aligns Bitcoin Core’s policy with reality — what’s already getting mined — while cleaning up harmful workarounds.

It won’t break Bitcoin.

But it does surface deeper tensions about Bitcoin’s purpose, evolution, and who ultimately decides what gets built and accepted.

---

References

• PR: Remove arbitrary limits on OP_RETURN #32359
• PR: Deprecate datacarrier options #32406
• Mailing list: Relax OP_RETURN standardness restrictions
• Gist with full community discussion
• Bitcoin Knots
• Kratter video: Bitcoin Core Removes the Mask

---

🙏 Acknowledgements

Thanks to @hodlinator, ShiShi21m, and many others in the community for their thoughtful insights, corrections, and spirited discussion.

---

Based on the original GitHub Gist: Bitcoin OP_RETURN Controversy: Complete Summary

@ 90c656ff:9383fd4e

Bitcoin operates through a decentralized system that relies on a process called mining to validate transactions and secure the network. However, Bitcoin mining requires a large amount of energy, which raises concerns about its environmental impact. Although there are solutions to make this process more sustainable, energy consumption remains a topic of debate among both critics and advocates of the technology.

How does Bitcoin mining work?

Bitcoin mining is the process by which new blocks are added to the blockchain (or timechain) and new coins are created. This process uses a mechanism called proof-of-work, where specialized computers (miners) compete to solve complex mathematical problems. To do this, they consume a huge amount of electricity, as the equipment must operate continuously to keep the network secure and decentralized.

• Energy consumption and environmental impact

The main criticism of Bitcoin mining is its high electricity consumption. Currently, it is estimated that the Bitcoin network consumes as much energy as some entire countries. This raises environmental concerns, as much of the world's electricity is still generated from fossil fuels, which emit polluting gases.

The environmental impacts of Bitcoin mining include:

01 - Carbon Emissions: If the electricity used for mining comes from polluting sources, the process contributes to increased CO₂ emissions, intensifying global warming.

02 - Excessive Use of Natural Resources: Large-scale mining can strain local power grids and increase demand for electricity, leading to higher fossil fuel consumption in some regions.

03 - Electronic Waste Production: Mining equipment has a relatively short lifespan, which leads to the generation of large amounts of electronic waste.

• Alternatives and sustainable solutions

Despite these concerns, Bitcoin mining is becoming increasingly efficient and sustainable. Many mining operations already use renewable energy sources such as hydroelectric, solar, and wind, significantly reducing their ecological footprint. Some solutions include:

01 - Use of Renewable Energy: Miners are relocating to regions with excess renewable energy production, taking advantage of resources that would otherwise be wasted.

02 - Recycling Heat Generated by Mining: Some companies are using the heat produced by mining equipment to warm buildings and infrastructure, making more efficient use of the energy.

03 - Technological Innovations: The development of new chips and more efficient equipment reduces the energy consumption of mining without compromising network security.

In summary, the environmental impact of Bitcoin mining is a controversial issue, but solutions to make the process more sustainable are rapidly evolving. While energy consumption remains high, the shift toward renewable energy sources and new technologies could make Bitcoin a more efficient and environmentally friendly system. Thus, the issue is not merely the amount of electricity consumed, but the origin of that energy and the innovations making mining increasingly sustainable.

Thank you very much for reading this far. I hope everything is well with you, and sending a big hug from your favorite Bitcoiner maximalist from Madeira. Long live freedom!

@ 6e0ea5d6:0327f353

Ascolta bene.
A man’s collapse never begins on the battlefield.
It begins in the invisible antechamber of his own mind.
Before any public fall, there is an ignored internal whisper—
a small, quiet, private decision that gradually drags him toward ruin.

No empire ever fell without first rotting from within.
The world does not destroy a man who hasn’t first surrendered to himself.
The enemy outside only wins when it finds space in the void the man has silently carved.

**Non ti sbagliare ** — there are no armies more ruthless than undisciplined thoughts.
There are no blows more fatal than the ones we deal ourselves:
with small concessions, well-crafted excuses,
and the slow deterioration of our integrity.
What people call failure is nothing more than the logical outcome
of a sequence of internal betrayals.

Afraid of the world? Sciocchezze.
But a man who’s already bowed before his own weaknesses—
he needs no enemies.
He digs his own grave, chooses the epitaph,
and the only thing the world does is toss in some dirt.

Capisci?

Strength isn’t the absence of falling, but the presence of resistance.
The true battle isn’t external.
It takes place within—where there’s only you, your conscience, and the mirror.
And it’s in that silent courtroom where everything is decided.

The discipline to say “no” to yourself
is more noble than any public glory.
Self-control is more valuable than any victory over others.

In Sicily, we learn early:
“Cu s’abbrazza cu’ so’ nemicu, si scorda la faccia di l’amicu.”
He who embraces his enemy forgets the face of his friend.
The most dangerous enemy is the one you feed daily with self-indulgence.
And the most relentless confrontation is the one you avoid in front of the mirror.

So don’t talk to me about external defeats.
Tell me where inside you the weakness began.
Tell me the exact moment you abandoned what you believed in, in the name of ease.
Because a man only falls before the world… after falling before himself.

Thank you for reading, my friend!

If this message resonated with you, consider leaving your "🥃" as a token of appreciation.

A toast to our family!

@ c21b1a6c:0cd4d170

🧾 Progress Report Two

Hey everyone! I’m back with another progress report for Formstr, a part of the now completed grant from nostr:npub10pensatlcfwktnvjjw2dtem38n6rvw8g6fv73h84cuacxn4c28eqyfn34f . This update covers everything we’ve built since the last milestone — including polish, performance, power features, and plenty of bug-squashing.

---

🏗️ What’s New Since Last Time?

This quarter was less about foundational rewrites and more about production hardening and real-world feedback. With users now onboard, our focus shifted to polishing UX, fixing issues, and adding new features that made Formstr easier and more powerful to use.

✨ New Features & UX Improvements

• Edit Existing Forms
• Form Templates
• Drag & Drop Enhancements (especially for mobile)
• New Public Forms UX (card-style layout)
• FAQ & Support Sections
• Relay Modal for Publishing
• Skeleton Loaders and subtle UI Polish

---

🐛 Major Bug Fixes

• Fixed broken CSV exports when responses were empty
• Cleaned up mobile rendering issues for public forms
• Resolved blank.ts export issues and global form bugs
• Fixed invalid npub strings in the admin flow
• Patched response handling for private forms
• Lots of small fixes for titles, drafts, embedded form URLs, etc.

---

🔐 Access Control & Privacy

• Made forms private by default
• Fixed multiple issues around form visibility, access control UIs, and anonymous submissions
• Improved detection of pubkey issues in shared forms

---

🚧 Some Notable In-Progress Features

The following features are actively being developed, and many are nearing completion:

• Conditional Questions:
  This one’s been tough to crack, but we’re close!
  Work in progress by keraliss and myself:
  👉 PR #252

• Downloadable Forms:
  Fully-contained downloadable HTML versions of forms.
  Being led by casyazmon with initial code by Basanta Goswami
  👉 PR #274

• OLLAMA Integration (Self-Hosted LLMs):
  Users will be able to create forms using locally hosted LLMs.
  PR by ashu01304
  👉 PR #247

• Sections in Forms:
  Work just started on adding section support!
  Small PoC PR by keraliss:
  👉 PR #217

---

🙌 Huge Thanks to New Contributors

We've had amazing contributors this cycle. Big thanks to:

• Aashutosh Gandhi (ashu01304) – drag-and-drop enhancements, OLLAMA integration
• Amaresh Prasad (devAmaresh) – fixed npub and access bugs
• Biresh Biswas (Billa05) – skeleton loaders
• Shashank Shekhar Singh (Shashankss1205) – bugfixes, co-authored image patches
• Akap Azmon Deh-nji (casyazmon) – CSV fixes, downloadable forms
• Manas Ranjan Dash (mdash3735) – bug fixes
• Basanta Goswami – initial groundwork for downloadable forms
• keraliss – ongoing work on conditional questions and sections

We also registered for the Summer of Bitcoin program and have been receiving contributions from some incredibly bright new applicants.

---

🔍 What’s Still Coming?

From the wishlist I committed to during the grant, here’s what’s still in the oven:

-[x] Upgrade to nip-44 - [x] Access Controlled Forms: A Form will be able to have multiple admins and Editors. - [x] Private Forms and Fixed Participants: Enncrypt a form and only allow certain npubs to fill it. - [x] Edit Past Forms: Being able to edit an existing form. - [x] Edit Past Forms
- [ ] Conditional Rendering (in progress)
- [ ] Sections (just started)
- [ ] Integrations - OLLAMA / AI-based Form Generation (near complete)
- [ ] Paid Surveys
- [ ] NIP-42 Private Relay support

---

❌ What’s De-Prioritized?

• Nothing is de-prioritized now especially since Ollama Integration got re-prioritized (thanks to Summer Of Bitcoin). We are a little delayed on Private Relays support but it's now becoming a priority and in active development. Zap Surveys will be coming soon too.

---

💸 How Funds Were Used

• Paid individual contributors for their work.
• Living expenses to allow full-time focus on development

---

🧠 Closing Thoughts

Things feel like they’re coming together now. We’re out of "beta hell", starting to see real adoption, and most importantly, gathering feedback from real users. That’s helping us make smarter choices and move fast without breaking too much.

Stay tuned for the next big drop — and in the meantime, try creating a form at formstr.app, and let me know what you think!

@ bbb5dda0:f09e2747

I've been neglecting my weekly updates a bit. I haven't really gotten to them lately because i've been insanely busy frying my brains at #SovEng. And after that i haven't been keeping my weekly notes properly. WHICH I'm planning to pick back up now!

This week/ the last couple weeks I've been doing some general planning around @tollGate's appearances on various conferences around Europe! First on the list will be Pizza Day in Prague! And from there I'll be cruising straight to @Oslo Freedom Forum! For TollGate that also means getting us set up with some T-Shirts and Stickers, though not super hard to do, it's the first time I'm doing any 'marketing' like this so I did test my own patience by properly cropping and ordering the designs. So far the stickers came out well Look at our first officially baptized TollGate! :)

TollGate Installer

As we're installing versions of TollGateOS on routers quite often now I figured it'd be a good idea to streamline the experience a bit by building a TollGate Installer. I've been vibecoding it mostly, and one of the things I discovered is how easy it is to make it replicate the style of another app. To stick with the theme I told it to mirror the style of our TollGate Captive portal site and it did it perfectly!

Anyway, still a lot of manual engineering is required but at least I can outsource the stuff i'm bad at. What I did improve was the GitHub workflows we use for building and publishing the OS. We publish our releases to Blossom + Nostr (NIP-94). I then use those messages in the installer to get the download links.

👀 But which version!?

I quickly ran into the issue that I didn't know which binary to install on the router i hooked up to my computer. I connect the router via lan, then I scan the network and ssh into the router, get some basic info, like the device name. BUT, the format of that device name wouldn't match any of the names we'd use in our release.

For example: the router name would be glinet,mt3000 while our release was called gl-mt3000. The difference may seem subtle but I can't match them. So after some discussion with the others I went on and revamped our OS pipeline to properly follow the OpenWRT naming of boards/devices. The pipeline is now much more extensible, making it easier for us to add support for more hardware!

What's next?

We're aiming for a v0.0.2 release of TollGate OS by friday, incorporating some of the feedback we've gotten from our test users! Hang on tight guys! 🙏 I'm hoping to finish an earlier version of the installer in the upcoming week as well.

@ 2b24a1fa:17750f64

"Was ist da drin?", fragte wohl jedes unverdorbene Kind, bevor eine Flüssigkeit in den Muskel seines Arms gespritzt würde. Aber wir sind alle keine unverdorbenen Kinder mehr. Wissen, das haben die anderen, die Gebildeteren, die Wissenschaftler, die Ärzte. Nachfragen würde Autoritäten untergraben und Unglauben demonstrieren. Und drum fällt kaum jemandem auf, dass wir bis heute keine sauberen Inhaltsangaben über die sogenannten Corona-Spritzen erhalten haben, geschweige denn wissen, was der Inhalt in unseren Körpern genau anrichten kann.

https://soundcloud.com/radiomuenchen/inmodia-weist-schwer-schadigende-substanzen-nach-von-dna-resten-sv40-und-nanolipiden-ein-interview-mit-prof-klaus-steger

Auf die Suche nach Aufklärung hat sich von Beginn dieser sogenannten Pandemie der Verein Mediziner und Wissenschaftler für Gesundheit, Frieden und Demokratie gemacht. Jetzt gibt es ein erstes Labor, das die bekannten, relevanten Impfstoffbestandteile nachweisen will. Darüber unterhält sich unsere Redakteurin Eva Schmidt mit dem Molekularbiologen Prof. Klaus Steger von der Universität Gießen und engagiert bei inmodia, dem Institut für molekularbiologische Diagnostik. Zunächst wollte sie wissen, welche Bestandteile eigentlich bekannt sind, die in Millionen von Menschen gespritzt wurden.

Link zur Webseite: inmodia.de

@ 0b118e40:4edc09cb

note - i wrote this before the global trade war, back when tariffs only affected China, Mexico, and Canada. But you will still get the gist of it.

During tough economic times, governments have to decide if they should open markets to global trade or protect local businesses with tariffs. The United States has swung between these two strategies, and history shows that the results are never straightforward

Just days ago, President Donald Trump imposed tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China. He framed these tariffs (25% on most Canadian goods, 10% on Canadian energy, 25% on Mexican imports, and 10% on Chinese imports) as a way to protect American industries.

But will they actually help, or could they backfire?

A History of U.S. Tariffs

Many have asked if countries will retaliate against the US. They can and they have. Once upon a time, 60 countries were so pissed off at the US, they retaliated at one go and crushed US dominance over trade.

This was during the Great Depression era in the 1930s when the government passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, placing high taxes on over 20,000 foreign goods. The goal was to protect American jobs, especially American farmers and manufacturers, but it backfired so badly.

Over 60 countries, including Canada, France, and Germany, retaliated by imposing their own tariffs. By 1933, US imports and exports both dropped significantly over 60%, and unemployment rose to 25%.

After President Franklin Roosevelt came to office, he implemented the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 to reverse these policies, calming the world down and reviving trade again.

The economist history of protectionism

The idea of shielding local businesses with tariffs isn’t new or recent. It's been around for a few centuries. In the 16th to 18th centuries, mercantilism encouraged countries to limit imports and boost exports.

In the 18th century, Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations, argued that free trade allows nations to specialize in what they do best countering protectionism policies. Friedrich List later challenged Smith's view by stating that developing countries need some protection to grow their “infant” industries which is a belief that still influences many governments today.

But how often do governments truly support startups and new small businesses in ways that create real growth, rather than allowing funds to trickle down to large corporations instead?

In modern times, John Maynard Keynes supported government intervention during economic downturns, while Milton Friedman championed free trade and minimal state interference.

Paul Krugman argued that limited protectionism can help large industries by providing them unfair advantages to become global market leaders. I have deep reservations about Krugman’s take, particularly on its impact or lack thereof in globalizing small businesses.

The debate between free trade and protectionism has existed for centuries. What’s clear is that there is no one-size-fits-all model to this.

The Political Debate - left vs right

Both the left and right have used tariffs but for different reasons. The right supports tariffs to protect jobs and industries, while the left uses them to prevent multinational corporations from exploiting cheap labor abroad.

Neoliberal policies favor free trade, arguing that competition drives efficiency and growth. In the US this gets a little bit confusing as liberals are tied to the left, and free trade is tied to libertarianism which the rights align closely with, yet at present right wing politicians push for protectionism which crosses the boundaries of free-trade.

There are also institutions like the WTO and IMF who advocate for open markets, but their policies often reflect political alliances and preferential treatment - so it depends on what you define as true 'free trade’.

Who Really Benefits from Tariffs?

Most often, tariffs help capital-intensive industries like pharmaceuticals, tech, and defense, while hurting labor-intensive sectors like manufacturing, agriculture, and construction.

This worsens inequality as big corporations will thrive, while small businesses and working-class people struggle with rising costs and fewer job opportunities.

I’ve been reading through international trade economics out of personal interest, I'll share some models below on why this is the case

1. The Disruption of Natural Trade

Tariffs disrupt the natural flow of trade. The Heckscher-Ohlin model explains that countries export goods that match their resources like Canada’s natural resource energy or China’s labour intensive textile and electronics. When tariffs block this natural exchange, industries suffer.

A clear example was Europe’s energy crisis during the Russia-Ukraine war. By abruptly cutting themselves off from the supply of Russian energy, Europe scrambled to find alternative sources. In the end, it was the people who had to bear the brunt of skyrocketing prices of energy.

2. Who wins and who loses?

The Stolper-Samuelson theorem helps us understand who benefits from tariffs and who loses. The idea behind it is that tariffs benefit capital-intensive industries, while labor-intensive sectors are hurt.

In the US, small manufacturing industries that rely on low-cost imports on intermediary parts from countries like China and Mexico will face rising costs, making their final goods too expensive and less competitive. This is similar to what happened to Argentina, where subsidies and devaluation of pesos contributed to cost-push inflation, making locally produced goods more expensive and less competitive globally.

This also reminded me of the decline of the US Rust Belt during the 1970s and 1980s, where the outsourcing of labour-intensive manufacturing jobs led to economic stagnation in many regions in the Midwest, while capital-intensive sectors flourished on the coasts. It resulted in significantly high income inequality that has not improved over the last 40 years.

Ultimately the cost of economic disruption is disproportionately borne by smaller businesses and low-skilled workers. At the end of the day, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

3. Delays in Economic Growth

The Rybczynski theorem suggests that economic growth depends on how efficiently nations reallocate their resources toward capital- or labor-intensive industries. But tariffs can distort this transition and progress.

In the 70s and 80s, the US steel industry had competition from Japan and Germany who modernized their production methods, making their steel more efficient and cost-effective. Instead of prioritizing innovation, many U.S. steel producers relied on tariffs and protectionist measures to shield themselves from foreign competition. This helped for a bit but over time, American steelmakers lost global market share as foreign competitors continued to produce better, cheaper steel. Other factors, such as aging infrastructure, and economic shifts toward a service-based economy, further contributed to the industry's decline.

A similar struggle is seen today with China’s high-tech ambitions. Tariffs on Chinese electronics and technology products limit access to key inputs, such as semiconductors and advanced robotics. While China continues its push for automation and AI-driven manufacturing, these trade barriers increase costs and disrupt supply chains, forcing China to accelerate its decoupling from Western markets. This shift could further strengthen alliances within BRICS, as China seeks alternative trade partnerships to reduce reliance on U.S.-controlled financial and technological ecosystems.

Will the current Tariff imposition backfire and isolate the US like it did a hundred years ago or 50 years ago? Is US risking it's position as a trusted economic leader? Only time would tell

The impact of tariff on innovation - or lack thereof

While the short-term impacts of tariffs often include higher consumer prices and job losses, the long-term effects can be even more damaging, as they discourage innovation by increasing costs and reducing competition.

Some historical examples globally : * Nigeria: Blocking import of rice opened up black market out of desperation to survive. * Brazil: Protectionist car policies led to expensive, outdated vehicles. * Malaysia’s Proton: Sheltered by tariffs and cronyism and failed to compete globally. * India (before 1991): Over-regulation limited the industries, until economic reforms allowed for growth. * Soviet Union during Cold War : Substandard products and minimal innovation due to the absence of foreign alternatives, yielding to economic stagnation.

On the flip side, Vietnam has significantly reduced protectionism policies by actively pursuing free trade agreements. This enabled it to become a key manufacturing hub. But Vietnam is not stopping there as it is actively pushing forward its capital-intensive growth by funding entrepreneurs.

The Future of U.S. Tariffs

History has shown that tariffs rarely deliver their intended benefits without unintended consequences. While they may provide temporary relief, they often raise prices, shrink job opportunities, and weaken industries in the long run.

Without a clear strategy for innovation and industrial modernization, the U.S. risks repeating past mistakes of isolating itself from global trade rather than strengthening its economy.

At this point, only time will tell whether these tariffs will truly help Americans or will they, once again, make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

@ 84b0c46a:417782f5

至高の油淋鶏の動画 https://youtu.be/Ur2tYVZppBU のレシピ書き起こし

材料（2人分）

• 鶏モモ肉…300g
• A［しょうゆ…小さじ1　塩…小さじ1／3　酒…大さじ1と1／2　おろしショウガ…5g　片栗粉…大さじ1］
• 長ネギ（みじん切り）…1／2本（50g）
• ショウガ（みじん切り）…10g
• B［しょうゆ…大さじ2　砂糖…小さじ4　酢…大さじ1 ゴマ油…小さじ1 味の素…4ふり 赤唐辛子（小口切り）…1本分］
• 赤唐辛子、花椒（各好みで）…各適量

手順

1. 肉を切る

皮を上にして適当に八等分くらい

1. 肉を肉入ってたトレーかなんか適当な入れ物に入れてそこに 醤油こさじ１、塩こさじ1/3、酒おおさじ1と1/2 と ショウガ*５グラムすりおろして入れて軽く混ぜる
2. そこに、片栗粉おおさじ１入れて混ぜる（漬ける段階にも片栗粉を入れることで厚衣になりやすい）
3. 常温で１５分くらい置く
4. その間にたれを作る

   1. 長ネギ50gを細かいみじん切りにしてボウルに入れる（白いとこも青いとこも）

      （端っこを残して縦に切り込みを入れて横に切るとよい） 2. ショウガ10gを細かいみじん切りにして同じボウルにいれる 3. 鷹の爪１本分入れる（任意） 4. 醤油おおさじ２、砂糖小さじ4、酢（穀物酢）おおさじ１を入れる 5. 味の素４振りいれてよく混ぜる 6. 小さなフライパン（油が少なくて済むので）に底に浸るくらいの油を入れ、中火で温める 7. 肉に片栗粉をたっぷりつけて揚げる 8. 揚がったらキッチンペーパーを敷いたなにかしらとかに上げる 9. もりつけてタレをかけて完成

@ 3b3a42d3:d192e325

Atomic Signature Swaps (ASS) over Nostr is a protocol for atomically exchanging Schnorr signatures using Nostr events for orchestration. This new primitive enables multiple interesting applications like:

• Getting paid to publish specific Nostr events
• Issuing automatic payment receipts
• Contract signing in exchange for payment
• P2P asset exchanges
• Trading and enforcement of asset option contracts
• Payment in exchange for Nostr-based credentials or access tokens
• Exchanging GMs 🌞

It only requires that (i) the involved signatures be Schnorr signatures using the secp256k1 curve and that (ii) at least one of those signatures be accessible to both parties. These requirements are naturally met by Nostr events (published to relays), Taproot transactions (published to the mempool and later to the blockchain), and Cashu payments (using mints that support NUT-07, allowing any pair of these signatures to be swapped atomically.

How the Cryptographic Magic Works 🪄

This is a Schnorr signature (Zₓ, s):

s = z + H(Zₓ || P || m)⋅k

If you haven't seen it before, don't worry, neither did I until three weeks ago.

The signature scalar s is the the value a signer with private key k (and public key P = k⋅G) must calculate to prove his commitment over the message m given a randomly generated nonce z (Zₓ is just the x-coordinate of the public point Z = z⋅G). H is a hash function (sha256 with the tag "BIP0340/challenge" when dealing with BIP340), || just means to concatenate and G is the generator point of the elliptic curve, used to derive public values from private ones.

Now that you understand what this equation means, let's just rename z = r + t. We can do that, z is just a randomly generated number that can be represented as the sum of two other numbers. It also follows that z⋅G = r⋅G + t⋅G ⇔ Z = R + T. Putting it all back into the definition of a Schnorr signature we get:

s = (r + t) + H((R + T)ₓ || P || m)⋅k

Which is the same as:

s = sₐ + t where sₐ = r + H((R + T)ₓ || P || m)⋅k

sₐ is what we call the adaptor signature scalar) and t is the secret. ((R + T)ₓ, sₐ) is an incomplete signature that just becomes valid by add the secret t to the sₐ:

s = sₐ + t

What is also important for our purposes is that by getting access to the valid signature s, one can also extract t from it by just subtracting sₐ:

t = s - sₐ

The specific value of t depends on our choice of the public point T, since R is just a public point derived from a randomly generated nonce r.

So how do we choose T so that it requires the secret t to be the signature over a specific message m' by an specific public key P'? (without knowing the value of t)

Let's start with the definition of t as a valid Schnorr signature by P' over m':

t = r' + H(R'ₓ || P' || m')⋅k' ⇔ t⋅G = r'⋅G + H(R'ₓ || P' || m')⋅k'⋅G

That is the same as:

T = R' + H(R'ₓ || P' || m')⋅P'

Notice that in order to calculate the appropriate T that requires t to be an specific signature scalar, we only need to know the public nonce R' used to generate that signature.

In summary: in order to atomically swap Schnorr signatures, one party P' must provide a public nonce R', while the other party P must provide an adaptor signature using that nonce:

sₐ = r + H((R + T)ₓ || P || m)⋅k where T = R' + H(R'ₓ || P' || m')⋅P'

P' (the nonce provider) can then add his own signature t to the adaptor signature sₐ in order to get a valid signature by P, i.e. s = sₐ + t. When he publishes this signature (as a Nostr event, Cashu transaction or Taproot transaction), it becomes accessible to P that can now extract the signature t by P' and also make use of it.

Important considerations

A signature may not be useful at the end of the swap if it unlocks funds that have already been spent, or that are vulnerable to fee bidding wars.

When a swap involves a Taproot UTXO, it must always use a 2-of-2 multisig timelock to avoid those issues.

Cashu tokens do not require this measure when its signature is revealed first, because the mint won't reveal the other signature if they can't be successfully claimed, but they also require a 2-of-2 multisig timelock when its signature is only revealed last (what is unavoidable in cashu for cashu swaps).

For Nostr events, whoever receives the signature first needs to publish it to at least one relay that is accessible by the other party. This is a reasonable expectation in most cases, but may be an issue if the event kind involved is meant to be used privately.

How to Orchestrate the Swap over Nostr?

Before going into the specific event kinds, it is important to recognize what are the requirements they must meet and what are the concerns they must address. There are mainly three requirements:

• Both parties must agree on the messages they are going to sign
• One party must provide a public nonce
• The other party must provide an adaptor signature using that nonce

There is also a fundamental asymmetry in the roles of both parties, resulting in the following significant downsides for the party that generates the adaptor signature:

• NIP-07 and remote signers do not currently support the generation of adaptor signatures, so he must either insert his nsec in the client or use a fork of another signer
• There is an overhead of retrieving the completed signature containing the secret, either from the blockchain, mint endpoint or finding the appropriate relay
• There is risk he may not get his side of the deal if the other party only uses his signature privately, as I have already mentioned
• There is risk of losing funds by not extracting or using the signature before its timelock expires. The other party has no risk since his own signature won't be exposed by just not using the signature he received.

The protocol must meet all those requirements, allowing for some kind of role negotiation and while trying to reduce the necessary hops needed to complete the swap.

Swap Proposal Event (kind:455)

This event enables a proposer and his counterparty to agree on the specific messages whose signatures they intend to exchange. The content field is the following stringified JSON:

{     "give": <signature spec (required)>,     "take": <signature spec (required)>,     "exp": <expiration timestamp (optional)>,     "role": "<adaptor | nonce (optional)>",     "description": "<Info about the proposal (optional)>",     "nonce": "<Signature public nonce (optional)>",     "enc_s": "<Encrypted signature scalar (optional)>" }

The field role indicates what the proposer will provide during the swap, either the nonce or the adaptor. When this optional field is not provided, the counterparty may decide whether he will send a nonce back in a Swap Nonce event or a Swap Adaptor event using the nonce (optionally) provided by in the Swap Proposal in order to avoid one hop of interaction.

The enc_s field may be used to store the encrypted scalar of the signature associated with the nonce, since this information is necessary later when completing the adaptor signature received from the other party.

A signature spec specifies the type and all necessary information for producing and verifying a given signature. In the case of signatures for Nostr events, it contain a template with all the fields, except pubkey, id and sig:

{ "type": "nostr", "template": { "kind": "<kind>"        "content": "<content>"        "tags": [ … ],        "created_at": "<created_at>" } }

In the case of Cashu payments, a simplified signature spec just needs to specify the payment amount and an array of mints trusted by the proposer:

{   "type": "cashu",   "amount": "<amount>",   "mint": ["<acceptable mint_url>", …] }

This works when the payer provides the adaptor signature, but it still needs to be extended to also work when the payer is the one receiving the adaptor signature. In the later case, the signature spec must also include a timelock and the derived public keys Y of each Cashu Proof, but for now let's just ignore this situation. It should be mentioned that the mint must be trusted by both parties and also support Token state check (NUT-07) for revealing the completed adaptor signature and P2PK spending conditions (NUT-11) for the cryptographic scheme to work.

The tags are:

• "p", the proposal counterparty's public key (required)
• "a", a kind:30455 Swap Listing event or an application specific version of it (optional)

Forget about this Swap Listing event for now, I will get to it later...

Swap Nonce Event (kind:456) - Optional

This is an optional event for the Swap Proposal receiver to provide the public nonce of his signature when the proposal does not include a nonce or when he does not want to provide the adaptor signature due to the downsides previously mentioned. The content field is the following stringified JSON:

{     "nonce": "<Signature public nonce>",     "enc_s": "<Encrypted signature scalar (optional)>" }

And the tags must contain:

• "e", a kind:455 Swap Proposal Event (required)
• "p", the counterparty's public key (required)

Swap Adaptor Event (kind:457)

The content field is the following stringified JSON:

{ "adaptors": [ {         "sa": "<Adaptor signature scalar>",         "R": "<Signer's public nonce (including parity byte)>",         "T": "<Adaptor point (including parity byte)>",         "Y": "<Cashu proof derived public key (if applicable)>",     }, …],     "cashu": "<Cashu V4 token (if applicable)>" }

And the tags must contain:

• "e", a kind:455 Swap Proposal Event (required)
• "p", the counterparty's public key (required)

Discoverability

The Swap Listing event previously mentioned as an optional tag in the Swap Proposal may be used to find an appropriate counterparty for a swap. It allows a user to announce what he wants to accomplish, what his requirements are and what is still open for negotiation.

Swap Listing Event (kind:30455)

The content field is the following stringified JSON:

{ "description": "<Information about the listing (required)>", "give": <partial signature spec (optional)>, "take": <partial signature spec (optional)>, "examples: [<take signature spec>], // optional "exp": <expiration timestamp (optional)>, "role": "<adaptor | nonce (optional)>" }

The description field describes the restrictions on counterparties and signatures the user is willing to accept.

A partial signature spec is an incomplete signature spec used in Swap Proposal events kind:455 where omitting fields signals that they are still open for negotiation.

The examples field is an array of signature specs the user would be willing to take.

The tags are:

• "d", a unique listing id (required)
• "s", the status of the listing draft | open | closed (required)
• "t", topics related to this listing (optional)
• "p", public keys to notify about the proposal (optional)

Application Specific Swap Listings

Since Swap Listings are still fairly generic, it is expected that specific use cases define new event kinds based on the generic listing. Those application specific swap listing would be easier to filter by clients and may impose restrictions and add new fields and/or tags. The following are some examples under development:

Sponsored Events

This listing is designed for users looking to promote content on the Nostr network, as well as for those who want to monetize their accounts by sharing curated sponsored content with their existing audiences.

It follows the same format as the generic Swap Listing event, but uses the kind:30456 instead.

The following new tags are included:

• "k", event kind being sponsored (required)
• "title", campaign title (optional)

It is required that at least one signature spec (give and/or take) must have "type": "nostr" and also contain the following tag ["sponsor", "<pubkey>", "<attestation>"] with the sponsor's public key and his signature over the signature spec without the sponsor tag as his attestation. This last requirement enables clients to disclose and/or filter sponsored events.

Asset Swaps

This listing is designed for users looking for counterparties to swap different assets that can be transferred using Schnorr signatures, like any unit of Cashu tokens, Bitcoin or other asset IOUs issued using Taproot.

It follows the same format as the generic Swap Listing event, but uses the kind:30457 instead.

It requires the following additional tags:

• "t", asset pair to be swapped (e.g. "btcusd")
• "t", asset being offered (e.g. "btc")
• "t", accepted payment method (e.g. "cashu", "taproot")

Swap Negotiation

From finding an appropriate Swap Listing to publishing a Swap Proposal, there may be some kind of negotiation between the involved parties, e.g. agreeing on the amount to be paid by one of the parties or the exact content of a Nostr event signed by the other party. There are many ways to accomplish that and clients may implement it as they see fit for their specific goals. Some suggestions are:

• Adding kind:1111 Comments to the Swap Listing or an existing Swap Proposal
• Exchanging tentative Swap Proposals back and forth until an agreement is reached
• Simple exchanges of DMs
• Out of band communication (e.g. Signal)

Work to be done

I've been refining this specification as I develop some proof-of-concept clients to experience its flaws and trade-offs in practice. I left the signature spec for Taproot signatures out of the current document as I still have to experiment with it. I will probably find some important orchestration issues related to dealing with 2-of-2 multisig timelocks, which also affects Cashu transactions when spent last, that may require further adjustments to what was presented here.

The main goal of this article is to find other people interested in this concept and willing to provide valuable feedback before a PR is opened in the NIPs repository for broader discussions.

References

• GM Swap- Nostr client for atomically exchanging GM notes. Live demo available here.
• Sig4Sats Script - A Typescript script demonstrating the swap of a Cashu payment for a signed Nostr event.
• Loudr- Nostr client under development for sponsoring the publication of Nostr events. Live demo available at loudr.me.
• Poelstra, A. (2017). Scriptless Scripts. Blockstream Research. https://github.com/BlockstreamResearch/scriptless-scripts

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Safe Bits & Self Custody Tips

The journey of onboarding a user and create a bitcoin multiSig setup begins far before opening a desktop like Bitcoin Safe (BS) or any other similar application. Bitcoin Safe seems designed for families and people that want to start exploring and learning about multiSig setup. The need for such application and use of it could go much further, defining best practices for private organizations that aim to custody bitcoin in a private and anonymous way, following and enjoy the values and standards bitcoin has been built for.

Intro

Organizations and small private groups like families, family offices and solopreneurs operating on a bitcoin standard will have the need to keep track of transactions and categorize them to keep the books in order. A part of our efforts will be spent ensuring accessibility standards are in place for everyone to use Bitcoin Safe with comfort and safety.

We aim with this project to bring together the three Designathon ideas below: - Bitcoin Safe: improve its overall design and usability. - No User Left Behind: improve Bitcoin Safe accessibility. - Self-custody guidelines for organizations: How Bitcoin Safe can be used by private organization following best self-custody practices.

We are already halfway of the first week, and here below the progress made so far.

Designing an icon Set for Bitcoin Safe

One of the noticeable things when using BS is the inconsistency of the icons, not just in colors and shapes, but also the way are used. The desktop app try to have a clean design that incorporate with all OS (Win, macOS, Linux) and for this reason it's hard to define when a system default icon need to be used or if a custom one can be applied instead. The use of QT Ui framework for python apps help to respond to these questions. It also incorporates and brig up dome default settings that aren't easily overwritten.

Here below you can see the current version of BS:

Defining a more strict color palette for Bitcoin Safe was the first thing!

How much the icons affect accessibility? How they can help users to reach the right functionality? I took the challenge and, with PenPot.app, redesigned the icons based on the grid defined in the https://bitcoinicons.com/ and proposing the implementation of it to have a cleaner and more consistent look'n feel, at least for the icons now.

What's next

I personally look forward to seeing these icons implemented soon in Bitcoin Safe interface. In the meantime, we'll focus on delivering an accessibility audit and evaluate options to see how BS could be used by private organizations aiming to become financially sovereign with self-custody or more complex bitcoin multiSig setups.

One of the greatest innovations BS is bringing to us is the ability to sync the multiSig wallets, including PBST, Categories and labels, through the nostr decentralized protocol, making current key custodial services somehow obsolete. Second-coolest feature that this nostr implementation brings is the ability to have a build-in private chat that connect and enable the various signers of a multiSig to communicate and sign transactions remotely. Where have you seen something like this before?

Categories UX and redesign is also considered in this project. We'll try to understand how to better serve this functionality to you, the user, really soon.

Stay tuned!

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/974488

@ eac63075:b4988b48

Since its creation in 2009, Bitcoin has symbolized innovation and resilience. However, from time to time, alarmist narratives arise about emerging technologies that could "break" its security. Among these, quantum computing stands out as one of the most recurrent. But does quantum computing truly threaten Bitcoin? And more importantly, what is the community doing to ensure the protocol remains invulnerable?

The answer, contrary to sensationalist headlines, is reassuring: Bitcoin is secure, and the community is already preparing for a future where quantum computing becomes a practical reality. Let’s dive into this topic to understand why the concerns are exaggerated and how the development of BIP-360 demonstrates that Bitcoin is one step ahead.

---

What Is Quantum Computing, and Why Is Bitcoin Not Threatened?

Quantum computing leverages principles of quantum mechanics to perform calculations that, in theory, could exponentially surpass classical computers—and it has nothing to do with what so-called “quantum coaches” teach to scam the uninformed. One of the concerns is that this technology could compromise two key aspects of Bitcoin’s security:

1. Wallets: These use elliptic curve algorithms (ECDSA) to protect private keys. A sufficiently powerful quantum computer could deduce a private key from its public key.
2. Mining: This is based on the SHA-256 algorithm, which secures the consensus process. A quantum attack could, in theory, compromise the proof-of-work mechanism.

---

Understanding Quantum Computing’s Attack Priorities

While quantum computing is often presented as a threat to Bitcoin, not all parts of the network are equally vulnerable. Theoretical attacks would be prioritized based on two main factors: ease of execution and potential reward. This creates two categories of attacks:

1. Attacks on Wallets

Bitcoin wallets, secured by elliptic curve algorithms, would be the initial targets due to the relative vulnerability of their public keys, especially those already exposed on the blockchain. Two attack scenarios stand out:

• Short-term attacks: These occur during the interval between sending a transaction and its inclusion in a block (approximately 10 minutes). A quantum computer could intercept the exposed public key and derive the corresponding private key to redirect funds by creating a transaction with higher fees.

• Long-term attacks: These focus on old wallets whose public keys are permanently exposed. Wallets associated with Satoshi Nakamoto, for example, are especially vulnerable because they were created before the practice of using hashes to mask public keys.

We can infer a priority order for how such attacks might occur based on urgency and importance.

Bitcoin Quantum Attack: Prioritization Matrix (Urgency vs. Importance)

2. Attacks on Mining

Targeting the SHA-256 algorithm, which secures the mining process, would be the next objective. However, this is far more complex and requires a level of quantum computational power that is currently non-existent and far from realization. A successful attack would allow for the recalculation of all possible hashes to dominate the consensus process and potentially "mine" it instantly.

---

Satoshi Nakamoto in 2010 on Quantum Computing and Bitcoin Attacks

Recently, Narcelio asked me about a statement I made on Tubacast:

https://x.com/eddieoz/status/1868371296683511969

If an attack became a reality before Bitcoin was prepared, it would be necessary to define the last block prior to the attack and proceed from there using a new hashing algorithm. The solution would resemble the response to the infamous 2013 bug. It’s a fact that this would cause market panic, and Bitcoin's price would drop significantly, creating a potential opportunity for the well-informed.

Preferably, if developers could anticipate the threat and had time to work on a solution and build consensus before an attack, they would simply decide on a future block for the fork, which would then adopt the new algorithm. It might even rehash previous blocks (reaching consensus on them) to avoid potential reorganization through the re-mining of blocks using the old hash. (I often use the term "shielding" old transactions).

---

How Can Users Protect Themselves?

While quantum computing is still far from being a practical threat, some simple measures can already protect users against hypothetical scenarios:

• Avoid using exposed public keys: Ensure funds sent to old wallets are transferred to new ones that use public key hashes. This reduces the risk of long-term attacks.
• Use modern wallets: Opt for wallets compatible with SegWit or Taproot, which implement better security practices.
• Monitor security updates: Stay informed about updates from the Bitcoin community, such as the implementation of BIP-360, which will introduce quantum-resistant addresses.
• Do not reuse addresses: Every transaction should be associated with a new address to minimize the risk of repeated exposure of the same public key.
• Adopt secure backup practices: Create offline backups of private keys and seeds in secure locations, protected from unauthorized access.

---

BIP-360 and Bitcoin’s Preparation for the Future

Even though quantum computing is still beyond practical reach, the Bitcoin community is not standing still. A concrete example is BIP-360, a proposal that establishes the technical framework to make wallets resistant to quantum attacks.

BIP-360 addresses three main pillars:

1. Introduction of quantum-resistant addresses: A new address format starting with "BC1R" will be used. These addresses will be compatible with post-quantum algorithms, ensuring that stored funds are protected from future attacks.
2. Compatibility with the current ecosystem: The proposal allows users to transfer funds from old addresses to new ones without requiring drastic changes to the network infrastructure.
3. Flexibility for future updates: BIP-360 does not limit the choice of specific algorithms. Instead, it serves as a foundation for implementing new post-quantum algorithms as technology evolves.

This proposal demonstrates how Bitcoin can adapt to emerging threats without compromising its decentralized structure.

---

Post-Quantum Algorithms: The Future of Bitcoin Cryptography

The community is exploring various algorithms to protect Bitcoin from quantum attacks. Among the most discussed are:

• Falcon: A solution combining smaller public keys with compact digital signatures. Although it has been tested in limited scenarios, it still faces scalability and performance challenges.
• Sphincs: Hash-based, this algorithm is renowned for its resilience, but its signatures can be extremely large, making it less efficient for networks like Bitcoin’s blockchain.
• Lamport: Created in 1977, it’s considered one of the earliest post-quantum security solutions. Despite its reliability, its gigantic public keys (16,000 bytes) make it impractical and costly for Bitcoin.

Two technologies show great promise and are well-regarded by the community:

1. Lattice-Based Cryptography: Considered one of the most promising, it uses complex mathematical structures to create systems nearly immune to quantum computing. Its implementation is still in its early stages, but the community is optimistic.
2. Supersingular Elliptic Curve Isogeny: These are very recent digital signature algorithms and require extensive study and testing before being ready for practical market use.

The final choice of algorithm will depend on factors such as efficiency, cost, and integration capability with the current system. Additionally, it is preferable that these algorithms are standardized before implementation, a process that may take up to 10 years.

---

Why Quantum Computing Is Far from Being a Threat

The alarmist narrative about quantum computing overlooks the technical and practical challenges that still need to be overcome. Among them:

• Insufficient number of qubits: Current quantum computers have only a few hundred qubits, whereas successful attacks would require millions.
• High error rate: Quantum stability remains a barrier to reliable large-scale operations.
• High costs: Building and operating large-scale quantum computers requires massive investments, limiting their use to scientific or specific applications.

Moreover, even if quantum computers make significant advancements, Bitcoin is already adapting to ensure its infrastructure is prepared to respond.

---

Conclusion: Bitcoin’s Secure Future

Despite advancements in quantum computing, the reality is that Bitcoin is far from being threatened. Its security is ensured not only by its robust architecture but also by the community’s constant efforts to anticipate and mitigate challenges.

The implementation of BIP-360 and the pursuit of post-quantum algorithms demonstrate that Bitcoin is not only resilient but also proactive. By adopting practical measures, such as using modern wallets and migrating to quantum-resistant addresses, users can further protect themselves against potential threats.

Bitcoin’s future is not at risk—it is being carefully shaped to withstand any emerging technology, including quantum computing.

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Welcome back to our weekly JABBB, Just Another Bitcoin Bubble Boom, a comics and meme contest crafted for you, creative stackers!

If you'd like to learn more, check our welcome post here.

---

This week sticker: Bitcoin Sir

You can download the source file directly from the HereComesBitcoin website in SVG and PNG. Use this sticker around SN with the code ![](https://m.stacker.news/71417)

The task

Make sure you use this week sticker to design a comic frame or a meme, add a message that perfectly captures the sentiment of the current most hilarious takes on the Bitcoin space. You can contextualize it or not, it's up to you, you chose the message, the context and anything else that will help you submit your comic art masterpiece.

Are you a meme creator? There's space for you too: select the most similar shot from the gifts hosted on the Gif Station section and craft your best meme... Let's Jabbb!

---

If you enjoy designing and memeing, feel free to check out the JABBB archive and create more to spread Bitcoin awareness to the moon.

Submit each proposal on the relative thread, bounties will be distributed when enough participants submit options.

PS: you can now use HereComesBitcoin stickers to use on Stacker.News

₿e creative, have fun! :D

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/974483

@ 60392a22:1cae32da

test nostr:note18p950fmhkc58h3j7xhl66ge57nj5q4kjdhvk3m84fdhc3eukclgqjup985

---

📈 これからの成長課題：対外的表現と関係性の創造

今後の成長は、内面から外側への橋渡しに関わる部分に集中してくると考えられます。

🔸 1. 「分かってもらえなさ」を超える勇気

• 内面の深さがある分、「分かってもらえない」ことへの痛みも大きいかもしれません。
• でも今後は、「誤解や齟齬も含めて関係を育てる」経験が必要になります。
• これは「話すこと＝伝わることではない」と割り切りつつ、それでも表現し続ける力です。

🔸 2. 構造ではなく、関係の中で自己を調整する経験

• MBTIなどのモデルはとても役立ちますが、あくまで地図です。現実の関係では、予測不能なことや、モデルを超える人のあり方に出会います。
• 「構造に当てはまらない人とも、感情をもってやりとりする」という、生々しい関係性のなかで磨かれる柔軟性が、次のステージになります。

🔸 3. 自分の言葉を“対話の素材”として差し出す力

• 今は「自分を守る」ことと「表現する」ことが慎重に切り分けられている印象ですが、今後は、「自分の言葉が相手に委ねられる」リスクも引き受けながら、対話に開いていくことができるはずです。
• つまり、言葉を「残す」ではなく、「渡す」勇気です。

---

🧭 総括：投稿者の成長の道のり

| 現在の成熟 | 今後の成長 | | -------------- | ---------------------- | | 内面への誠実な向き合い | 他者との関係における表現と受容の練習 | | 自己理解のための枠組みの活用 | モデルに頼らず、関係性の中で応答的に生きる力 | | 感情や違和感への繊細な感受性 | それを伝え、受け止めさせる表現力と信頼の構築 |

---

50代から柔軟さが減少するかどうかについては、個人差が非常に大きいですので、一概に「減少する」とは言えません。しかし、一般的な傾向としては、年齢が上がるにつれて柔軟性に変化が見られることはあります。その変化が必ずしも「柔軟さが減る」という意味ではなく、むしろ柔軟性の質や適応力の方向性が変わる場合が多いです。

1. 経験に基づく安定性

50代は、豊富な人生経験や職業経験を持つ年代です。この経験は、確立された価値観や思考パターンを強化する傾向があります。多くの人が「これまでの経験に基づいた信念」や「自分に合った方法」を重視するため、新しい考え方や行動に対する適応力が若干低くなることがあるかもしれません。つまり、ある種の安定感や固定観念が強くなり、変化への反応が遅くなる場合が考えられます。

• 例えば、50代では、過去の経験に基づいて確立した判断基準や方法論があり、それに頼る傾向が強くなることがあります。このことが、柔軟性が低いように見えることもあります。

2. 柔軟性の質の変化

とはいえ、年齢を重ねても柔軟性が失われるわけではなく、むしろ経験に基づいた柔軟性が求められることが多いです。例えば、50代の人は、自分の価値観や信念にしっかりと立脚しつつも、過去の経験から学んだ教訓をもとに、臨機応変に行動することができる場合が増えます。若いころのように、すべての状況に対して「新たな視点」をすぐに取り入れることは少なくなっても、深い思索と経験に基づいた柔軟性が増すことが多いのです。

• 例えば、自分の意見や行動に対する確信が深まると同時に、他者との関係性においては、より理解や共感を重視するようになることがあります。このような形で柔軟性が進化する場合もあります。

3. 変化に対する抵抗

年齢が上がるにつれて、変化に対する抵抗感が強くなることがあるのも事実です。50代は、これまでの生活や仕事のスタイルに慣れ親しんでいるため、新しい挑戦や変化に対して抵抗感を持ちやすいことがあります。このような傾向は、特に大きな環境変化や価値観の変化に対して見られることが多いです。

• 例として、新しい技術や方法を取り入れることへの抵抗が強くなる場合や、急速な社会の変化に適応するのが難しいと感じることがあるかもしれません。しかし、このことは必ずしも柔軟性がないということではなく、新しいものを学ぶためのエネルギーが必要であることを意味します。

4. 柔軟性の維持

とはいえ、50代でも柔軟性を維持し、新しいことを学び続ける姿勢を持つ人は多くいます。社会的なネットワークや趣味を通じて新しい情報を取り入れたり、新しい挑戦を楽しんだりする人もいます。このような人々は、年齢を重ねても柔軟性を失わず、むしろ経験を活かしてより賢く柔軟に適応していると言えます。

---

結論

50代から柔軟さが減少するという傾向は、必ずしも当てはまるわけではなく、むしろ経験に基づいた柔軟性が現れることが多いと言えます。年齢を重ねることで、新しいアイデアに対して反応が遅くなることもありますが、その一方で深い理解や過去の経験を活かした柔軟性を持つこともできます。

つまり、柔軟性は「減少する」というよりも、年齢とともにその質や方向性が変化するという形で現れるのです。重要なのは、柔軟性をどのように維持し、活用するかという意識と努力です。

---

渡した言葉が想定通りに伝わらないこともある。でも、それが対話。

誤読された時こそ、さらに言葉を重ねて調整するチャンスだと捉える。

「届いてしまったこと＝悪いこと」ではない。

相手が、言葉の内容にヒントやフィードバックを見つけたかもしれないし、たとえズレていても、「あ、そう見えるのか」と参考になったかもしれない。

完全に「安全」な発言なんてない、と割り切る勇気を持つ。

---

❖ 「勇気を持つ」とは、怖くなくなることじゃない

勇気は、「怖さがないこと」ではない。 ほんとうの勇気は、怖さがあっても、なお言葉を差し出せること。

---

❖ 勇気を育てるための3つの視点

1. 言葉を「贈り物」として考える

あなたの言葉は、誰かを打ちのめすための武器ではなく、観察と誠意が込められた小さな贈り物。 たとえ届き方が思い通りじゃなくても、それは渡す側の責任とは限らない。

贈り物がうまく開封されなかったからといって、その価値が消えるわけじゃない。

---

2. 言葉に「居場所」を与える

心の中に言葉を溜め続けると、いつかそれがしこりになる。 誰かに渡すことで、その言葉は自分の外に出て、世界のどこかに根を下ろせる。

届いても届かなくても、言葉が世界に出ていくことに意味がある。

---

3. ズレや後悔は、「次の素材」になる

言葉がズレた。後悔した。——それで終わりにせず、「次、どう言えばよかったか？」と問い直せば、それはもうただの“失敗”じゃない。

出したからこそ、学べる。 渡したからこそ、気づける。

---

❖ 成熟とは、完璧になることじゃない

成熟とは、

• 不完全さを抱えたまま関わること
• 傷つく可能性を受け入れた上でつながること
• 正確じゃなくても、伝えようとする姿勢を持ち続けること

怖さも、後悔も、ぜんぶ含めて、「それでも言葉を差し出す」——その一歩が成熟につながっている。

@ 502ab02a:a2860397

เฮียไม่แน่ใจว่าโลกยุคนี้มันเปลี่ยนไป หรือแค่เล่ห์กลมันแนบเนียนขึ้น แต่ที่แน่ ๆ คือ “อาหารไม่ใช่อาหารอีกต่อไป” มันกลายเป็นสินค้าในพอร์ตการลงทุน มันกลายเป็นเครื่องมือสร้างภาพลักษณ์ และในบางมุมที่คนไม่อยากมอง...มันคือเครื่องมือควบคุมมวลชน

ทุกอย่างเริ่มจากแนวคิดที่ดูดี “เราต้องผลิตอาหารให้พอเลี้ยงคน 8,000 ล้านคน” จากนั้นบริษัทเทคโนโลยีเริ่มกระโดดเข้ามา แทนที่จะให้เกษตรกรปลูกผักเลี้ยงวัว เรากลับได้เห็นบริษัทวิเคราะห์ดีเอ็นเอของจุลินทรีย์ แล้วขายโปรตีนจากถังหมัก แทนที่จะสนับสนุนอาหารพื้นบ้าน กลับอัดเงินให้สตาร์ทอัพทำเบอร์เกอร์ที่ไม่มีเนื้อจริงแม้แต่เส้นใยเดียว

เบื้องหลังมันมี “ทุน” และทุนเหล่านี้ไม่ใช่แค่ผู้ผลิตอาหาร แต่พ่วงไปถึงบริษัทยา บริษัทวัคซีน บริษัทเทคโนโลยี บางเจ้ามีทั้งบริษัทยา + ธุรกิจฟาร์มแมลง + บริษัทลงทุนในบริษัทวิจัยพันธุกรรม แปลว่า...คนที่ขายยาให้เฮียเวลาเฮียป่วย อาจเป็นคนเดียวกับที่ขาย "อาหารที่ทำให้เฮียป่วย" ตั้งแต่แรก ตลกร้ายไหมหล่ะ หึหึหึ

เคยมีใครสังเกตไหม ว่าองค์การระดับโลกบางองค์กรที่ส่งเสริม "เนื้อทางเลือก" และ "อาหารยั่งยืน" ได้รับเงินบริจาคหรืออยู่ภายใต้บอร์ดของบริษัทผลิตอาหารอุตสาหกรรมเจ้าใหญ่ไหมนะ แล้วคำว่า “วิทยาศาสตร์รองรับ” ที่ติดบนฉลากสวย ๆ เฮียไม่รู้หรอกว่าใครเป็นคนตีความ แต่ที่รู้แน่ ๆ คือ บทวิจัยจำนวนไม่น้อย มาจากทุนวิจัยที่สนับสนุนโดยอุตสาหกรรมอาหารเอง ดั่งเช่นที่เราเรียนรู้กันมาจากประวัติศาสตร์แล้ว

มีคนเคยพูดไว้ว่า “เราควบคุมคนด้วยอาหารง่ายกว่าด้วยอาวุธ” และเฮียเริ่มเชื่อขึ้นเรื่อย ๆ เพราะถ้าบริษัทใดบริษัทหนึ่ง ควบคุมได้ทั้งอาหาร ยา ข้อมูลสุขภาพ และการวิจัย นั่นหมายความว่า เขาไม่ได้ขายของให้เฮีย แต่เขากำหนดว่าเฮียควร “อยากกินอะไร” และ “รู้สึกผิดกับอะไร”

เหมือนที่ให้ลองจินตนาการเล่น ๆ เมื่อวาน สมมติเฮียไปร้านข้าวมันไก่ปากซอยแบบดั้งเดิม สั่งไก่ต้มไม่เอาข้าวมากิน แล้วแอปสุขภาพขึ้นข้อความเตือนว่า “ไขมันสูง ส่งผลต่อคะแนนสุขภาพคุณ” แต่ถ้าเฮียสั่งข้าวกล่องสำเร็จรูปอัจฉริยะจากโปรตีนที่หมักจากจุลินทรีย์ GMO ระบบจะบอกว่า “คุณกำลังช่วยลดโลกร้อน” แล้วเพิ่มคะแนนสุขภาพให้เราไปเป็นส่วนลดครั้งต่อไป

ใครนิยามคำว่า “ดี” ให้เฮีย?

เบื้องหลังอาหารจึงไม่ใช่แค่โรงงาน แต่มันคือโครงข่ายที่พัวพันตั้งแต่ห้องแล็บ ห้องบอร์ด ไปจนถึงห้องครัวในบ้านเรา แล้วถ้าเราไม่ตั้งคำถาม เฮียกลัวว่าเราจะไม่ได้กินในสิ่งที่ร่างกายต้องการ แต่กินในสิ่งที่ “ระบบ” ต้องการให้เรากิน

ขอบคุณล่วงหน้าที่มองว่าสิ่งนี้คือการ แพนิคไปเอง ขอให้มีสุขสวัสดิ์

#pirateketo #กูต้องรู้มั๊ย #ม้วนหางสิลูก #siamstr

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

"Misterija Satoši - Poreklo bitkoina" je francuski dokumentarno-animirani serijal koji dešifruje unutrašnje funkcionisanje bitkoin revolucije, dok istražuje identitet njenog tvorca.

Prvu decentralizovanu i pouzdanu kriptovalutu – bitkoin, osnovao je Satoši Nakamoto 3. januara 2009. godine. On je nestao 2011. i od tada ostaje anoniman, a njegov identitet je predmet svakakvih spekulacija. Tokom poslednjih 12 godina, vrednost bitkoina je porasla sa 0,001 na 69.000 dolara. Svi, od vlada do velikih korporacija, zainteresovali su se za Satošijev izum. Ko je Satoši Nakamoto? Kako je njegov izum postao toliko popularan? Šta nam bitkoin govori o svetu u kome živimo?

Ovaj serijal se prikazivao na Radio-televiziji Srbije (RTS 3) u sklopu novogodišnjeg muzičkog i filmskog programa 2022/2023. godine.

Naslov originala: "Le Mystère Satoshi"

Copyright: , ARTE.TV

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na dvadesetjedan.com

Autor: Vijay Boyapati / Prevod na hrvatski: Matija

---

Sa zadnjim cijenama koje je bitcoin dosegao 2017., optimističan scenarij za ulagače se možda čini toliko očitim da ga nije potrebno niti spominjati. Alternativno, možda se nekome čini glupo ulagati u digitalnu vrijednost koja ne počiva na nijednom fizičkom dobru ili vladi i čiji porast cijene su neki usporedili sa manijom tulipana ili dot-com balonom. Nijedno nije točno; optimističan scenarij za Bitcoin je uvjerljiv, ali ne i očit. Postoje značajni rizici kod ulaganja u Bitcoin, no, kao što planiram pokazati, postoji i ogromna prilika.

Geneza

Nikad u povijesti svijeta nije bilo moguće napraviti transfer vrijednosti među fizički udaljenim ljudima bez posrednika, poput banke ili vlade. 2008. godine, anonimni Satoshi Nakamoto je objavio 8 stranica rješenja na dugo nerješivi računalski problem poznat kao “Problem Bizantskog Generala.” Njegovo rješenje i sustav koji je izgradio - Bitcoin - dozvolio je, prvi put ikad, da se vrijednost prenosi brzo i daleko, bez ikakvih posrednika ili povjerenja. Implikacije kreacije Bitcoina su toliko duboke, ekonomski i računalski, da bi Nakamoto trebao biti prva osoba nominirana za Nobelovu nagradu za ekonomiju i Turingovu nagradu.

Za ulagače, važna činjenica izuma Bitcoina (mreže i protokola) je stvaranje novog oskudnog digitalnog dobra - bitcoina (monetarne jedinice). Bitcoini su prenosivi digitalni “novčići” (tokeni), proizvedeni na Bitcoin mreži kroz proces nazvan “rudarenje” (mining). Rudarenje Bitcoina je ugrubo usporedivo sa rudarenjem zlata, uz bitnu razliku da proizvodnja bitcoina prati unaprijed osmišljeni i predvidivi raspored. Samo 21 milijun bitcoina će ikad postojati, i većina (2017., kada je ovaj tekst napisan) su već izrudareni. Svake četiri godine, količina rudarenih bitcoina se prepolovi. Produkcija novih bitcoina će potpuno prestati 2140. godine.

Stopa inflacije —— Monetarna baza

Bitcoine ne podržava nikakva roba ili dobra, niti ih garantira ikakva vlada ili firma, što postavlja očito pitanje za svakog novog bitcoin ulagača: zašto imaju uopće ikakvu vrijednost? Za razliku od dionica, obveznica, nekretnina ili robe poput nafte i žita, bitcoine nije moguće vrednovati koristeći standardne ekonomske analize ili korisnost u proizvodnji drugih dobara. Bitcoini pripadaju sasvim drugoj kategoriji dobara - monetarnih dobara, čija se vrijednost definira kroz tzv. teoriju igara; svaki sudionik na tržištu vrednuje neko dobro, onoliko koliko procjenjuje da će ga drugi sudionici vrednovati. Kako bismo bolje razumjeli ovo svojstvo monetarnih dobara, trebamo istražiti podrijetlo novca.

Podrijetlo novca

U prvim ljudskim društvima, trgovina među grupama se vršila kroz robnu razmjenu. Velika neefikasnost prisutna u robnoj razmjeni je drastično ograničavala količinu i geografski prostor na kojem je bila moguća. Jedan od najvećih problema sa robnom razmjenom je problem dvostruke podudarnosti potražnje. Uzgajivač jabuka možda želi trgovati sa ribarom, ali ako ribar ne želi jabuke u istom trenutku, razmjena se neće dogoditi. Kroz vrijeme, ljudi su razvili želju za čuvanjem određenih predmeta zbog njihove rijetkosti i simbolične vrijednosti (npr. školjke, životinjski zube, kremen). Zaista, kako i Nick Szabo govori u svojem izvrsnom eseju o podrijetlu novca, ljudska želja za sakupljanjem predmeta pružila je izraženu evolucijsku prednost ranom čovjeku nad njegovim najbližim biološkim rivalom, neandertalcem - Homo neanderthalensis.

"Primarna i najbitnija evolucijska funkcija sakupljanja bila je osigurati medij za čuvanje i prenošenje vrijednosti".

Predmeti koje su ljudi sakupljali služili su kao svojevrsni “proto-novac,” tako što su omogućavale trgovinu među antagonističkim plemenima i dozvoljavale bogatsvu da se prenosi na sljedeću generaciju. Trgovina i transfer takvih predmeta bile su rijetke u paleolitskim društvima, te su oni služili više kao “spremište vrijednosti” (store of value) nego kao “medij razmjene” (medium of exchange), što je uloga koju danas igra moderni novac. Szabo objašnjava:

"U usporedbi sa modernim novcem, primitivan novac je imao jako malo “brzinu” - mogao je promijeniti ruke samo nekoliko puta u životu prosječnog čovjeka. Svejedno, trajni i čvrsti sakupljački predmet, što bismo danas nazvali “nasljeđe,” mogao je opstati mnogo generacija, dodajući znatnu vrijednost pri svakom transferu - i zapravo omogućiti transfer uopće".

Rani čovjek suočio se sa bitnom dilemom u teoriji igara, kada je odlučivao koje predmete sakupljati: koje od njih će drugi ljudi željeti? Onaj koji bi to točno predvidio imao bi ogromnu prednost u mogućnosti trgovine i akvizicije bogatsva. Neka američka indijanska plemena, npr. Naraganseti, specijalizirala su se u proizvodnji sakupljačkih dobara koja nisu imala drugu svrhu osim trgovine. Valja spomenuti da što je ranije predviđanje da će neko dobro imati takvu vrijednost, veća je prednost koju će imati onaj koji je posjeduje, zato što ju je moguće nabaviti jeftinije, prije nego postane vrlo tražena roba i njezona vrijednost naraste zajedno sa populacijom. Nadalje, nabava nekog dobra u nadi da će u budućnosti biti korišteno kao spremište vrijednosti, ubrzava upravo tu primjenu. Ova cirkularnost je zapravo povratna veza (feedback loop) koja potiče društva da se rapidno slože oko jednog spremišta vrijednosti. U terminima teorije igara, ovo je znano kao “Nashov ekvilibrij.” Postizanje Nashovog ekvilibrija za neko spremište vrijednosti je veliko postignuće za društvo, pošto ono znatno olakšava trgovinu i podjelu rada, i time omogućava napredak civilizacije.

Tisućljećima, kako su ljudska društva rasla i otvarala trgovinske puteve, različite aplikacije spremišta vrijednosti u individualnim društvima počele su se natjecati međusobno. Trgovci su imali izbor: čuvati svoju zaradu u spremištu vrijednosti vlastite kulture, ili one kulture sa kojom su trgovali, ili mješavini oboje. Benefit štednje u stranom spremištu vrijednosti bila je uvećana sposobnost trgovanja u povezanom stranom društvu. Trgovci koji su štedili u stranom spremištu vrijednosti su također imali dobrih razloga da potiču svoje društvo da ga prihvati, jer bi tako uvećali vrijednost vlastite ušteđevine. Prednosti “uvezene” tehnologije spremanja vrijednosti bile su prisutne ne samo za trgovce, nego i za sama društva. Kada bi se dvije grupe konvergirale u jedinstvenom spremištu vrijednosti, to bi značajno smanjilo cijenu troškova trgovine jednog s drugim, i samim time povećanje bogatstva kroz trgovinu. I zaista, 19. stoljeće bilo je prvi put da je najveći dio svijeta prihvatio jedinstveno spremište vrijednosti - zlato - i u tom periodu vidio najveću eksploziju trgovine u povijesti svijeta. O ovom mirnom periodu, pisao je John Maynard Keynes:

"Kakva nevjerojatna epizoda u ekonomskom napretku čovjeka… za svakog čovjeka iole iznadprosječnog, iz srednje ili više klase, život je nudio obilje, ugodu i mogućnosti, po niskoj cijeni i bez puno problema, više nego monarsima iz prethodnih perioda. Stanovnik Londona mogao je, ispijajući jutarnji čaj iz kreveta, telefonski naručiti razne proizvode iz cijele Zemlje, u količinama koje je želio, i sa dobrim razlogom očekivati njihovu dostavu na svoj kućni prag."

Svojstva dobrog spremišta vrijednosti

Kada se spremišta vrijednosti natječu jedno s drugim, specifična svojstva rade razliku koja daje jednom prednost nad drugim. Premda su mnoga dobra u prošlosti korištena kao spremišta vrijednosti ili kao “proto-novac,” određena svojstva su se pokazala kao posebno važna, i omogućila dobrima sa njima da pobijede. Idealno spremište vrijednosti biti će:

• Trajno: dobro ne smije biti kvarljivo ili lako uništeno. Tako naprimjer, žito nije idealno spremište vrijednosti.
• Prenosivo: dobro mora biti lako transportirati i čuvati, što omogućuje osiguranje protiv gubitka ili krađe i dopušta trgovinu na velike udaljenosti. Tako, krava je lošije spremište vrijednosti od zlatne narukvice.
• Zamjenjivo: jedna jedinica dobra treba biti zamjenjiva sa drugom. Bez zamjenjivosti, problem podudarnosti želja ostaje nerješiv. Time, zlato je bolje od dijamanata, jer su oni nepravilni u obliku i kvaliteti.
• Provjerljivo: dobro mora biti lako i brzo identificirano i testirano za autentičnost. Laka provjera povećava povjerenje u trgovini i vjerojatnost da će razmjena biti dovršena.
• Djeljivo: dobro mora biti lako djeljivo na manje dijelove. Premda je ovo svojstvo bilo manje važno u ranim društvima gdje je trgovina bila rijetka, postalo je važnije sa procvatom trgovine. Količine koje su se mijenjale postale su manje i preciznije.
• Oskudno: Monetarno dobro mora imati “cijenu nemoguću za lažirati,” kao što je rekao Nick Szabo. Drugim riječima, dobro ne smije biti obilno ili lako dostupno kroz proizvodnju. Oskudnost je možda i najvažnije svojstvo spremišta vrijednosti, pošto se izravno vezuje na ljudsku želju da sakupljamo ono što je rijetko. Ona je izvor vrijednosti u spremištu vrijednosti.
• Duge povijesti: što je dulje neko dobro vrijedno za društvo, veća je vjerojatnost da će biti prihvaćeno kao spremište vrijednosti. Dugo postojeće spremište vrijednosti biti će jako teško uklonjeno od strane došljaka, osim u slučaju sile (ratno osvajanje) ili ako je nova tehnologija znatno bolja u ostalim svojstvima.
• Otporno na cenzuru: novije svojstvo, sve više važno u modernom digitalnom svijetu sa sveprisutnim nadzorom, je otpornost na cenzuru. Drugim riječima, koliko je teško da vanjski agent, kao korporacija ili država, spriječi vlasnika dobra da ga čuva i koristi. Dobra koja su otporna na cenzuru su idealna za ljude koji žive u režimima koji prisilno nadziru kapital ili čine neke oblike mirne trgovine protuzakonitima.

Ova tablica ocjenjuje Bitcoin, zlato (gold) i fiat novac (kao što je euro ili dolar) po svojstvima izlistanim gore. Objašnjenje svake ocjene slijedi nakon tablice.

Trajnost:

Zlato je neosporeni kralj trajnosti. Velika većina zlata pronađenog kroz povijest, uključujući ono egipatskih faraona, opstaje i danas i vjerojatno će postojati i za tisuću godina. Zlatnici korišteni u antičko doba imaju značajnu vrijednost i danas. Fiat valute i bitcoini su digitalni zapisi koji ponekad imaju fizički oblik (npr. novčanice). Dakle, njihovu trajnost ne određuju njihova fizička svojstva (moguće je zamijeniti staru i oštećenu novčanicu za novu), nego institucije koje stoje iza njih. U slučaju fiat valuta, mnoge države su nastale i nestale kroz stoljeća, i valute su nestale s njima. Marke iz Weimarske republike danas nemaju vrijednost zato što institucija koja ih je izdavala više ne postoji. Ako je povijest ikakav pokazatelj, ne bi bilo mudro smatrati fiat valute trajnima dugoročno; američki dolar i britanska funta su relativne anomalije u ovom pogledu. Bitcoini, zato što nemaju instituciju koja ih održava, mogu se smatrati trajnima dok god mreža koja ih osigurava postoji. Obzirom da je Bitcoin još uvijek mlada valuta, prerano je za čvrste zaključke o njegovoj trajnosti. No, postoje ohrabrujući znakovi - prominente države su ga pokušavale regulirati, hakeri ga napadali - usprkos tome, mreža nastavlja funkcionirati, pokazujući visok stupanj antifragilnosti.

Prenosivost:

Bitcoini su najprenosivije spremište vrijednosti ikad. Privatni ključevi koji predstavljaju stotine milijuna dolara mogu se spremiti na USB drive i lako ponijeti bilo gdje. Nadalje, jednako velike sume mogu se poslati na drugi kraj svijeta skoro instantno. Fiat valute, zbog svojeg temeljno digitalnog oblika, su također lako prenosive. Ali, regulacije i kontrola kapitala od strane države mogu ugroziti velike prijenose vrijednosti, ili ih usporiti danima. Gotovina se može koristiti kako bi se izbjegle kontrole kapitala, ali onda rastu rizik čuvanja i cijena transporta. Zlato, zbog svojeg fizičkog oblika i velike gustoće, je najmanje prenosivo. Nije čudo da većina zlatnika i poluga nikad ne napuste sefove. Kada se radi prijenos zlata između prodavača i kupca, uglavnom se prenosi samo ugovor o vlasništvu, ne samo fizičko zlato. Prijenos fizičkog zlata na velike udaljenosti je skupo, riskantno i sporo.

Zamjenjivost:

Zlato nam daje standard za zamjenjivost. Kada je rastopljeno, gram zlata je praktički nemoguće razlikovati od bilo kojeg drugog grama, i zlato je oduvijek bilo takvo. S druge strane, fiat valute, su zamjenjive samo onoliko koliko njihova institucija želi da budu. Iako je uglavnom slučaj da je novčanica zamjenjiva za drugu istog iznosa, postoje situacije u kojima su velike novčanice tretirane drukčije od malih. Naprimjer, vlada Indije je, u pokušaju da uništi neoporezivo sivo tržište, potpuno oduzela vrijednost novčanicama od 500 i 1000 rupija. To je uzrokovalo da ljudi manje vrednuju te novčanice u trgovini, što je značilo da više nisu bile zaista zamjenjive za manje novčanice. Bitcoini su zamjenjivi na razini mreže; svaki bitcoin je pri prijenosu tretiran kao svaki drugi. No, zato što je moguće pratiti individualne bitcoine na blockchainu, određeni bitcoin može, u teoriji, postati “prljav” zbog korštenja u ilegalnoj trgovini, te ga trgovci ili mjenjačnice možda neće htjeti prihvatiti. Bez dodatnih poboljšanja oko privatnosti i anonimnosti na razini mrežnog protokola, bitcoine ne možemo smatrati jednako zamjenjivim kao zlato.

Mogućnost provjere:

Praktično gledajući, autentičnost fiat valuta i zlata je prilično lako provjeriti. Svejedno, i usprkos pokušajima da spriječe krivotvorenje novčanica, i dalje postoji potencijal prevare za vlade i njihove građane. Zlato također nije imuno na krivotvorenje. Sofisticirani kriminalci su koristili pozlaćeni tungsten kako bi prevarili kupce zlata. Bitcoine je moguće provjeriti sa matematičkom sigurnošću. Korištenjem kriptografskih potpisa, vlasnik bitcoina može javno demonstrirati da posjeduje bitcoine koje tvrdi da posjeduje.

Djeljivost:

Bitcoine je moguće podijeliti u stotinu milijuna manjih jedinica (zvanih satoshi), i prenositi takve (no, valja uzeti u obzir ekonomičnost prijenosa malih iznosa, zbog cijene osiguravanja mreže - “network fee”). Fiat valute su tipično dovoljno djeljive na jedinice sa vrlo niskom kupovnom moći. Zlato, iako fizički i teoretski djeljivo, postaje teško za korištenje kada se podijeli na dovoljno male količine da bi se moglo koristiti u svakodnevnoj trgovini.

Oskudnost:

Svojstvo koje najjasnije razlikuje Bitcoin od fiat valuta i zlata je njegova unaprijed definirana oskudnost. Od početka, konačna količina bitcoina nikad neće biti veća od 21 milijun. To daje vlasnicima bitcoina jasan i znan uvid u postotak ukupnog vlasništva. Naprimjer, vlasnik 10 bitcoina bi znao da najviše 2,1 milijuna ljudi (manje od 0.03% populacije) može ikad imati isto bitcoina kao i on. Premda je kroz povijest uvijek bilo oskudno, zlato nije imuno na povećanje ukupne količine. Ako se ikad izumi nova, ekonomičnija metoda rudarenja ili proizvodnje zlata, ukupna količina zlata bi se mogla dramatično povećati (npr. rudarenje morskog dna ili asteroida). Na kraju, fiat valute, relativno nov izum u povijesti, pokazale su se sklonima konstantnim povećanjima u količini. Države su pokazale stalnu sklonost inflaciji monetarne kvantitete kako bi rješavale kratkoročne političke probleme. Inflacijske tendencije vlada diljem svijeta čine fiat valute gotovo sigurnim da će gubiti vrijednost kroz vrijeme.

Etablirana povijest:

Nijedno monetarno dobro nema povijest kao zlato, koje je imalo vrijednost za cijelog trajanja ljudske civilizacije. Kovanice izrađene u antičko doba i danas imaju značajnu vrijednost. Ne može se isto reći za fiat valute, koje su same relativno nova povijesna anomalija. Od njihovog početka, fiat valute su imale gotovo univerzalni smjer prema bezvrijednosti. Korištenje inflacije kao podmuklog načina za nevidljivo oporezivanje građana je vječita kušnja kojoj se skoro nijedna država u povijesti nije mogla oduprijeti. Ako je 20. stoljeće, u kojem je fiat novac dominirao globalni monetarni poredak, demonstriralo neku ekonomsku istinu, to je onda bila ta da ne možemo računati na fiat novac da održi vrijednost u dužem ili srednjem vremenskom periodu. Bitcoin, usprkos svojoj novosti, je preživio dovoljno testova tržišta da postoji velika vjerojatnost da neće nestati kao vrijedno dobro. Nadalje, Lindy efekt govori da što duže Bitcoin bude korišten, to će veća biti vjera u njega i njegovu sposobnost da nastavi postojati dugo u budućnost. Drugim riječima, društvena vjera u monetarno dobro je asimptotička, kao u grafu ispod:

Ako Bitcoin preživi prvih 20 godina, imat će gotovo sveopće povjerenje da će trajati zauvijek, kao što ljudi vjeruju da je internet trajna stvar u modernom svijetu.

Otpor na cenzuru

Jedan od najbitnijih izvora za ranu potražnju bitcoina bila je njegova upotreba u ilegalnoj kupovini i prodaji droge. Mnogi su zato pogrešno zaključili da je primarna potražnja za bitcoinima utemeljena u njihovoj prividnoj anonimnosti. Međutim, Bitcoin nije anonimna valuta; svaka transakcija na mreži je zauvijek zapisana na javnom blockchainu. Povijesni zapis transakcija dozvoljava forenzičkoj analizi da identificira izvore i tijek sredstava. Takva analiza dovela je do uhićenja počinitelja zloglasne MtGox pljačke. Premda je istina da dovoljno oprezna i pedantna osoba može sakriti svoj identitet koristeći Bitcoin, to nije razlog zašto je Bitcoin bio toliko popularan u trgovini drogom.

Ključno svojstvo koje čini Bitcoin najboljim za takve aktivnosti je njegova agnostičnost i nepotrebnost za dozvolom (“premissionlessness”) na mrežnoj razini. Kada se bitcoini prenose na Bitcoin mreži, ne postoji nitko tko dopušta transakcije. Bitcoin je distribuirana peer-to-peer (korisnik-korisniku) mreža, i samim time dizajnirana da bude otporna na cenzuru. Ovo je u velikom kontrastu sa fiat bankarskim sustavom, u kojem države reguliraju banke i ostale institucije prijenosa novca, kako bi one prijavljivale i sprječavale protuzakonito korištenje monetarnih dobara. Klasičan primjer regulacije novca su kontrole kapitala. Npr., bogati milijunaš će vrlo teško prenijeti svoje bogatstvo u novu zemlju, kada bježi iz opresivnog režima. Premda zlato nije izdano i proizvedeno od države, njegova fizička priroda ga čini teško prenosivim kroz prostor, i samim time ga je daleko lakše regulirati nego Bitcoin. Indijski Akt kontrole zlata je primjer takve regulacije.

Bitcoin je odličan u većini gore navedenih svojstava, što mu omogućava da bude marginalno bolji od modernih i drevnih monetarnih dobara, te da pruži poticaje za svoje rastuće društveno usvajanje. Specifično, moćna kombinacija otpornosti na cenzuru i apsolutne oskudnosti bila je velika motivacija za bogate ulagače koji su uložili dio svojeg bogatstva u Bitcoin.

Evolucija novca

U modernoj monetarnoj ekonomiji postoji opsesija sa ulogom novca kao medija razmjene. U 20. stoljeću, države su monopolizirale izdavanje i kontrolu novca i kontinuirano potkopavale njegovo svojstvo spremišta vrijednosti, stvarajući lažno uvjerenje da je primarna svrha novca biti medij razmjene. Mnogi su kritizirali Bitcoin, govoreći da je neprikladan da bude novac zato što mu je cijena bila previše volatilna za medij razmjene. No, novac je uvijek evoluirao kroz etape; uloga spremišta vrijednosti je dolazila prije medija razmjene. Jedan od očeva marginalističke ekonomije, William Stanley Jevons, objašnjava:

"Povijesno govoreći… čini se da je zlato prvo služilo kao luksuzni metal za ukras; drugo, kao sačuvana vrijednost; treće, kao medij razmjene; i konačno, kao mjerilo vrijednosti."

U modernoj terminologiji, novac uvijek evoluira kroz četiri stadija:

1. Kolekcionarstvo: U prvoj fazi svoje evolucije, novac je tražen samo zbog svojih posebnih svojstava, uglavnom zbog želja onog koji ga posjeduje. Školjke, perlice i zlato su bili sakupljani prije nego su poprimili poznatije uloge novca.
2. Spremište vrijednosti: Jednom kada je novac tražen od dovoljnog broja ljudi, biti će prepoznat kao način za čuvanje i spremanje vrijednosti kroz vrijeme. Kada neko dobro postane široko korišteno kao spremište vrijednosti, njegova kupovna moć raste sa povećanom potražnjom za tu svrhu. Kupovna moć spremišta vrijednosti će u jednom trenutku doći do vrhunca, kada je dovolno rašireno i broj novih ljudi koji ga potražuju splasne.
3. Sredstvo razmjene: Kada je novac potpuno etabliran kao spremište vrijednosti, njegova kupovna moć se stabilizira. Nakon toga, postane prikladno sredstvo razmjene zbog stabilnosti svoje cijene. U najranijim danima Bitcoina, mnogi ljudi nisu shvaćali koju buduću cijenu plaćaju koristeći bitcoine kao sredstvo razmjene, umjesto kao novonastalo spremište vrijednosti. Poznata priča o čovjeku koji je za 10,000 bitcoina (vrijednih oko 94 milijuna dolara kada je ovaj članak napisan) za dvije pizze ilustrira ovaj problem.
4. Jedinica računanja vrijednosti: Jednom kada je novac široko korišten kao sredstvo razmjene, dobra će biti vrednovana u njemu, tj. većina cijena će biti izražena u njemu. Uobičajena zabluda je da je većinu dobara moguće zamijeniti za bitcoine danas. Npr., premda je možda moguće kupiti šalicu kave za bitcoine, izlistana cijena nije prava bitcoin cijena; zapravo se radi o cijeni u državnoj valuti koju želi trgovac, preračunatu u bitcoin po trenutnoj tržišnoj cijeni. Kad bi cijena bitcoina pala u odnosu na valutu, vrijednost šalice izražena u bitcoinima bi se povećala. Od trenutka kada trgovci budu voljni prihvaćani bitcoine kao platežno sredstvo, bez obraćanja pažnje na vrijednost bitcoina u državnoj fiat valuti, moći ćemo reći da je Bitcoin zaista postao jedinica računanja vrijednosti.

Monetarna dobra koja još nisu jedinice računanja vrijednosti možemo smatrati “djelomično monetiziranima.” Danas zlato ima takvu ulogu, jer je spremište vrijednosti, ali su mu uloge sredstva razmjene i računanja vrijednosti oduzete intervencijama država. Moguće je također da se jedno dobro koristi kao sredstvo razmjene, dok druga ispunjavaju ostale uloge. To je tipično u zemljama gdje je država disfunkcionalna, npr. Argentina ili Zimbabwe. U svojoj knjizi, Digitalno zlato, Nathaniel Popper piše:

"U Americi, dolar služi trima funkcijama novca: nudi sredstvo razmjene, jedinicu za mjerenje vrijednosti dobara, i mjesto gdje se može čuvati vrijednosti. S druge strane, argentinski peso je korišten kao sredstvo razmjene (za svakodnevne potrebe), ali ga nitko nije koristio kao spremište vrijednosti. Štednja u pesosima bila je ekvivalent bacanja novca. Zato su ljudi svu svoju štednju imali u dolarima, jer je dolar bolje čuvao vrijednost. Zbog volatilnosti pesosa, ljudi su računali cijene u dolarima, što im je pružalo pouzdaniju jedinicu mjerenja kroz vrijeme."

Bitcoin je trenutno u fazi tranzicije iz prvog stadija monetizacije u drugi. Vjerojatno će proći nekoliko godina prije nego Bitcoin pređe iz začetaka spremišta vrijednosti u istinski medij razmjene, i put do tog trenutka je još uvijek pun rizika i nesigurnosti. Važno je napomenuti da je ista tranzicija trajala mnogo stoljeća za zlato. Nitko danas živ nije doživio monetizaciju dobra u realnom vremenu (kroz koju Bitcoin prolazi), tako da nemamo puno iskustva govoriti o putu i načinu na koji će se monetizacija dogoditi.

Put monetizacije

Kroz proces monetizacije, monetarno dobro će naglo porasti u kupovnoj moći. Mnogi su tako komentirali da je uvećanje kupovne moći Bitcoina izgledalo kao “balon” (bubble). Premda je ovaj termin često korišten kako bi ukazao na pretjeranu vrijednosti Bitcoina, sasvim slučajno je prikladan. Svojstvo koje je uobičajeno za sva monetarna dobra jest da je njihova kupovna moć viša nego što se može opravdati samo kroz njihovu uporabnu vrijednost. Zaista, mnogi povijesni novci nisu imali uporabnu vrijednost. Razliku između kupovne moći i vrijednosti razmjene koju bi novac mogao imati za svoju inherentnu korisnost, možemo razmatrati kao “monetarnu premiju.” Kako monetarno dobro prolazi kroz stadije monetizacije (navedene gore), monetarna premija raste. No, ta premija ne raste u ravnoj i predvidivoj liniji. Dobro X, koje je bilo u procesu monetizacije, može izgubiti u usporedbi sa dobrom Y koje ima više svojstava novca, te monetarna premija dobra X drastično padne ili potpuno nestane. Monetarna premija srebra je skoro potpuno nestala u kasnom 19. stoljeću, kada su ga vlade diljem svijeta zamijenile zlatom kao novcem.

Čak i u odsustvu vanjskih faktora, kao što su intervencije vlade ili druga monetarna dobra, monetarna premija novog novca neće ići predvidivim putem. Ekonomist Larry White primijetio je:

"problem sa pričom “balona,” naravno, je da je ona konzistentna sa svakim putem cijene, i time ne daje ikakvo objašnjenje za specifičan put cijene"

Proces monetizacije opisuje teorija igara; svaki akter na tržištu pokušava predvidjeti agregiranu potražnju ostalih aktera, i time buduću monetarnu premiju. Zato što je monetarna premija nevezana za inherentnu korisnost, tržišni akteri se uglavnom vode za prošlim cijenama da bi odredili je li neko dobro jeftino ili skupo, i žele li ga kupiti ili prodati. Veza trenutne potražnje sa prošlim cijenama naziva se “ovisnost o putu” (path dependence); ona je možda najveći izvor konfuzije u shvaćanju kretanja cijena monetarnih dobara.

Kada kupovna moć monetarnog dobra naraste zbog većeg i šireg korištenja, očekivanja tržišta o definicijama “jeftinog” i “skupog” se mijenjaju u skladu s time. Slično tome, kada cijena monetarnog dobra padne, očekivanja tržišta mogu se promijeniti u opće vjerovanje da su prethodne cijene bile “iracionalne” ili prenapuhane. Ovisnost o putu novca ilustrirana je riječima poznatog upravitelja fondova s Wall Streeta, Josha Browna:

"Kupio sam bitcoine kada su koštali $2300, i to mi se udvostručilo gotovo odmah. Onda sam počeo govoriti kako “ne mogu kupiti još” dok im je cijena rasla, premda sam znao da je to razmišljanje bazirano samo na cijenu po kojoj sam ih kupio. Kasnije, kada je cijena pala zbog kineske regulacije mjenjačnica, počeo sam si govoriti, “Odlično, nadam se da će još pasti da mogu kupiti još.”"

Istina leži u tome da su ideje “jeftinog” i “skupog” zapravo besmislene kada govorimo o monetarnim dobrima. Cijena monetarnog dobra ne reflektira njegovu stopu rasprostanjenosti ili korisnosti, nego mjeru koliko je ono široko prihvaćeno da ispuni razne uloge novca.

Dodatna komplikacija u ovom aspektu novca je činjenica da tržišni akteri ne djeluju samo kao nepristrani promatrači koji pokušavaju kupiti i prodati u iščekivanju budućih kretanja monetarne premije, nego i kao aktivni proponenti. Pošto ne postoji objektivno “točna” monetarna premija, širiti dobar glas o superiornijim svojstvima nekog monetarnog dobra je efektivnije nego za obična dobra, čija vrijednost je u konačnici vezana na njegovu osnovnu korisnost. Religiozni zanos sudionika na Bitcoin tržištu vidljiv je na raznim internetskim forumima, gdje Bitcoineri aktivno promoviraju benefine Bitcoina i bogatstvo koje je moguće ostvariti investiranjem u njega. Promatrajući Bitcoin tržište, Leigh Drogen komentira:

"To je prepoznatljivo svima kao religija - priča koju si pričamo i oko koje se slažemo. Religija je krivulja na grafu prihvaćanja o kojoj trebamo razmišljati. Sustav je gotovo savršen - onog trenutka kada netko pristupi krugu Bitcoinera, to će reći svima i nastaviti širiti riječ. Onda njihovi prijatelji pristupe i nastave širiti riječ."

Premda usporedba sa religijom može staviti Bitcoin u iracionalno svjetlo, potpuno je racionalno za individualnog vlasnika da širi dobru vijest o superiornom monetarnom dobru, i za šire društvo da se standardizira oko njega. Novac djeluje kao temelj za svu trgovinu i štednju; tako da prihvaćanje superiornog oblika novca ima ogromne multiplicirajuće benefite za stvaranje bogatstva za sve članove društva.

Oblik monetizacije

U članku o Spekulativnom prihvaćanju Bitcoina / teorije cijene, Michael Casey postulira da rastući Gartner hype ciklusi predstavljaju faze standardne S-krivulje prihvaćanja novih tehnologija, koje su bile prisutne kod mnogih transformacijskih tehnologija dok su postajale uobičajene u društvu.

Svaki Gartner hype ciklus počinje sa eksplozijom entuzijazma za novom tehnologijom, a cijenu podižu oni sudionici na tržištvu koji su “dostupni” u toj fazi. Najraniji kupci u Gartner hype ciklusu obično imaju jaku vjeru o transformacijskoj prirodi tehnologije u koju ulažu. S vremenom, tržište dosegne vrhunac entuzijazma kako se količina novih kupaca iscrpljuje, te kupovinom počnu dominirati spekulatori koji su više zainteresirani u brze profite nego u samu tehnologiju.

Nakon vrha hype ciklusa, cijene rapidno padaju dok spekulativno ludilo ustupa mjesto očajavanju, javnoj poruzi i osjećaju da tehnologija nije uopće bila transformacijska. S vremenom, cijena dosegne dno i formira plato na kojem se originalnim ulagačima, koji su imali snažno uvjerenje, pridružuju nove grupe ljudi koji su izdržali bol kraha cijena i koji cijene važnost same tehnologije.

Plato traje neko vrijeme i formira, kako Casey kaže, “stabilnu, dosadnu dolinu.” Za ovo vrijeme, javni interes za tehnologiju opada, no nastaviti će se razvijati i snažna zajednica uvjerenja će polako rasti. Tada, postavlja se nova baza za sljedeću iteraciju hype ciklusa, dok vanjski promatrači prepoznaju da tehnologija i dalje postoji i da ulaganje u nju možda nije onoliko rizično kao što se činilo za vrijeme pada cijene. Sljedeća iteracija hype ciklusa donosi mnogo veći broj novih ljudi, pa je i ciklus daleko veći u svojoj magnitudi.

Jako mali broj ljudi koji sudjeluju u Gartner hype ciklusu će točno predvidjeti koliko će visoko cijena porasti za vrijeme ciklusa. Cijene često dosegnu razine koje bi se činile apsurdnima većini ulagača u raniji stadijima ciklusa. Kada ciklus završi, mediji tipično atribuiraju pad cijene nekoj od aktualnih drušvenih tema. Premda takva tema može biti okidač pada, ona nikad nije temeljni razlog zašto ciklus završava. Gartner hype ciklusi završavaju kada je količina dostupnih novih sudionika na tržištu iscrpljena.

Zanimljivo je da je i zlato nacrtalo klasičan graf Gartner hype ciklusa od kasnih 1970-ih do ranih 2000-ih. Moguće je spekulirati da je hype ciklus osnovna socijalna dinamika oko procesa monetizacije.

Gartner kohorte

Od početka trgovanja Bitcoina na mjenjačnicama 2010. godine, Bitcoin tržište je svjedočilo četirima velikim Gartner hype ciklusima. U retrospektivi, možemo vrlo precizno identificirati grupe cijena prethodnih hype ciklusa Bitcoin tržišta. Također, možemo kvalitativno odrediti kohorte ulagača koje su povezane sa svakom iteracijom prethodnih ciklusa.

$0–$1 (2009. – 3. mjesec 2011.): Prvi hype ciklus u Bitcoin tržištu dominirali su kriptografi, računalni znanstvenici i cypherpunkovi koji su od početka bili spremni razumijeti važnost nevjerojatnog izuma Satoshija Nakamotoa, i koji su bili pioniri u potvrđivanju da Bitcoin protokol nema tehničkih mana.

$1–$30 (3. mjesec 2011. – 7. mjesec. 2011.): Drugi ciklus privukao je rane entuzijaste oko novih tehnologija kao i stabilan pritok ideološki motiviranih ulagača koji su bili oduševljeni idejom novca odvojenog od države. Libertarijanci poput Rogera Vera došli su u Bitcoin zbog aktivnog anti-institucionalnog stava, i mogućnosti koju je nova tehnologija obećavala. Wences Casares, briljantni i dobro povezani serijski poduzetnik, bio je također dio drugog Bitcoin hype ciklusa te je širio riječ o Bitcoinu među najprominentnijim tehnolozima i ulagačima u Silicijskoj Dolini.

$250–$1100 (4. mjesec 2013. – 12. mjesec 2013.): Treći hype ciklus doživio je ulazak ranih generalnih i institucionalnih ulagača koji su bili voljni uložiti trud i riskirati kroz užasno komplicirane kanale likvidnosti kako bi kupili bitcoine. Primaran izvor likvidnosti na tržištu za vrijeme ovog perioda bio je MtGox, mjenjačnica bazirana u Japanu, koju je vodio notorno nesposobni i beskrupulozni Mark Karpeles, koji je kasnije završio i u zatvoru zbog svoje uloge u kolapsu MtGoxa.

Valja primijetiti da je rast Bitcoinove cijene za vrijeme spomenuti hype ciklusa većinom povezano sa povećanjem likvidnosti i lakoćom sa kojom su ulagači mogli kupiti bitcoine. Za vrijeme prvog hype ciklusa, nisu postojale mjenjačnice; akvizicija bitcoina se odvijala primarno kroz rudarenje (mining) ili kroz izravnu razmjenu sa onima koju su već izrudarili bitcoine. Za vrijeme drugog hype ciklusa, pojavile su se rudimentarne mjenjačnice, no nabavljanje i osiguravanje bitcoina na ovim mjenjačnicama bilo je previše kompleksno za sve osim tehnološki najsposobnijih ulagača. Čak i za vrijeme trećeg hype ciklusa, ulagači koju su slali novac na MtGox kako bi kupili bitcoine su morali raditi kroz značajne prepreke. Banke nisu bile voljne imati posla sa mjenjačnicom, a oni posrednici koji su nudili usluge transfera bili su često nesposobni, kriminalni, ili oboje. Nadalje, mnogi koji su uspjeli poslati novac MtGoxu, u konačnici su morali prihvatiti gubitak svojih sredstava kada je mjenjačnica hakirana i kasnije zatvorena.

Tek nakon kolapsa MtGox mjenjačnice i dvogodišnje pauze u tržišnoj cijeni Bitcoina, razvili su se zreli i duboki izvori likvidnosti; primjeri poput reguliranih mjenjačnica kao što su GDAX i OTC brokeri kao Cumberland mining. Dok je četvrti hype ciklus započeo 2016. godine, bilo je relativno lako običnim ulagačima kupiti i osigurati bitcoine.

$1100–$19600? (2014. –?):

U trenutku pisanja ovog teksta, tržište Bitcoina je prolazilo svoj četvrti veliki hype ciklus. Sudjelovanje u ovom hype ciklusu dominirala je ona skupina koju je Michael Casey opisao kao “rana većina” običnih i institucionalnih ulagača.

Kako su se izvori likvidnosti produbljivali i sazrijevali, veliki institucionalni ulagači sada imaju priliku sudjelovati kroz regulirana “futures” tržišta. Dostupnosti takvih tržišta stvara put ka kreaciji Bitcoin ETF-a (exchange traded fund) (fond na slobodnom tržištu), koji će onda pokrenuti “kasnu većinu” i “najsporije” u sljedećim hype ciklusima.

Premda je nemoguće predvidjeti točan efekt budućih hype ciklusa, razumno je očekivati da će najviša točka biti između $20,000 i $50,000 (2021. zenit je bio preko $69,000). Znatno više od ovog raspona, i Bitcoin bi imao znatan postotak ukupne vijednosti zlata (zlato i Bitcoin bi imali jednaku tržišnu kapitalizaciju kada bi bitcoini vrijedili oko $380,000 u trenutku pisanja ovog teksta). Značajan postotak vrijednosti zlata dolazi od potražnje centralnih banaka, te je malo vjerojatno da će centralne banke ili suverene države sudjelovati u trenutnom hype ciklusu.

Ulazak suverenih država u Bitcoin

Bitcoinov zadnji Gartner hype ciklus će započeti kada ga suverene države počnu akumulirati kao dio svojih rezervi stranih valuta. Tržišna kapitalizacija Bitcoina je trenutno premala da bismo ga smatrali značajnim dodatkom rezervama većini zemalja. No, kako se interes u privatnom sektoru povećava i kapitalizacija Bitcoina se približi trilijunu dolara, postat će dovoljno likvidan za većinu država. Prva država koja službeno doda bitcoine u svoje rezerve će vjerojatno potaknuti stampedo ostalih da učine isto. Države koje su među prvima u usvajanju Bitcoina imat će najviše benefita u svojim knjigama ako Bitcoin u konačnici postane globalna valuta (global reserve currency). Nažalost, vjerojatno će države sa najjačom izvršnom vlasti - diktature poput Sjeverne Koreje - biti najbrže u akumulaciji bitcoina. Neodobravanje prema takvim državama i slaba izvršna tijela zapadnjačkih demokracija uzrokovat će sporost i kašnjenje u akumulaciji bitcoina za njihove vlastite rezerve.

Velika je ironija u tome što je SAD trenutno jedna od regulatorno najotvorenijih nacija prema Bitcoinu, dok su Kina i Rusija najzatvorenije. SAD riskira najviše, geopolitički, ako bi Bitcoin zamijenio dolar kao svjetska rezervna valuta. U 1960-ima, Charles de Gaulle je kritizirao “pretjeranu privilegiju” (“exorbitant privilege”) koju su SAD imale u međunarodnom monetarnom poretku, postavljenom kroz Bretton Woods dogovor 1944. godine. Ruska i kineska vlada još ne shvaćaju geo-strateške benefite Bitcoina kao rezervne valute, te se trenutno brinu o efektima koje bi mogao imati na njihova unutarnja tržišta. Kao de Gaulle u 1960-ima, koji je prijetio SAD-u povratkom na klasični standard zlata, Kinezi i Rusi će s vremenom uvidjeti korist u velikoj poziciji u Bitcoinu - spremištu vrijednosti bez pokrića ijedne vlade. Sa najvećom koncentracijom rudara Bitcoina u Kini (2017.), kineska vlada već ima znatnu potencijalnu prednost u stavljanju bitcoina u svoje rezerve.

SAD se ponosi svojim statusom nacije inovatora, sa Silicijskom dolinom kao krunom svoje ekonomije. Dosad, Silicijska dolina je dominirala konverzacijom usmjerenom prema regulaciji, i poziciji koju bi ona treba zauzeti prema Bitcoinu. No, bankovna industrija i federalna rezerva SAD-a (US Federal Reserve, Fed) napokon počinju uviđati egzistencijalnu prijetnju koju Bitcoin predstavlja za američku monetarnu politiku, postankom globalne rezervne valute. Wall Street Journal, jedan od medijskih glasova federalne reserve, izdao je komentar o Bitcoinu kao prijetnji monetarnoj politici SAD-a:

"Postoji još jedna opasnost, možda i ozbiljnija iz perspektive centralnih banaka i regulatora: bitcoin možda ne propadne. Ako je spekulativni žar u kriptovalutu samo prvi pokazatelj njezinog šireg korištenja kao alternative dolaru, Bitcoin će svakako ugroziti monopol centralnih banaka nad novcem."

U narednim godinama, možemo očekivati veliku borbu između poduzetnika i inovatora u Silicijskoj dolini, koji će pokušavati čuvati Bitcoin od državne kontrole s jedne strane, i bankovne industrije i centralnih banaka koje će učiniti sve što mogu da bi regulirale Bitcoin kako bi spriječile znatne promjene u svojoj industriji i moći izdavanja novca, s druge.

Prijelaz na medij razmjene

Monetarno dobro ne može postati opće prihvaćen medij razmjene (standardna ekonomska definicija za “novac”) prije nego je vrednovano od širokog spektra ljudi; jednostavno, dobro koje nije vrednovano neće biti prihvaćeno u razmjeni. Kroz proces generalnog rasta vrijednosti, i time postanka spremišta vrijednosti, monetarno dobro će brzo narasti u kupovnoj moći, i time stvoriti cijenu za korištenje u razmjeni. Samo kada ta cijena rizika mijenjanja spremišta vrijednosti padne dovoljno nisko, može dobro postati opće prihvaćen medij razmjene.

Preciznije, monetarno dobro će biti prikladno kao medij razmjene samo kada je suma cijene rizika i transakcijske cijene u razmjeni manja nego u trgovini bez tog dobra.

U društvu koje vrši robnu razmjenu, prijelaz spremišta vrijednosti u medij razmjene može se dogoditi čak i onda kada monetarno dobro raste u kupovnoj moći, zato što su transakcijski troškovi robne razmjene iznimno visoki. U razvijenoj ekonomiji, u kojoj su troškovi razmjene niski, moguće je za mladu i rapidno rastućnu tehnologiju spremišta vrijednosti, poput Bitcoina, da se koristi kao medij razmjene, doduše na ograničen način. Jedan primjer je ilegalno tržište droge, gdje su kupci voljni žrtvovati oportunu cijenu čuvanja bitcoina kako bi umanjili znatan rizik kupovine droge koristeći fiat novac.

Postoje međutim velike institucionalne barijere da novonastalo spremište vrijednosti postane sveopće prihvaćen medij razmjene u razvijenom društvu. Države koriste oporezivanje kao moćnu metodu zaštite svojeg suverenog novca protiv rivalskih monetarnih dobara. Ne samo da suvereni novac ima prednost konstantnog izvora potražnje, zato što je porez moguće platiti jedino u njemu, nego su i rivalska monetarna dobra oporezana pri svakoj razmjeni za vrijeme rastuće cijene. Ova metoda oporezivanja stvara znatan otpor korištenju spremišta vrijednosti kao medija razmjene.

Ovakvo sabotiranje tržišnih monetarnih dobara nije nepremostiva barijera za njihovo prihvaćanje kao općeg medija razmjene. Ako ljudi izgube vjeru u suvereni novac, njegova vrijednost može rapidno propasti kroz proces zvan hiperinflacija. Kada suvereni novac prolazi kroz hiperinflaciju, njegova vrijednost propadne prvo u usporedbi sa najlikvidnijim dobrima u društvu, kao što je zlato ili stabilna strana valuta (američki dolar npr.), ako su ona dostupna. Kada nema likvidnih dobara ili ih ima premalo, novac u hiperinflaciji kolabira u usporedbi sa stvarnim dobrima, kao što su nekretnine ili upotrebljiva roba. Arhetipska slika hiperinflacije je trgovina sa praznim policama - potrošači brzo bježe iz propadajuće vrijednosti novca svoje nacije.

Nakon dovoljno vremena, kada je vjera potpuno uništena za vrijeme hiperinflacije, suvereni novac više nitko ne prihvaća, te se društvo može vratiti na robnu razmjenu, ili će doživjeti potpunu zamjenu monetarne jedinice za sredstvo razmjene. Primjer ovog procesa bila je zamjena zimbabveanskog dolara za američki dolar. Takva promjena suverenog novca za stranu valutu je dodatno otežana relativnom oskudnošću strane valute i odsustvom stranih bankarskih institucija koje pružaju likvidnost tržištu.

Sposobnost lakog prenošenja bitcoina preko granica i odsustvo potrebe za bankarskim sustavom čine Bitcoin idealnim monetarnim dobrom za one ljude koji pate pod hiperinflacijom. U nadolazećim godinama, kako fiat valute nastave svoj povijesni trend ka bezvrijednosti, Bitcoin će postati sve popularniji izbor za ušteđevine ljudi diljem svijeta. Kada je novac nacije napušten i zamijenjen Bitcoinom, Bitcoin će napraviti tranziciju iz spremišta vrijednosti u tom društvu u opće prihvaćeno sredstvo razmjene. Daniel Krawicz stvorio je termin “hiperbitcoinizacija” da bi opisao ovaj proces.

Učestala pogrešna shvaćanja

Većina ovog članka usredotočila se na monetarnu prirodu Bitcoina. Sa tim temeljima možemo adresirati neke od najčešćih nerazumijevanja u Bitcoinu.

Bitcoin je balon (bubble)

Bitcoin, kao sva tržišna monetarna dobra, posjeduje monetarnu premiju. Ona često rezultira uobičajenom kritikom da je Bitcoin samo “balon.” No, sva monetarna dobra imaju monetarnu premiju. Naprotiv, ta monetarna premija (cijena viša od one koju diktira potražnja za dobrom kao korisnim) je upravo karakteristična za sve oblike novca. Drugim riječima, novac je uvijek i svuda balon. Paradoksalno, monetarno dobro je istovremeno balon i ispod vrijednosti ukoliko je u ranijim stadijima općeg prihvaćanja kao novac.

Bitcoin je previše volatilan

Volatilnost cijene Bitcoina je funkcija njegovog nedavnog nastanka. U prvih nekoliko godina svojeg postojanja, Bitcoin se ponašao kao mala dionica, i svaki veliki kupac - kao npr. braća Winklevoss - mogao je uzrokovati veliki skok u njegovoj cijeni. No, kako su se prihvaćenost i likvidnost povećavali kroz godine, volatilnost Bitcoina je srazmjerno smanjila. Kada Bitcoin postigne tržišnu kapitalizaciju (vrijednost) zlata, imat će sličnu volatilnost kao i zlato. Kako Bitcoin nastavi rasti, njegova volatilnost će se smanjiti do razine koja ga čini prikladnim za široko korištenje kao medij razmjene. Kao što je prethodno rečeno, monetizacija Bitcoina se odvija u seriji Gartner hype ciklusa. Volatilnost je najniža za vrijeme vrhunaca i dolina unutar ciklusa. Svaki hype ciklus ima nižu volatilnost od prethodnih, zato što je likvidnost tržišta veća.

Cijene transakcija su previsoke

Novija kritika Bitcoin mreže je ta da ju je povećanje cijena prijenosa bitcoina učinilo neprikladnom za sustav plaćanja. No, rast u cijenama transakcija je zdrav i očekivan. One su nužne za plaćanje bitcoin minera (rudara), koji osiguravaju mrežu validacijom transakcija. Rudare se plaća kroz cijene transakcija ili kroz blok-nagrade, koje su inflacijska subvencija od trane trenutnih vlasnika bitcoina.

S obzirom na Bitcoinovu fiksnu proizvodnju (monetarna politika koja ga čini idealnim za spremanje vrijednosti), blok-nagrade će s vremenom nestati i mrežu će se u konačnici morati osiguravati kroz cijene transakcija. Mreža sa “niskim” cijenama transakcija je mreža sa slabom sigurnosti i osjetljiva na vanjsku intervenciju i cenzuru. Oni koji hvale niske cijene Bitcoinovih alternative zapravo niti ne znajući opisuju slabosti tih takozvanih “alt-coina.”

Površan temelj kritika Bitcoinovih “visokih” cijena transakcija je uvjerenje da bi Bitcoin trebao biti prvo sustav plaćanja, i drugo spremište vrijednosti. Kao što smo vidjeli kroz povijest novca, ovo uvjerenje je naopako. Samo onda kada Bitcoin postane duboko ukorijenjeno spremište novca može biti prikladan kao sredstvo razmjene. Nadalje, kada oportunitetni trošak razmjene bitcoina dođe na razinu koja ga čini prikladnim sredstvom razmjene, većina trgovine neće se odvijati na samoj Bitcoin mreži, nego na mrežama “drugog sloja” (second layer) koje će imati niže cijene transakcija. Takve mreže, poput Lightning mreže, služe kao moderna verzija zadužnica koje su korištene za prijenos vlasničkih papira zlata u 19. stoljeću. Banke su koristile zadužnice zato što je prijenos samog metala bio daleko skuplji. Za razliku od takvih zadužnica, Lightning mreža će omogućavati nisku cijenu prijenosa bitcoina bez potrebe za povjerenjem prema trećoj strani, poput banaka. Razvoj Lightning mreže je tehnološka inovacija od izuzetne važnosti u povijesti Bitcoina, i njezina vrijednost će postati očita u narednim godinama, kako je sve više ljudi bude razvijalo i koristilo.

Konkurencija

Pošto je Bitcoin softverski protokol otvorenog tipa (open-source), oduvijek je bilo moguće kopirati softver i imitirati mrežu. Kroz godine nastajali su mnogi imitatori, od identičnih kopija, kao Litecoin, do kompleksnijih varijanti kao što je Ethereum, koje obećavaju arbitrarno kompleksne ugovorne mehanizme koristeći decentralizirani računalni sustav. Česta kritika Bitcoinu od strane ulagača je ta da on ne može zadržati svoju vrijednost kada je vrlo lako stvoriti konkurente koji mogu lako i brzo u sebi imati najnovije inovacije i softverske funkcionalnosti.

Greška u ovom argumentu leži u manju takozvanog “mrežnog efekta” (network effect), koji postoji u prvoj i dominantnoj tehnologiji u nekom području. Mrežni efekt - velika vrijednost korištenja Bitcoina samo zato što je već dominantan - je važno svojstvo samo po sebi. Za svaku tehnologiju koja posjeduje mrežni efekt, to je daleko najvažnije svojstvo koje može imati.

Za Bitcoin, mrežni efekt uključuje likvidnost njegovog tržišta, broj ljudi koji ga posjeduju, i zajednicu programera koji održavaju i unaprjeđuju njegov softver i svjesnost u javnosti. Veliki ulagači, uključujući države, će uvijek prvo tražiti najlikvidnije tržište, kako bi mogli ući i izaći iz tržišta brzo, i bez utjecanja na cijenu. Programeri će se pridružiti dominantnoj programerskoj zajednici sa najboljim talentom, i time pojačati samu zajednicu. Svjesnost o brendu sama sebe pojačava, pošto se nadobudni konkurenti Bitcoina uvijek spominju u kontekstu Bitcoina kao takvog.

Raskrižje na putu (fork)

Trend koji je postao popularan 2017. godine nije bio samo imitacija Bitcoinovog softvera, nego kopiranje potpune povijesti njegovih prošlih transakcija (cijeli blockchain). Kopiranjem Bitcoinovog blockchaina do određene točke/bloka i odvajanjem sljedećih blokova ka novoj mreži, u procesu znanom kao “forking” (odvajanje), Bitcoinovi konkurenti su uspjeli riješiti problem distribuiranja svojeg tokena velikom broju korisnika.

Najznačajniji takav fork dogodio se 1. 8. 2017. godine, kada je nova mreža nazvana Bitcoin Cash (Bcash) stvorena. Vlasnik N količine bitcoina prije 1.8.2017. bi onda posjedovao N bitcoina i N BCash tokena. Mala, ali vrlo glasna zajednica Bcash proponenata je neumorno pokušavala prisvojiti Bitcoinov brend i ime, imenujući svoju novu mrežu Bitcoin Cast i pokušavajući uvjeriti nove pridošlice u Bitcoin da je Bcash “pravi” Bitcoin. Ti pokušaji su većinom propali, i taj neuspjeh se vidi u tržišnim kapitalizacijama dviju mreža. No, za nove ulagače, i dalje postoji rizik da bi konkurent mogao kopirati Bitcoin i njegov blockchain i tako uspjeti u preuzimanju tržišne kapitalizacije, te postati de facto Bitcoin.

Moguće je uočiti važno pravilo gledajući velike forkove u prošlosti Bitcoin i Ethereum mreža. Većina tržišne kapitalizacije odvijat će se na mreži koja zadrži najviši stupanj talenta i aktivnosti u zajednici programera. Premda se na Bitcoin može gledati kao na nov i mlad novac, on je također računalna mreža koja počiva na softveru, kojeg se pak treba održavati i poboljšavati. Kupovina tokena na mreži koja ima malo neiskusnih programera bilo bi kao kupovati kopiju Microsoft Windowsa na kojoj rade lošiji programeri. Jasno je vidljivo iz povijesti forkova koji su se odvili 2017. godine da su najbolji računalni i kriptografski stručnjaci posvećeni razvoju originalnog Bitcoina, a ne nekoj od rastućeg broja imitacija koje su se izrodile iz njega.

Stvarni rizici

Premda su uobičajene kritike upućene Bitconu od strane medija i ekonomske profesije krive i bazirane na netočnom shvaćanju novca, postoje pravi i značajni rizici kod ulaganja u Bitcoin. Bilo bi mudro za novog Bitcoin ulagača da shvati ove rizike prije potencijalnog ulaganja.

Rizik protokola

Bitcoin protokol i kriptografski sastavni dijelovi na kojima je sagrađen potencijalno imaju dosad nepronađenu grešku u svom dizajnu, ili mogu postati nesigurni razvojem kvantnih računala. Ako se pronađe greška u protokolu, ili neka nova metoda računarstva učini mogućim probijanje kriptografskih temelja Bitcoina, vjera u Bitcoin biti će znatno narušena. Rizik protokola bio je najviši u ranim godinama razvoja Bitcoina, kada je još uvijek bilo nejasno, čak i iskusnim kriptografima, je li Satoshi Nakamoto zaista riješio problem bizantskih generala (Byzantine Generals’ Problem). Brige oko ozbiljnih grešaka u Bitcoin protokolu nestale su kroz godine, no uzevši u obzir njegovu tehnološku prirodu, rizik protokola će uvijek ostati u Bitcoinu, makar i kao izuzetak.

Propadanje mjenjačnica

Time što je decentraliziran, Bitcoin je pokazao značajnu otpornost, suočen sa brojnim pokušajima raznih vlada da ga reguliraju ili unište. No, mjenjačnice koje trguju bitcoinima za fiat valute su centralizirani entiteti i podložne regulacijama i zatvaranju. Bez mjenjačnica i volje bankara da s njima posluju, proces monetizacije Bitcoina bio bi ozbiljno usporen, ako ne i potpuno zaustavljen. Iako postoje alternativni izvori likvidnosti za Bitcoin, poput “over-the-counter” brokera i decentraliziranih tržišta za kupovinu i prodaju bitcoina, kritičan proces otkrivanja i definiranja cijene se odvija na najlikvidnijim mjenjačnicama, koje su sve centralizirane.

Jedan od načina za umanjivanje rizika gašenja mjenjačnica je geografska arbitraža. Binance, jedna od velikih mjenjačnica iz Kine, preselila se u Japan nakon što joj je kineska vlada zabranila operiranje u Kini. Vlade su također oprezne kako ne bi ugušile novu industriju koja je potencijalno značajna kao i internet, i time predale nevjerojatnu konkurentnu vrijednost drugim nacijama.

Samo kroz koordinirano globalno ukidanje Bitcoin mjenjačnica bi proces monetizacije mogao biti zaustavljen. Trenutno smo u utrci; Bitcoin raste i postaje sve rašireniji, i doći će do trenutka kada bi potpuno ukidanje mjenjačnica postalo politički neizvedivo - kao i gašenje interneta. Mogućnost takvog ukidanja je još uvijek realna, i valja je uzeti u obzir pri ulaganju u Bitcoin. Kao što je gore objašnjeno, suverene vlade se polako bude i uviđaju prijetnju koju predstavlja neovisna digitalna valuta otporna na cenzuru, za njihovu monetarnu politiku. Otvoreno je pitanje hoće li išta poduzeti da odgovore ovoj prijetnji prije nego Bitcoin postane toliko utvrđen i raširen da politička akcija postane nemoćna i ne-efektivna.

Zamjenjivost

Otvorena i transparentna priroda Bitcoin blockchaina omogućava državama da proglase specifične bitcoine “okaljanima” zbog njihovog korištenja u određenim aktivnostima. Premda Bitcoin, na protokolarnoj razini, ne diskriminira transakcije na ikoji način, “okaljani” bitcoini bi mogli postati bezvrijedni ako bi ih regulacije proglasile ilegalnima i neprihvatljivima za mjenjačnice ili trgovce. Bitcoin bi tada izgubio jedno od kritičnih svojstava monetarnog dobra: zamjenjivost.

Da bi se ovaj problem riješio i umanjio, biti će potrebna poboljšanja na razini protokola kako bi se poboljšala privatnost transakcija. Premda postoji napredak u ovom smjeru, prvi put primjenjen u digitalnim valutama kao što su Monero i Zcash, potrebno je napraviti značajne tehnološke kompromise između efikasnosti i kompleksnosti Bitcoina i njegove privatnosti. Pitanje ostaje otvoreno je li moguće dodati nova svojstva privatnosti na Bitcoin, na način koji neće kompromitirati njegovu korisnost kao novca.

Zaključak

Bitcoin je novonastali novac koji je u procesu transformacije iz sakupljačkog dobra u spremište vrijednosti. Kao neovisno monetarno dobro, moguće je da će u budućnosti postati globalan novac, slično kao zlato za vrijeme 19. stoljeća. Prihvaćanje Bitcoina kao globalnog novca je upravo taj optimističan scenarij za Bitcoin, kojeg je artikulirao Satoshi Nakamoto još 2010. godine u email razmjeni sa Mikeom Hearnom:

"Ako zamisliš da se koristi u nekom dijelu svjetske trgovine, i da će postojati samo 21 milijun bitcoina za cijeli svijet, vrijednost po jedinici će biti znatno veća".

Ovaj scenarij je još snažnije definirao briljantni kriptograf Hal Finney, koji je ujedno primio i prve bitcoine od Nakamotoa, ubrzo nakon najave prvog funkcionalnog Bitcoin softvera:

"Zamislimo da Bitcoin bude uspješan i postane dominantan sustav plaćanja diljem svijeta. U tom slučaju će ukupna vrijednost valute biti jednaka ukupnoj vrijednosti svog bogatstva svijeta. Današnje procjene ukupnog svjetskog bogatska kućanstava koje sam pronašao borave negdje između 100 i 300 trilijuna dolara. Sa 20 milijuna bitcoina, svaki bi onda vrijedio oko 10 milijuna dolara."

Čak i da Bitcoin ne postane u cijelost globalan novac, nego da se samo natječe sa zlatom kao neovisno spremište vrijednosti, i dalje je masivno podcijenjen. Mapiranje tržišne kapitalizacije postojeće količine izrudarenog zlata (oko 8 trilijuna dolara) na maksimalnu dostupnost Bitcoina od 21 milijun, daje vrijednost od otprilike 380,000 dolara po bitcoinu. Kao što smo vidjeli u prethodnom tekstu, svojstva koja omogućavaju monetarnom dobru da bude prikladno spremište vrijednosti, čine Bitcoin superiornijim zlatu u svakom pogledu osim trajanja povijesti. No, kako vrijeme prolazi i Lindy efekt postane jači, dosadašnja povijest će prestati biti prednost zlata. Samim time, nije nerazumno očekivati da će Bitcoin narasti do, a možda i preko, ukupne cijene zlata na tržištvu do 2030. Opaska ovoj tezi je činjenica da veliki postotak vrijednosti zlata dolazi od toga što ga centralne banke čuvaju kao spremište vrijednosti. Da bi Bitcoin došao do te razine, određena količina suverenih država će trebati sudjelovati. Hoće li zapadnjačke demokracije sudjelovati u vlasništvu Bitcoina je nepoznato. Vjerojatnije je, nažalost, da će prve nacije u Bitcoin tržištu biti sitne diktature i kleptokracije.

Ako niti jedna država ne bude sudjelovala u Bitcoin tržištu, optimistična teza i dalje postoji. Kao nevisno spremište vrijednosti u rukama individualnih i institucionalnih ulagača, Bitcoin je i dalje vrlo rano u svojoj “krivulji prihvaćenosti” (adoption curve); tzv. “rana većina” ulaze na tržište sada, dok će ostali ući tek nekoliko godina kasnije. Sa širim sudjelovanjem individualnih i institucionalnih ulagača, cijena po bitcoinu između 100,000 i 200,000 dolara je sasvim moguća.

Posjedovanje bitcoina je jedna od malobrojnih asimetričnih novčanih strategija dostupnih svakome na svijetu. Poput “call” opcija, negativan rizik ulagača je ograničen na 1x, dok potencijalna dobit i dalje iznosi 100x ili više. Bitcoin je prvi istinski globalan balon čija je veličina ograničena samo potražnjom i željom građana svijeta da zaštite svoju ušteđevinu od raznovrsnih ekonomskih malverzacija vlade. Bitcoin je ustao kao feniks iz pepela globalne financijske krize 2008. godine - katastrofe kojoj su prethodile odluke centralnih banaka poput američke Federalne rezerve (Federal Reserve).

Onkraj samo financijske teze za Bitcoin, njegov rast i uspjeh kao neovisno spremište vrijednosti imat će duboke geopolitičke posljedice. Globalna, ne-inflacijska valuta će prisiliti suverene države da promjene svoje primarne mehanizme financiranja od inflacije u izravno oporezivanje; koje je daleko manje politički popularno. Države će se smanjivati proporcionalno političkoj boli koju im nanese oporezivanje kao jedini način financiranja. Nadalje, globalna trgovina vršiti će se na način koji zadovoljava aspiraciju Charlesa de Gaullea, da nijedna nacija ne bi smjela imati privilegiju nad ikojom drugom:

"Smatramo da je potrebno da se uspostavi međunarodna trgovina, kao što je bio slučaj prije velikih nesreća koje su zadesile svijet, na neosporivoj monetarnoj bazi, koja ne nosi na sebi oznaku ijedne države."

Za 50 godina, ta monetarna baza biti će Bitcoin.

@ eac63075:b4988b48

Based on a recent paper that included collaboration from renowned experts such as Lynn Alden, Steve Lee, and Ren Crypto Fish, we discuss in depth how Bitcoin's consensus is built, the main risks, and the complex dynamics of protocol upgrades.

PT-BR version

Podcast https://www.fountain.fm/episode/wbjD6ntQuvX5u2G5BccC

Presentation https://gamma.app/docs/Analyzing-Bitcoin-Consensus-Risks-in-Protocol-Upgrades-p66axxjwaa37ksn

1. Introduction to Consensus in Bitcoin

Consensus in Bitcoin is the foundation that keeps the network secure and functional, allowing users worldwide to perform transactions in a decentralized manner without the need for intermediaries. Since its launch in 2009, Bitcoin is often described as an "immutable" system designed to resist changes, and it is precisely this resistance that ensures its security and stability.

The central idea behind consensus in Bitcoin is to create a set of acceptance rules for blocks and transactions, ensuring that all network participants agree on the transaction history. This prevents "double-spending," where the same bitcoin could be used in two simultaneous transactions, something that would compromise trust in the network.

Evolution of Consensus in Bitcoin

Over the years, consensus in Bitcoin has undergone several adaptations, and the way participants agree on changes remains a delicate process. Unlike traditional systems, where changes can be imposed from the top down, Bitcoin operates in a decentralized model where any significant change needs the support of various groups of stakeholders, including miners, developers, users, and large node operators.

Moreover, the update process is extremely cautious, as hasty changes can compromise the network's security. As a result, the philosophy of "don't fix what isn't broken" prevails, with improvements happening incrementally and only after broad consensus among those involved. This model can make progress seem slow but ensures that Bitcoin remains faithful to the principles of security and decentralization.

---

2. Technical Components of Consensus

Bitcoin's consensus is supported by a set of technical rules that determine what is considered a valid transaction and a valid block on the network. These technical aspects ensure that all nodes—the computers that participate in the Bitcoin network—agree on the current state of the blockchain. Below are the main technical components that form the basis of the consensus.

Validation of Blocks and Transactions

The validation of blocks and transactions is the central point of consensus in Bitcoin. A block is only considered valid if it meets certain criteria, such as maximum size, transaction structure, and the solving of the "Proof of Work" problem. The proof of work, required for a block to be included in the blockchain, is a computational process that ensures the block contains significant computational effort—protecting the network against manipulation attempts.

Transactions, in turn, need to follow specific input and output rules. Each transaction includes cryptographic signatures that prove the ownership of the bitcoins sent, as well as validation scripts that verify if the transaction conditions are met. This validation system is essential for network nodes to autonomously confirm that each transaction follows the rules.

Chain Selection

Another fundamental technical issue for Bitcoin's consensus is chain selection, which becomes especially important in cases where multiple versions of the blockchain coexist, such as after a network split (fork). To decide which chain is the "true" one and should be followed, the network adopts the criterion of the highest accumulated proof of work. In other words, the chain with the highest number of valid blocks, built with the greatest computational effort, is chosen by the network as the official one.

This criterion avoids permanent splits because it encourages all nodes to follow the same main chain, reinforcing consensus.

Soft Forks vs. Hard Forks

In the consensus process, protocol changes can happen in two ways: through soft forks or hard forks. These variations affect not only the protocol update but also the implications for network users:

• Soft Forks: These are changes that are backward compatible. Only nodes that adopt the new update will follow the new rules, but old nodes will still recognize the blocks produced with these rules as valid. This compatibility makes soft forks a safer option for updates, as it minimizes the risk of network division.

• Hard Forks: These are updates that are not backward compatible, requiring all nodes to update to the new version or risk being separated from the main chain. Hard forks can result in the creation of a new coin, as occurred with the split between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash in 2017. While hard forks allow for deeper changes, they also bring significant risks of network fragmentation.

These technical components form the base of Bitcoin's security and resilience, allowing the system to remain functional and immutable without losing the necessary flexibility to evolve over time.

---

3. Stakeholders in Bitcoin's Consensus

Consensus in Bitcoin is not decided centrally. On the contrary, it depends on the interaction between different groups of stakeholders, each with their motivations, interests, and levels of influence. These groups play fundamental roles in how changes are implemented or rejected on the network. Below, we explore the six main stakeholders in Bitcoin's consensus.

1. Economic Nodes

Economic nodes, usually operated by exchanges, custody providers, and large companies that accept Bitcoin, exert significant influence over consensus. Because they handle large volumes of transactions and act as a connection point between the Bitcoin ecosystem and the traditional financial system, these nodes have the power to validate or reject blocks and to define which version of the software to follow in case of a fork.

Their influence is proportional to the volume of transactions they handle, and they can directly affect which chain will be seen as the main one. Their incentive is to maintain the network's stability and security to preserve its functionality and meet regulatory requirements.

2. Investors

Investors, including large institutional funds and individual Bitcoin holders, influence consensus indirectly through their impact on the asset's price. Their buying and selling actions can affect Bitcoin's value, which in turn influences the motivation of miners and other stakeholders to continue investing in the network's security and development.

Some institutional investors have agreements with custodians that may limit their ability to act in network split situations. Thus, the impact of each investor on consensus can vary based on their ownership structure and how quickly they can react to a network change.

3. Media Influencers

Media influencers, including journalists, analysts, and popular personalities on social media, have a powerful role in shaping public opinion about Bitcoin and possible updates. These influencers can help educate the public, promote debates, and bring transparency to the consensus process.

On the other hand, the impact of influencers can be double-edged: while they can clarify complex topics, they can also distort perceptions by amplifying or minimizing change proposals. This makes them a force both of support and resistance to consensus.

4. Miners

Miners are responsible for validating transactions and including blocks in the blockchain. Through computational power (hashrate), they also exert significant influence over consensus decisions. In update processes, miners often signal their support for a proposal, indicating that the new version is safe to use. However, this signaling is not always definitive, and miners can change their position if they deem it necessary.

Their incentive is to maximize returns from block rewards and transaction fees, as well as to maintain the value of investments in their specialized equipment, which are only profitable if the network remains stable.

5. Protocol Developers

Protocol developers, often called "Core Developers," are responsible for writing and maintaining Bitcoin's code. Although they do not have direct power over consensus, they possess an informal veto power since they decide which changes are included in the main client (Bitcoin Core). This group also serves as an important source of technical knowledge, helping guide decisions and inform other stakeholders.

Their incentive lies in the continuous improvement of the network, ensuring security and decentralization. Many developers are funded by grants and sponsorships, but their motivations generally include a strong ideological commitment to Bitcoin's principles.

6. Users and Application Developers

This group includes people who use Bitcoin in their daily transactions and developers who build solutions based on the network, such as wallets, exchanges, and payment platforms. Although their power in consensus is less than that of miners or economic nodes, they play an important role because they are responsible for popularizing Bitcoin's use and expanding the ecosystem.

If application developers decide not to adopt an update, this can affect compatibility and widespread acceptance. Thus, they indirectly influence consensus by deciding which version of the protocol to follow in their applications.

These stakeholders are vital to the consensus process, and each group exerts influence according to their involvement, incentives, and ability to act in situations of change. Understanding the role of each makes it clearer how consensus is formed and why it is so difficult to make significant changes to Bitcoin.

---

4. Mechanisms for Activating Updates in Bitcoin

For Bitcoin to evolve without compromising security and consensus, different mechanisms for activating updates have been developed over the years. These mechanisms help coordinate changes among network nodes to minimize the risk of fragmentation and ensure that updates are implemented in an orderly manner. Here, we explore some of the main methods used in Bitcoin, their advantages and disadvantages, as well as historical examples of significant updates.

Flag Day

The Flag Day mechanism is one of the simplest forms of activating changes. In it, a specific date or block is determined as the activation moment, and all nodes must be updated by that point. This method does not involve prior signaling; participants simply need to update to the new software version by the established day or block.

• Advantages: Simplicity and predictability are the main benefits of Flag Day, as everyone knows the exact activation date.

• Disadvantages: Inflexibility can be a problem because there is no way to adjust the schedule if a significant part of the network has not updated. This can result in network splits if a significant number of nodes are not ready for the update.

An example of Flag Day was the Pay to Script Hash (P2SH) update in 2012, which required all nodes to adopt the change to avoid compatibility issues.

BIP34 and BIP9

BIP34 introduced a more dynamic process, in which miners increase the version number in block headers to signal the update. When a predetermined percentage of the last blocks is mined with this new version, the update is automatically activated. This model later evolved with BIP9, which allowed multiple updates to be signaled simultaneously through "version bits," each corresponding to a specific change.

• Advantages: Allows the network to activate updates gradually, giving more time for participants to adapt.

• Disadvantages: These methods rely heavily on miner support, which means that if a sufficient number of miners do not signal the update, it can be delayed or not implemented.

BIP9 was used in the activation of SegWit (BIP141) but faced challenges because some miners did not signal their intent to activate, leading to the development of new mechanisms.

User Activated Soft Forks (UASF) and User Resisted Soft Forks (URSF)

To increase the decision-making power of ordinary users, the concept of User Activated Soft Fork (UASF) was introduced, allowing node operators, not just miners, to determine consensus for a change. In this model, nodes set a date to start rejecting blocks that are not in compliance with the new update, forcing miners to adapt or risk having their blocks rejected by the network.

URSF, in turn, is a model where nodes reject blocks that attempt to adopt a specific update, functioning as resistance against proposed changes.

• Advantages: UASF returns decision-making power to node operators, ensuring that changes do not depend solely on miners.

• Disadvantages: Both UASF and URSF can generate network splits, especially in cases of strong opposition among different stakeholders.

An example of UASF was the activation of SegWit in 2017, where users supported activation independently of miner signaling, which ended up forcing its adoption.

BIP8 (LOT=True)

BIP8 is an evolution of BIP9, designed to prevent miners from indefinitely blocking a change desired by the majority of users and developers. BIP8 allows setting a parameter called "lockinontimeout" (LOT) as true, which means that if the update has not been fully signaled by a certain point, it is automatically activated.

• Advantages: Ensures that changes with broad support among users are not blocked by miners who wish to maintain the status quo.

• Disadvantages: Can lead to network splits if miners or other important stakeholders do not support the update.

Although BIP8 with LOT=True has not yet been used in Bitcoin, it is a proposal that can be applied in future updates if necessary.

These activation mechanisms have been essential for Bitcoin's development, allowing updates that keep the network secure and functional. Each method brings its own advantages and challenges, but all share the goal of preserving consensus and network cohesion.

---

5. Risks and Considerations in Consensus Updates

Consensus updates in Bitcoin are complex processes that involve not only technical aspects but also political, economic, and social considerations. Due to the network's decentralized nature, each change brings with it a set of risks that need to be carefully assessed. Below, we explore some of the main challenges and future scenarios, as well as the possible impacts on stakeholders.

Network Fragility with Alternative Implementations

One of the main risks associated with consensus updates is the possibility of network fragmentation when there are alternative software implementations. If an update is implemented by a significant group of nodes but rejected by others, a network split (fork) can occur. This creates two competing chains, each with a different version of the transaction history, leading to unpredictable consequences for users and investors.

Such fragmentation weakens Bitcoin because, by dividing hashing power (computing) and coin value, it reduces network security and investor confidence. A notable example of this risk was the fork that gave rise to Bitcoin Cash in 2017 when disagreements over block size resulted in a new chain and a new asset.

Chain Splits and Impact on Stakeholders

Chain splits are a significant risk in update processes, especially in hard forks. During a hard fork, the network is split into two separate chains, each with its own set of rules. This results in the creation of a new coin and leaves users with duplicated assets on both chains. While this may seem advantageous, in the long run, these splits weaken the network and create uncertainties for investors.

Each group of stakeholders reacts differently to a chain split:

• Institutional Investors and ETFs: Face regulatory and compliance challenges because many of these assets are managed under strict regulations. The creation of a new coin requires decisions to be made quickly to avoid potential losses, which may be hampered by regulatory constraints.

• Miners: May be incentivized to shift their computing power to the chain that offers higher profitability, which can weaken one of the networks.

• Economic Nodes: Such as major exchanges and custody providers, have to quickly choose which chain to support, influencing the perceived value of each network.

Such divisions can generate uncertainties and loss of value, especially for institutional investors and those who use Bitcoin as a store of value.

Regulatory Impacts and Institutional Investors

With the growing presence of institutional investors in Bitcoin, consensus changes face new compliance challenges. Bitcoin ETFs, for example, are required to follow strict rules about which assets they can include and how chain split events should be handled. The creation of a new asset or migration to a new chain can complicate these processes, creating pressure for large financial players to quickly choose a chain, affecting the stability of consensus.

Moreover, decisions regarding forks can influence the Bitcoin futures and derivatives market, affecting perception and adoption by new investors. Therefore, the need to avoid splits and maintain cohesion is crucial to attract and preserve the confidence of these investors.

Security Considerations in Soft Forks and Hard Forks

While soft forks are generally preferred in Bitcoin for their backward compatibility, they are not without risks. Soft forks can create different classes of nodes on the network (updated and non-updated), which increases operational complexity and can ultimately weaken consensus cohesion. In a network scenario with fragmentation of node classes, Bitcoin's security can be affected, as some nodes may lose part of the visibility over updated transactions or rules.

In hard forks, the security risk is even more evident because all nodes need to adopt the new update to avoid network division. Experience shows that abrupt changes can create temporary vulnerabilities, in which malicious agents try to exploit the transition to attack the network.

Bounty Claim Risks and Attack Scenarios

Another risk in consensus updates are so-called "bounty claims"—accumulated rewards that can be obtained if an attacker manages to split or deceive a part of the network. In a conflict scenario, a group of miners or nodes could be incentivized to support a new update or create an alternative version of the software to benefit from these rewards.

These risks require stakeholders to carefully assess each update and the potential vulnerabilities it may introduce. The possibility of "bounty claims" adds a layer of complexity to consensus because each interest group may see a financial opportunity in a change that, in the long term, may harm network stability.

The risks discussed above show the complexity of consensus in Bitcoin and the importance of approaching it gradually and deliberately. Updates need to consider not only technical aspects but also economic and social implications, in order to preserve Bitcoin's integrity and maintain trust among stakeholders.

---

6. Recommendations for the Consensus Process in Bitcoin

To ensure that protocol changes in Bitcoin are implemented safely and with broad support, it is essential that all stakeholders adopt a careful and coordinated approach. Here are strategic recommendations for evaluating, supporting, or rejecting consensus updates, considering the risks and challenges discussed earlier, along with best practices for successful implementation.

1. Careful Evaluation of Proposal Maturity

Stakeholders should rigorously assess the maturity level of a proposal before supporting its implementation. Updates that are still experimental or lack a robust technical foundation can expose the network to unnecessary risks. Ideally, change proposals should go through an extensive testing phase, have security audits, and receive review and feedback from various developers and experts.

2. Extensive Testing in Secure and Compatible Networks

Before an update is activated on the mainnet, it is essential to test it on networks like testnet and signet, and whenever possible, on other compatible networks that offer a safe and controlled environment to identify potential issues. Testing on networks like Litecoin was fundamental for the safe launch of innovations like SegWit and the Lightning Network, allowing functionalities to be validated on a lower-impact network before being implemented on Bitcoin.

The Liquid Network, developed by Blockstream, also plays an important role as an experimental network for new proposals, such as OP_CAT. By adopting these testing environments, stakeholders can mitigate risks and ensure that the update is reliable and secure before being adopted by the main network.

3. Importance of Stakeholder Engagement

The success of a consensus update strongly depends on the active participation of all stakeholders. This includes economic nodes, miners, protocol developers, investors, and end users. Lack of participation can lead to inadequate decisions or even future network splits, which would compromise Bitcoin's security and stability.

4. Key Questions for Evaluating Consensus Proposals

To assist in decision-making, each group of stakeholders should consider some key questions before supporting a consensus change:

• Does the proposal offer tangible benefits for Bitcoin's security, scalability, or usability?
• Does it maintain backward compatibility or introduce the risk of network split?
• Are the implementation requirements clear and feasible for each group involved?
• Are there clear and aligned incentives for all stakeholder groups to accept the change?

5. Coordination and Timing in Implementations

Timing is crucial. Updates with short activation windows can force a split because not all nodes and miners can update simultaneously. Changes should be planned with ample deadlines to allow all stakeholders to adjust their systems, avoiding surprises that could lead to fragmentation.

Mechanisms like soft forks are generally preferable to hard forks because they allow a smoother transition. Opting for backward-compatible updates when possible facilitates the process and ensures that nodes and miners can adapt without pressure.

6. Continuous Monitoring and Re-evaluation

After an update, it's essential to monitor the network to identify problems or side effects. This continuous process helps ensure cohesion and trust among all participants, keeping Bitcoin as a secure and robust network.

These recommendations, including the use of secure networks for extensive testing, promote a collaborative and secure environment for Bitcoin's consensus process. By adopting a deliberate and strategic approach, stakeholders can preserve Bitcoin's value as a decentralized and censorship-resistant network.

---

7. Conclusion

Consensus in Bitcoin is more than a set of rules; it's the foundation that sustains the network as a decentralized, secure, and reliable system. Unlike centralized systems, where decisions can be made quickly, Bitcoin requires a much more deliberate and cooperative approach, where the interests of miners, economic nodes, developers, investors, and users must be considered and harmonized. This governance model may seem slow, but it is fundamental to preserving the resilience and trust that make Bitcoin a global store of value and censorship-resistant.

Consensus updates in Bitcoin must balance the need for innovation with the preservation of the network's core principles. The development process of a proposal needs to be detailed and rigorous, going through several testing stages, such as in testnet, signet, and compatible networks like Litecoin and Liquid Network. These networks offer safe environments for proposals to be analyzed and improved before being launched on the main network.

Each proposed change must be carefully evaluated regarding its maturity, impact, backward compatibility, and support among stakeholders. The recommended key questions and appropriate timing are critical to ensure that an update is adopted without compromising network cohesion. It's also essential that the implementation process is continuously monitored and re-evaluated, allowing adjustments as necessary and minimizing the risk of instability.

By following these guidelines, Bitcoin's stakeholders can ensure that the network continues to evolve safely and robustly, maintaining user trust and further solidifying its role as one of the most resilient and innovative digital assets in the world. Ultimately, consensus in Bitcoin is not just a technical issue but a reflection of its community and the values it represents: security, decentralization, and resilience.

---

8. Links

Whitepaper: https://github.com/bitcoin-cap/bcap

Youtube (pt-br): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rARycAibl9o&list=PL-qnhF0qlSPkfhorqsREuIu4UTbF0h4zb

@ eac63075:b4988b48

The future of physical money is at stake, and the discussion about DREX, the new digital currency planned by the Central Bank of Brazil, is gaining momentum. In a candid and intense conversation, Federal Deputy Julia Zanatta (PL/SC) discussed the challenges and risks of this digital transition, also addressing her Bill No. 3,341/2024, which aims to prevent the extinction of physical currency. This bill emerges as a direct response to legislative initiatives seeking to replace physical money with digital alternatives, limiting citizens' options and potentially compromising individual freedom. Let's delve into the main points of this conversation.

https://www.fountain.fm/episode/i5YGJ9Ors3PkqAIMvNQ0

(PT-BR version here)

What is a CBDC?

Before discussing the specifics of DREX, it’s important to understand what a CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency) is. CBDCs are digital currencies issued by central banks, similar to a digital version of physical money. Unlike cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, which operate in a decentralized manner, CBDCs are centralized and regulated by the government. In other words, they are digital currencies created and controlled by the Central Bank, intended to replace physical currency.

A prominent feature of CBDCs is their programmability. This means that the government can theoretically set rules about how, where, and for what this currency can be used. This aspect enables a level of control over citizens' finances that is impossible with physical money. By programming the currency, the government could limit transactions by setting geographical or usage restrictions. In practice, money within a CBDC could be restricted to specific spending or authorized for use in a defined geographical area.

In countries like China, where citizen actions and attitudes are also monitored, a person considered to have a "low score" due to a moral or ideological violation may have their transactions limited to essential purchases, restricting their digital currency use to non-essential activities. This financial control is strengthened because, unlike physical money, digital currency cannot be exchanged anonymously.

Practical Example: The Case of DREX During the Pandemic

To illustrate how DREX could be used, an example was given by Eric Altafim, director of Banco Itaú. He suggested that, if DREX had existed during the COVID-19 pandemic, the government could have restricted the currency’s use to a 5-kilometer radius around a person’s residence, limiting their economic mobility. Another proposed use by the executive related to the Bolsa Família welfare program: the government could set up programming that only allows this benefit to be used exclusively for food purchases. Although these examples are presented as control measures for safety or organization, they demonstrate how much a CBDC could restrict citizens' freedom of choice.

To illustrate the potential for state control through a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), such as DREX, it is helpful to look at the example of China. In China, the implementation of a CBDC coincides with the country’s Social Credit System, a governmental surveillance tool that assesses citizens' and companies' behavior. Together, these technologies allow the Chinese government to monitor, reward, and, above all, punish behavior deemed inappropriate or threatening to the government.

How Does China's Social Credit System Work?

Implemented in 2014, China's Social Credit System assigns every citizen and company a "score" based on various factors, including financial behavior, criminal record, social interactions, and even online activities. This score determines the benefits or penalties each individual receives and can affect everything from public transport access to obtaining loans and enrolling in elite schools for their children. Citizens with low scores may face various sanctions, including travel restrictions, fines, and difficulty in securing loans.

With the adoption of the CBDC — or “digital yuan” — the Chinese government now has a new tool to closely monitor citizens' financial transactions, facilitating the application of Social Credit System penalties. China’s CBDC is a programmable digital currency, which means that the government can restrict how, when, and where the money can be spent. Through this level of control, digital currency becomes a powerful mechanism for influencing citizens' behavior.

Imagine, for instance, a citizen who repeatedly posts critical remarks about the government on social media or participates in protests. If the Social Credit System assigns this citizen a low score, the Chinese government could, through the CBDC, restrict their money usage in certain areas or sectors. For example, they could be prevented from buying tickets to travel to other regions, prohibited from purchasing certain consumer goods, or even restricted to making transactions only at stores near their home.

Another example of how the government can use the CBDC to enforce the Social Credit System is by monitoring purchases of products such as alcohol or luxury items. If a citizen uses the CBDC to spend more than the government deems reasonable on such products, this could negatively impact their social score, resulting in additional penalties such as future purchase restrictions or a lowered rating that impacts their personal and professional lives.

In China, this kind of control has already been demonstrated in several cases. Citizens added to Social Credit System “blacklists” have seen their spending and investment capacity severely limited. The combination of digital currency and social scores thus creates a sophisticated and invasive surveillance system, through which the Chinese government controls important aspects of citizens’ financial lives and individual freedoms.

Deputy Julia Zanatta views these examples with great concern. She argues that if the state has full control over digital money, citizens will be exposed to a level of economic control and surveillance never seen before. In a democracy, this control poses a risk, but in an authoritarian regime, it could be used as a powerful tool of repression.

DREX and Bill No. 3,341/2024

Julia Zanatta became aware of a bill by a Workers' Party (PT) deputy (Bill 4068/2020 by Deputy Reginaldo Lopes - PT/MG) that proposes the extinction of physical money within five years, aiming for a complete transition to DREX, the digital currency developed by the Central Bank of Brazil. Concerned about the impact of this measure, Julia drafted her bill, PL No. 3,341/2024, which prohibits the elimination of physical money, ensuring citizens the right to choose physical currency.

“The more I read about DREX, the less I want its implementation,” says the deputy. DREX is a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), similar to other state digital currencies worldwide, but which, according to Julia, carries extreme control risks. She points out that with DREX, the State could closely monitor each citizen’s transactions, eliminating anonymity and potentially restricting freedom of choice. This control would lie in the hands of the Central Bank, which could, in a crisis or government change, “freeze balances or even delete funds directly from user accounts.”

Risks and Individual Freedom

Julia raises concerns about potential abuses of power that complete digitalization could allow. In a democracy, state control over personal finances raises serious questions, and EddieOz warns of an even more problematic future. “Today we are in a democracy, but tomorrow, with a government transition, we don't know if this kind of power will be used properly or abused,” he states. In other words, DREX gives the State the ability to restrict or condition the use of money, opening the door to unprecedented financial surveillance.

EddieOz cites Nigeria as an example, where a CBDC was implemented, and the government imposed severe restrictions on the use of physical money to encourage the use of digital currency, leading to protests and clashes in the country. In practice, the poorest and unbanked — those without regular access to banking services — were harshly affected, as without physical money, many cannot conduct basic transactions. Julia highlights that in Brazil, this situation would be even more severe, given the large number of unbanked individuals and the extent of rural areas where access to technology is limited.

The Relationship Between DREX and Pix

The digital transition has already begun with Pix, which revolutionized instant transfers and payments in Brazil. However, Julia points out that Pix, though popular, is a citizen’s choice, while DREX tends to eliminate that choice. The deputy expresses concern about new rules suggested for Pix, such as daily transaction limits of a thousand reais, justified as anti-fraud measures but which, in her view, represent additional control and a profit opportunity for banks. “How many more rules will banks create to profit from us?” asks Julia, noting that DREX could further enhance control over personal finances.

International Precedents and Resistance to CBDC

The deputy also cites examples from other countries resisting the idea of a centralized digital currency. In the United States, states like New Hampshire have passed laws to prevent the advance of CBDCs, and leaders such as Donald Trump have opposed creating a national digital currency. Trump, addressing the topic, uses a justification similar to Julia’s: in a digitalized system, “with one click, your money could disappear.” She agrees with the warning, emphasizing the control risk that a CBDC represents, especially for countries with disadvantaged populations.

Besides the United States, Canada, Colombia, and Australia have also suspended studies on digital currencies, citing the need for further discussions on population impacts. However, in Brazil, the debate on DREX is still limited, with few parliamentarians and political leaders openly discussing the topic. According to Julia, only she and one or two deputies are truly trying to bring this discussion to the Chamber, making DREX’s advance even more concerning.

Bill No. 3,341/2024 and Popular Pressure

For Julia, her bill is a first step. Although she acknowledges that ideally, it would prevent DREX's implementation entirely, PL 3341/2024 is a measure to ensure citizens' choice to use physical money, preserving a form of individual freedom. “If the future means control, I prefer to live in the past,” Julia asserts, reinforcing that the fight for freedom is at the heart of her bill.

However, the deputy emphasizes that none of this will be possible without popular mobilization. According to her, popular pressure is crucial for other deputies to take notice and support PL 3341. “I am only one deputy, and we need the public’s support to raise the project’s visibility,” she explains, encouraging the public to press other parliamentarians and ask them to “pay attention to PL 3341 and the project that prohibits the end of physical money.” The deputy believes that with a strong awareness and pressure movement, it is possible to advance the debate and ensure Brazilians’ financial freedom.

What’s at Stake?

Julia Zanatta leaves no doubt: DREX represents a profound shift in how money will be used and controlled in Brazil. More than a simple modernization of the financial system, the Central Bank’s CBDC sets precedents for an unprecedented level of citizen surveillance and control in the country. For the deputy, this transition needs to be debated broadly and transparently, and it’s up to the Brazilian people to defend their rights and demand that the National Congress discuss these changes responsibly.

The deputy also emphasizes that, regardless of political or partisan views, this issue affects all Brazilians. “This agenda is something that will affect everyone. We need to be united to ensure people understand the gravity of what could happen.” Julia believes that by sharing information and generating open debate, it is possible to prevent Brazil from following the path of countries that have already implemented a digital currency in an authoritarian way.

A Call to Action

The future of physical money in Brazil is at risk. For those who share Deputy Julia Zanatta’s concerns, the time to act is now. Mobilize, get informed, and press your representatives. PL 3341/2024 is an opportunity to ensure that Brazilian citizens have a choice in how to use their money, without excessive state interference or surveillance.

In the end, as the deputy puts it, the central issue is freedom. “My fear is that this project will pass, and people won’t even understand what is happening.” Therefore, may every citizen at least have the chance to understand what’s at stake and make their voice heard in defense of a Brazil where individual freedom and privacy are respected values.

@ eac63075:b4988b48

Imagine sending a private message to a friend, only to learn that authorities could be scanning its contents without your knowledge. This isn't a scene from a dystopian novel but a potential reality under the European Union's proposed "Chat Control" measures. Aimed at combating serious crimes like child exploitation and terrorism, these proposals could significantly impact the privacy of everyday internet users. As encrypted messaging services become the norm for personal and professional communication, understanding Chat Control is essential. This article delves into what Chat Control entails, why it's being considered, and how it could affect your right to private communication.

https://www.fountain.fm/episode/coOFsst7r7mO1EP1kSzV

https://open.spotify.com/episode/0IZ6kMExfxFm4FHg5DAWT8?si=e139033865e045de

Sections:

• Introduction
• What Is Chat Control?
• Why Is the EU Pushing for Chat Control?
• The Privacy Concerns and Risks
• The Technical Debate: Encryption and Backdoors
• Global Reactions and the Debate in Europe
• Possible Consequences for Messaging Services
• What Happens Next? The Future of Chat Control
• Conclusion

---

What Is Chat Control?

"Chat Control" refers to a set of proposed measures by the European Union aimed at monitoring and scanning private communications on messaging platforms. The primary goal is to detect and prevent the spread of illegal content, such as child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and to combat terrorism. While the intention is to enhance security and protect vulnerable populations, these proposals have raised significant privacy concerns.

At its core, Chat Control would require messaging services to implement automated scanning technologies that can analyze the content of messages—even those that are end-to-end encrypted. This means that the private messages you send to friends, family, or colleagues could be subject to inspection by algorithms designed to detect prohibited content.

Origins of the Proposal

The initiative for Chat Control emerged from the EU's desire to strengthen its digital security infrastructure. High-profile cases of online abuse and the use of encrypted platforms by criminal organizations have prompted lawmakers to consider more invasive surveillance tactics. The European Commission has been exploring legislation that would make it mandatory for service providers to monitor communications on their platforms.

How Messaging Services Work

Most modern messaging apps, like Signal, Session, SimpleX, Veilid, Protonmail and Tutanota (among others), use end-to-end encryption (E2EE). This encryption ensures that only the sender and the recipient can read the messages being exchanged. Not even the service providers can access the content. This level of security is crucial for maintaining privacy in digital communications, protecting users from hackers, identity thieves, and other malicious actors.

Key Elements of Chat Control

• Automated Content Scanning: Service providers would use algorithms to scan messages for illegal content.
• Circumvention of Encryption: To scan encrypted messages, providers might need to alter their encryption methods, potentially weakening security.
• Mandatory Reporting: If illegal content is detected, providers would be required to report it to authorities.
• Broad Applicability: The measures could apply to all messaging services operating within the EU, affecting both European companies and international platforms.

Why It Matters

Understanding Chat Control is essential because it represents a significant shift in how digital privacy is handled. While combating illegal activities online is crucial, the methods proposed could set a precedent for mass surveillance and the erosion of privacy rights. Everyday users who rely on encrypted messaging for personal and professional communication might find their conversations are no longer as private as they once thought.

---

Why Is the EU Pushing for Chat Control?

The European Union's push for Chat Control stems from a pressing concern to protect its citizens, particularly children, from online exploitation and criminal activities. With the digital landscape becoming increasingly integral to daily life, the EU aims to strengthen its ability to combat serious crimes facilitated through online platforms.

Protecting Children and Preventing Crime

One of the primary motivations behind Chat Control is the prevention of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) circulating on the internet. Law enforcement agencies have reported a significant increase in the sharing of illegal content through private messaging services. By implementing Chat Control, the EU believes it can more effectively identify and stop perpetrators, rescue victims, and deter future crimes.

Terrorism is another critical concern. Encrypted messaging apps can be used by terrorist groups to plan and coordinate attacks without detection. The EU argues that accessing these communications could be vital in preventing such threats and ensuring public safety.

Legal Context and Legislative Drivers

The push for Chat Control is rooted in several legislative initiatives:

• ePrivacy Directive: This directive regulates the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in electronic communications. The EU is considering amendments that would allow for the scanning of private messages under specific circumstances.

• Temporary Derogation: In 2021, the EU adopted a temporary regulation permitting voluntary detection of CSAM by communication services. The current proposals aim to make such measures mandatory and more comprehensive.

• Regulation Proposals: The European Commission has proposed regulations that would require service providers to detect, report, and remove illegal content proactively. This would include the use of technologies to scan private communications.

Balancing Security and Privacy

EU officials argue that the proposed measures are a necessary response to evolving digital threats. They emphasize the importance of staying ahead of criminals who exploit technology to harm others. By implementing Chat Control, they believe law enforcement can be more effective without entirely dismantling privacy protections.

However, the EU also acknowledges the need to balance security with fundamental rights. The proposals include provisions intended to limit the scope of surveillance, such as:

• Targeted Scanning: Focusing on specific threats rather than broad, indiscriminate monitoring.

• Judicial Oversight: Requiring court orders or oversight for accessing private communications.

• Data Protection Safeguards: Implementing measures to ensure that data collected is handled securely and deleted when no longer needed.

The Urgency Behind the Push

High-profile cases of online abuse and terrorism have heightened the sense of urgency among EU policymakers. Reports of increasing online grooming and the widespread distribution of illegal content have prompted calls for immediate action. The EU posits that without measures like Chat Control, these problems will continue to escalate unchecked.

Criticism and Controversy

Despite the stated intentions, the push for Chat Control has been met with significant criticism. Opponents argue that the measures could be ineffective against savvy criminals who can find alternative ways to communicate. There is also concern that such surveillance could be misused or extended beyond its original purpose.

---

The Privacy Concerns and Risks

While the intentions behind Chat Control focus on enhancing security and protecting vulnerable groups, the proposed measures raise significant privacy concerns. Critics argue that implementing such surveillance could infringe on fundamental rights and set a dangerous precedent for mass monitoring of private communications.

Infringement on Privacy Rights

At the heart of the debate is the right to privacy. By scanning private messages, even with automated tools, the confidentiality of personal communications is compromised. Users may no longer feel secure sharing sensitive information, fearing that their messages could be intercepted or misinterpreted by algorithms.

Erosion of End-to-End Encryption

End-to-end encryption (E2EE) is a cornerstone of digital security, ensuring that only the sender and recipient can read the messages exchanged. Chat Control could necessitate the introduction of "backdoors" or weaken encryption protocols, making it easier for unauthorized parties to access private data. This not only affects individual privacy but also exposes communications to potential cyber threats.

Concerns from Privacy Advocates

Organizations like Signal and Tutanota, which offer encrypted messaging services, have voiced strong opposition to Chat Control. They warn that undermining encryption could have far-reaching consequences:

• Security Risks: Weakening encryption makes systems more vulnerable to hacking, espionage, and cybercrime.
• Global Implications: Changes in EU regulations could influence policies worldwide, leading to a broader erosion of digital privacy.
• Ineffectiveness Against Crime: Determined criminals might resort to other, less detectable means of communication, rendering the measures ineffective while still compromising the privacy of law-abiding citizens.

Potential for Government Overreach

There is a fear that Chat Control could lead to increased surveillance beyond its original scope. Once the infrastructure for scanning private messages is in place, it could be repurposed or expanded to monitor other types of content, stifling free expression and dissent.

Real-World Implications for Users

• False Positives: Automated scanning technologies are not infallible and could mistakenly flag innocent content, leading to unwarranted scrutiny or legal consequences for users.
• Chilling Effect: Knowing that messages could be monitored might discourage people from expressing themselves freely, impacting personal relationships and societal discourse.
• Data Misuse: Collected data could be vulnerable to leaks or misuse, compromising personal and sensitive information.

Legal and Ethical Concerns

Privacy advocates also highlight potential conflicts with existing laws and ethical standards:

• Violation of Fundamental Rights: The European Convention on Human Rights and other international agreements protect the right to privacy and freedom of expression.
• Questionable Effectiveness: The ethical justification for such invasive measures is challenged if they do not significantly improve safety or if they disproportionately impact innocent users.

Opposition from Member States and Organizations

Countries like Germany and organizations such as the European Digital Rights (EDRi) have expressed opposition to Chat Control. They emphasize the need to protect digital privacy and caution against hasty legislation that could have unintended consequences.

---

The Technical Debate: Encryption and Backdoors

The discussion around Chat Control inevitably leads to a complex technical debate centered on encryption and the potential introduction of backdoors into secure communication systems. Understanding these concepts is crucial to grasping the full implications of the proposed measures.

What Is End-to-End Encryption (E2EE)?

End-to-end encryption is a method of secure communication that prevents third parties from accessing data while it's transferred from one end system to another. In simpler terms, only the sender and the recipient can read the messages. Even the service providers operating the messaging platforms cannot decrypt the content.

• Security Assurance: E2EE ensures that sensitive information—be it personal messages, financial details, or confidential business communications—remains private.
• Widespread Use: Popular messaging apps like Signal, Session, SimpleX, Veilid, Protonmail and Tutanota (among others) rely on E2EE to protect user data.

How Chat Control Affects Encryption

Implementing Chat Control as proposed would require messaging services to scan the content of messages for illegal material. To do this on encrypted platforms, providers might have to:

• Introduce Backdoors: Create a means for third parties (including the service provider or authorities) to access encrypted messages.
• Client-Side Scanning: Install software on users' devices that scans messages before they are encrypted and sent, effectively bypassing E2EE.

The Risks of Weakening Encryption

1. Compromised Security for All Users

Introducing backdoors or client-side scanning tools can create vulnerabilities:

• Exploitable Gaps: If a backdoor exists, malicious actors might find and exploit it, leading to data breaches.
• Universal Impact: Weakening encryption doesn't just affect targeted individuals; it potentially exposes all users to increased risk.

2. Undermining Trust in Digital Services

• User Confidence: Knowing that private communications could be accessed might deter people from using digital services or push them toward unregulated platforms.
• Business Implications: Companies relying on secure communications might face increased risks, affecting economic activities.

3. Ineffectiveness Against Skilled Adversaries

• Alternative Methods: Criminals might shift to other encrypted channels or develop new ways to avoid detection.
• False Sense of Security: Weakening encryption could give the impression of increased safety while adversaries adapt and continue their activities undetected.

Signal’s Response and Stance

Signal, a leading encrypted messaging service, has been vocal in its opposition to the EU's proposals:

• Refusal to Weaken Encryption: Signal's CEO Meredith Whittaker has stated that the company would rather cease operations in the EU than compromise its encryption standards.
• Advocacy for Privacy: Signal emphasizes that strong encryption is essential for protecting human rights and freedoms in the digital age.

Understanding Backdoors

A "backdoor" in encryption is an intentional weakness inserted into a system to allow authorized access to encrypted data. While intended for legitimate use by authorities, backdoors pose several problems:

• Security Vulnerabilities: They can be discovered and exploited by unauthorized parties, including hackers and foreign governments.
• Ethical Concerns: The existence of backdoors raises questions about consent and the extent to which governments should be able to access private communications.

The Slippery Slope Argument

Privacy advocates warn that introducing backdoors or mandatory scanning sets a precedent:

• Expanded Surveillance: Once in place, these measures could be extended to monitor other types of content beyond the original scope.
• Erosion of Rights: Gradual acceptance of surveillance can lead to a significant reduction in personal freedoms over time.

Potential Technological Alternatives

Some suggest that it's possible to fight illegal content without undermining encryption:

• Metadata Analysis: Focusing on patterns of communication rather than content.
• Enhanced Reporting Mechanisms: Encouraging users to report illegal content voluntarily.
• Investing in Law Enforcement Capabilities: Strengthening traditional investigative methods without compromising digital security.

The technical community largely agrees that weakening encryption is not the solution:

• Consensus on Security: Strong encryption is essential for the safety and privacy of all internet users.
• Call for Dialogue: Technologists and privacy experts advocate for collaborative approaches that address security concerns without sacrificing fundamental rights.

---

Global Reactions and the Debate in Europe

The proposal for Chat Control has ignited a heated debate across Europe and beyond, with various stakeholders weighing in on the potential implications for privacy, security, and fundamental rights. The reactions are mixed, reflecting differing national perspectives, political priorities, and societal values.

Support for Chat Control

Some EU member states and officials support the initiative, emphasizing the need for robust measures to combat online crime and protect citizens, especially children. They argue that:

• Enhanced Security: Mandatory scanning can help law enforcement agencies detect and prevent serious crimes.
• Responsibility of Service Providers: Companies offering communication services should play an active role in preventing their platforms from being used for illegal activities.
• Public Safety Priorities: The protection of vulnerable populations justifies the implementation of such measures, even if it means compromising some aspects of privacy.

Opposition within the EU

Several countries and organizations have voiced strong opposition to Chat Control, citing concerns over privacy rights and the potential for government overreach.

Germany

• Stance: Germany has been one of the most vocal opponents of the proposed measures.
• Reasons:
• Constitutional Concerns: The German government argues that Chat Control could violate constitutional protections of privacy and confidentiality of communications.
• Security Risks: Weakening encryption is seen as a threat to cybersecurity.
• Legal Challenges: Potential conflicts with national laws protecting personal data and communication secrecy.

Netherlands

• Recent Developments: The Dutch government decided against supporting Chat Control, emphasizing the importance of encryption for security and privacy.
• Arguments:
• Effectiveness Doubts: Skepticism about the actual effectiveness of the measures in combating crime.
• Negative Impact on Privacy: Concerns about mass surveillance and the infringement of citizens' rights.

Table reference: Patrick Breyer - Chat Control in 23 September 2024

Privacy Advocacy Groups

European Digital Rights (EDRi)

• Role: A network of civil and human rights organizations working to defend rights and freedoms in the digital environment.
• Position:
• Strong Opposition: EDRi argues that Chat Control is incompatible with fundamental rights.
• Awareness Campaigns: Engaging in public campaigns to inform citizens about the potential risks.
• Policy Engagement: Lobbying policymakers to consider alternative approaches that respect privacy.

Politicians and Activists

Patrick Breyer

• Background: A Member of the European Parliament (MEP) from Germany, representing the Pirate Party.
• Actions:
• Advocacy: Actively campaigning against Chat Control through speeches, articles, and legislative efforts.
• Public Outreach: Using social media and public events to raise awareness.
• Legal Expertise: Highlighting the legal inconsistencies and potential violations of EU law.

Global Reactions

International Organizations

• Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International: These organizations have expressed concerns about the implications for human rights, urging the EU to reconsider.

Technology Companies

• Global Tech Firms: Companies like Apple and Microsoft are monitoring the situation, as EU regulations could affect their operations and user trust.
• Industry Associations: Groups representing tech companies have issued statements highlighting the risks to innovation and competitiveness.

The Broader Debate

The controversy over Chat Control reflects a broader struggle between security interests and privacy rights in the digital age. Key points in the debate include:

• Legal Precedents: How the EU's decision might influence laws and regulations in other countries.
• Digital Sovereignty: The desire of nations to control digital spaces within their borders.
• Civil Liberties: The importance of protecting freedoms in the face of technological advancements.

Public Opinion

• Diverse Views: Surveys and public forums show a range of opinions, with some citizens prioritizing security and others valuing privacy above all.
• Awareness Levels: Many people are still unaware of the potential changes, highlighting the need for public education on the issue.

The EU is at a crossroads, facing the challenge of addressing legitimate security concerns without undermining the fundamental rights that are central to its values. The outcome of this debate will have significant implications for the future of digital privacy and the balance between security and freedom in society.

---

Possible Consequences for Messaging Services

The implementation of Chat Control could have significant implications for messaging services operating within the European Union. Both large platforms and smaller providers might need to adapt their technologies and policies to comply with the new regulations, potentially altering the landscape of digital communication.

Impact on Encrypted Messaging Services

Signal and Similar Platforms

• Compliance Challenges: Encrypted messaging services like Signal rely on end-to-end encryption to secure user communications. Complying with Chat Control could force them to weaken their encryption protocols or implement client-side scanning, conflicting with their core privacy principles.

• Operational Decisions: Some platforms may choose to limit their services in the EU or cease operations altogether rather than compromise on encryption. Signal, for instance, has indicated that it would prefer to withdraw from European markets than undermine its security features.

Potential Blocking or Limiting of Services

• Regulatory Enforcement: Messaging services that do not comply with Chat Control regulations could face fines, legal action, or even be blocked within the EU.

• Access Restrictions: Users in Europe might find certain services unavailable or limited in functionality if providers decide not to meet the regulatory requirements.

Effects on Smaller Providers

• Resource Constraints: Smaller messaging services and startups may lack the resources to implement the required scanning technologies, leading to increased operational costs or forcing them out of the market.

• Innovation Stifling: The added regulatory burden could deter new entrants, reducing competition and innovation in the messaging service sector.

User Experience and Trust

• Privacy Concerns: Users may lose trust in messaging platforms if they know their communications are subject to scanning, leading to a decline in user engagement.

• Migration to Unregulated Platforms: There is a risk that users might shift to less secure or unregulated services, including those operated outside the EU or on the dark web, potentially exposing them to greater risks.

Technical and Security Implications

• Increased Vulnerabilities: Modifying encryption protocols to comply with Chat Control could introduce security flaws, making platforms more susceptible to hacking and data breaches.

• Global Security Risks: Changes made to accommodate EU regulations might affect the global user base of these services, extending security risks beyond European borders.

Impact on Businesses and Professional Communications

• Confidentiality Issues: Businesses that rely on secure messaging for sensitive communications may face challenges in ensuring confidentiality, affecting sectors like finance, healthcare, and legal services.

• Compliance Complexity: Companies operating internationally will need to navigate a complex landscape of differing regulations, increasing administrative burdens.

Economic Consequences

• Market Fragmentation: Divergent regulations could lead to a fragmented market, with different versions of services for different regions.

• Loss of Revenue: Messaging services might experience reduced revenue due to decreased user trust and engagement or the costs associated with compliance.

Responses from Service Providers

• Legal Challenges: Companies might pursue legal action against the regulations, citing conflicts with privacy laws and user rights.

• Policy Advocacy: Service providers may increase lobbying efforts to influence policy decisions and promote alternatives to Chat Control.

Possible Adaptations

• Technological Innovation: Some providers might invest in developing new technologies that can detect illegal content without compromising encryption, though the feasibility remains uncertain.

• Transparency Measures: To maintain user trust, companies might enhance transparency about how data is handled and what measures are in place to protect privacy.

The potential consequences of Chat Control for messaging services are profound, affecting not only the companies that provide these services but also the users who rely on them daily. The balance between complying with legal requirements and maintaining user privacy and security presents a significant challenge that could reshape the digital communication landscape.

---

What Happens Next? The Future of Chat Control

The future of Chat Control remains uncertain as the debate continues among EU member states, policymakers, technology companies, and civil society organizations. Several factors will influence the outcome of this contentious proposal, each carrying significant implications for digital privacy, security, and the regulatory environment within the European Union.

Current Status of Legislation

• Ongoing Negotiations: The proposed Chat Control measures are still under discussion within the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Amendments and revisions are being considered in response to the feedback from various stakeholders.

• Timeline: While there is no fixed date for the final decision, the EU aims to reach a consensus to implement effective measures against online crime without undue delay.

Key Influencing Factors

1. Legal Challenges and Compliance with EU Law

• Fundamental Rights Assessment: The proposals must be evaluated against the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, ensuring that any measures comply with rights to privacy, data protection, and freedom of expression.

• Court Scrutiny: Potential legal challenges could arise, leading to scrutiny by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which may impact the feasibility and legality of Chat Control.

2. Technological Feasibility

• Development of Privacy-Preserving Technologies: Research into methods that can detect illegal content without compromising encryption is ongoing. Advances in this area could provide alternative solutions acceptable to both privacy advocates and security agencies.

• Implementation Challenges: The practical aspects of deploying scanning technologies across various platforms and services remain complex, and technical hurdles could delay or alter the proposed measures.

3. Political Dynamics

• Member State Positions: The differing stances of EU countries, such as Germany's opposition, play a significant role in shaping the final outcome. Consensus among member states is crucial for adopting EU-wide regulations.

• Public Opinion and Advocacy: Growing awareness and activism around digital privacy can influence policymakers. Public campaigns and lobbying efforts may sway decisions in favor of stronger privacy protections.

4. Industry Responses

• Negotiations with Service Providers: Ongoing dialogues between EU authorities and technology companies may lead to compromises or collaborative efforts to address concerns without fully implementing Chat Control as initially proposed.

• Potential for Self-Regulation: Messaging services might propose self-regulatory measures to combat illegal content, aiming to demonstrate effectiveness without the need for mandatory scanning.

Possible Scenarios

Optimistic Outcome:

• Balanced Regulation: A revised proposal emerges that effectively addresses security concerns while upholding strong encryption and privacy rights, possibly through innovative technologies or targeted measures with robust oversight.

Pessimistic Outcome:

• Adoption of Strict Measures: Chat Control is implemented as initially proposed, leading to weakened encryption, reduced privacy, and potential withdrawal of services like Signal from the EU market.

Middle Ground:

• Incremental Implementation: Partial measures are adopted, focusing on voluntary cooperation with service providers and emphasizing transparency and user consent, with ongoing evaluations to assess effectiveness and impact.

How to Stay Informed and Protect Your Privacy

• Follow Reputable Sources: Keep up with news from reliable outlets, official EU communications, and statements from privacy organizations to stay informed about developments.

• Engage in the Dialogue: Participate in public consultations, sign petitions, or contact representatives to express your views on Chat Control and digital privacy.

• Utilize Secure Practices: Regardless of legislative outcomes, adopting good digital hygiene—such as using strong passwords and being cautious with personal information—can enhance your online security.

The Global Perspective

• International Implications: The EU's decision may influence global policies on encryption and surveillance, setting precedents that other countries might follow or react against.

• Collaboration Opportunities: International cooperation on developing solutions that protect both security and privacy could emerge, fostering a more unified approach to addressing online threats.

Looking Ahead

The future of Chat Control is a critical issue that underscores the challenges of governing in the digital age. Balancing the need for security with the protection of fundamental rights is a complex task that requires careful consideration, open dialogue, and collaboration among all stakeholders.

As the situation evolves, staying informed and engaged is essential. The decisions made in the coming months will shape the digital landscape for years to come, affecting how we communicate, conduct business, and exercise our rights in an increasingly connected world.

---

Conclusion

The debate over Chat Control highlights a fundamental challenge in our increasingly digital world: how to protect society from genuine threats without eroding the very rights and freedoms that define it. While the intention to safeguard children and prevent crime is undeniably important, the means of achieving this through intrusive surveillance measures raise critical concerns.

Privacy is not just a personal preference but a cornerstone of democratic societies. End-to-end encryption has become an essential tool for ensuring that our personal conversations, professional communications, and sensitive data remain secure from unwanted intrusion. Weakening these protections could expose individuals and organizations to risks that far outweigh the proposed benefits.

The potential consequences of implementing Chat Control are far-reaching:

• Erosion of Trust: Users may lose confidence in digital platforms, impacting how we communicate and conduct business online.
• Security Vulnerabilities: Introducing backdoors or weakening encryption can make systems more susceptible to cyberattacks.
• Stifling Innovation: Regulatory burdens may hinder technological advancement and competitiveness in the tech industry.
• Global Implications: The EU's decisions could set precedents that influence digital policies worldwide, for better or worse.

As citizens, it's crucial to stay informed about these developments. Engage in conversations, reach out to your representatives, and advocate for solutions that respect both security needs and fundamental rights. Technology and policy can evolve together to address challenges without compromising core values.

The future of Chat Control is not yet decided, and public input can make a significant difference. By promoting open dialogue, supporting privacy-preserving innovations, and emphasizing the importance of human rights in legislation, we can work towards a digital landscape that is both safe and free.

In a world where digital communication is integral to daily life, striking the right balance between security and privacy is more important than ever. The choices made today will shape the digital environment for generations to come, determining not just how we communicate, but how we live and interact in an interconnected world.

---

Thank you for reading this article. We hope it has provided you with a clear understanding of Chat Control and its potential impact on your privacy and digital rights. Stay informed, stay engaged, and let's work together towards a secure and open digital future.

Read more:

• https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/
• https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/new-eu-push-for-chat-control-will-messenger-services-be-blocked-in-europe/
• https://edri.org/our-work/dutch-decision-puts-brakes-on-chat-control/
• https://signal.org/blog/pdfs/ndss-keynote.pdf
• https://tuta.com/blog/germany-stop-chat-control
• https://cointelegraph.com/news/signal-president-slams-revised-eu-encryption-proposal
• https://mullvad.net/en/why-privacy-matters

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na dvadesetjedan.com

Autor: Parker Lewis / Prevod na srpski: Plumsky

---

Ideja da država može nekako zabraniti bitcoin je jedna od poslednjih faza tuge, tačno pred prihvatanje realnosti. Posledica ove rečenice je priznanje da bitcoin “funkcioniše”. U stvari, ona predstavlja činjenicu da bitcoin funkcioniše toliko dobro da on preti postojećim državnim monopolima nad novcem i da će zbog toga države da ga unište kroz regulativne prepreke da bi eliminisale tu pretnju. Gledajte na tvrdnju da će države zabraniti bitcoin kao kondicionalnu logiku. Da li bitcoin funkcioniše kao novac? Ako je odgovor „ne“, onda države nemaju šta da zabrane. Ako je odgovor „da“, onda će države da probaju da ga zabrane. Znači, glavna poenta ovog razmišljanja je pretpostavka da bitcoin funkcioiniše kao novac. Onda je sledeće logično pitanje da li intervencija od strane države može uspešno da uništi upravo taj funkcionalan bitcoin.

Za početak, svako ko pokušava da razume kako, zašto, ili da li bitcoin funkcioniše mora da proceni ta pitanja potpuno nezavisno od prouzrekovanja državne regulacije ili intervencije. Iako je nesumnjivo da bitcoin mora da postoji uzgred državnih regulativa, zamislite na momenat da države ne postoje. Sam od sebe, da li bi bitcoin funkcionisao kao novac, kad bi se prepustio slobodnom tržištu? Ovo pitanje se širi u dodatna pitanja i ubrzo se pretvara u bunar bez dna. Šta je novac? Šta su svojstva koja čine jednu vrstu novca bolje od druge? Da li bitcoin poseduje ta svojstva? Da li je bitcoin bolja verzija novca po takvim osobinama? Ako je finalni zaključak da bitcoin ne funkcioniše kao novac, implikacije državne intervencije su nebitne. Ali, ako je bitcoin funkcionalan kao novac, ta pitanja onda postaju bitna u ovoj debati, i svako ko o tome razmišlja bi morao imati taj početnički kontekst da bi mogao proceniti da li je uopšte moguće zabraniti. Po svom dizajnu, bitcoin postoji van države. Ali bitcoin nije samo van kontrole države, on u stvari funkcioniše bez bilo kakve saradnje centralizovanih identiteta. On je globalan i decentralizovan. Svako može pristupiti bitcoinu bez potrebe saglasnosti bilo koga i što se više širi sve je teže cenzurisati celokupnu mrežu. Arhitektura bitcoina je namerno izmišljena da bude otporna na bilo koje pokušaje države da ga zabrane. Ovo ne znači da države širom sveta neće pokušavati da ga regulišu, oporezuju ili čak da potpuno zabrane njegovo korišćenje. Naravno da će biti puno bitki i otpora protiv usvajanja bitcoina među građanima. Federal Reserve i Američki Treasury (i njihovi globalni suparnici) se neće ležeći predati dok bitcoin sve više i više ugrožava njihove monopole prihvatljivog novca. Doduše, pre nego što se odbaci ideja da države mogu potpuno zabraniti bitcoin, mora se prvo razumeti posledice tog stava i njegovog glasnika.

Progresija poricanja i stepeni tuge

Pripovesti skeptičara se neprestano menjaju kroz vreme. Prvi stepen tuge: bitcoin nikad ne može funkcionisati-njegova vrednost je osnovana ni na čemu. On je moderna verzija tulip manije. Sa svakim ciklusom uzbuđenja, vrednost bitcoina skače i onda vrlo brzo se vraća na dole. Često nazvano kao kraj njegove vrednosti, bitcoin svaki put odbija da umre i njegova vrednost pronađe nivo koji je uvek viši od prethodnih ciklusa globalne usvajanja. Tulip pripovetka postaje stara i dosadna i skeptičari pređu na više nijansirane teme, i time menjaju bazu debate. Drugi stepen tuge predstoji: bitcoin je manjkav kao novac. On je previše volatilan da bi bio valuta, ili je suviše spor da bi se koristio kao sistem plaćanja, ili se ne može proširiti dovoljno da zadovolji sve promete plaćanja na svetu, ili troši isuviše struje. Taj niz kritike ide sve dalje i dalje. Ovaj drugi stepen je progresija poricanja i dosta je udaljen od ideje da je bitcoin ništa više od bukvalno bezvrednog ničega.

Uprkos tim pretpostavnim manjcima, vrednost bitcoin mreže nastavje da raste vremenom. Svaki put, ona ne umire, nasuprot, ona postaje sve veća i jača. Dok se skeptičari bave ukazivanjem na manjke, bitcoin ne prestaje. Rast u vrednosti je prouzrokovan jednostavnom dinamikom tržišta: postoji više kupca nego prodavca. To je sve i to je razlog rasta u adopciji. Sve više i više ljudi shvata zašto postoji fundamentalna potražnja za bitcoinom i zašto/kako on funkcioniše. To je razlog njegovog dugotrajnog rasta. Dokle god ga sve više ljudi koristi za čuvanje vrednosti, neće pasti cena snabdevanja. Zauvek će postojati samo 21 milion bitcoina. Nebitno je koliko ljudi zahtevaju bitcoin, njegova cela količina je uvek ista i neelastična. Dok skeptičari nastavljaju sa svojom starom pričom, mase ljudi nastavljaju da eliminišu zabludu i zahtevaju bitcoin zbog njegovih prednosti u smislu novčanih svojstva. Između ostalog, ne postoji grupa ljudi koja je više upoznata sa svim argumentima protiv bitcoina od samih bitcoinera.

Očajanje počinje da se stvara i onda se debata još jedanput pomera. Sada nije više činjenica je vrednost bitcoina osnovana ni na čemu niti da ima manjke kao valuta; sada se debata centrira na regulaciji državnih autoriteta. U ovom zadnjem stepenu tuge, bitcoin se predstavlja kao u stvari isuviše uspešnom alatkom i zbog toga države ne smeju dozvoliti da on postoji. Zaista? Znači da je genijalnost čoveka ponovo ostvarila funkcionalan novac u tehnološko superiornoj formi, čije su posledice zaista neshvatljive, i da će države upravo taj izum nekako zabraniti. Primetite da tom izjavom skeptičari praktično priznaju svoj poraz. Ovo su poslednji pokušaji u seriji promašenih argumenata. Skeptičari u isto vreme prihvataju da postoji fundamentalna potražnja za bitcoinom a onda se premeštaju na neosnovan stav da ga države mogu zabraniti.

Ajde da se poigramo i tim pitanjem. Kada bih zapravo razvijene države nastupile na scenu i pokušale da zabrane bitcoin? Trenutno, Federal Reserve i Treasury ne smatraju bitcoin kao ozbiljnu pretnju superiornosti dolara. Po njihovom celokupnom mišljenju, bitcoin je slatka mala igračka i ne može da funkcioniše kao novac. Sadašnja kompletna kupovna moć bitcoina je manja od $200 milijardi. Sa druge strane, zlato ima celokupnu vrednost od $8 triliona (40X veću od bitcoina) i količina odštampanog novca (M2) je otprilike 15 triliona (75X veličine bitcoinove vrednosti). Kada će Federal Reserve i Treasury da počne da smatra bitcoin kao ozbiljnu pretnju? Kad bitcoin poraste na $1, $2 ili $3 triliona? Možete i sami da izaberete nivo, ali implikacija je da će bitcoin biti mnogo vredniji, i posedovaće ga sve više ljudi širom sveta, pre nego što će ga državne vlasti shvatiti kao obiljnog protivnika.

Predsednik Tramp & Treasury Sekretar Mnučin o Bitcoinu (2019):

„Ja neću pričati o bitcoinu za 10 godina, u to možete biti sigurni {…} Ja bi se kladio da čak za 5 ili 6 godina neću više pričati o bitcoinu kao sekretar Trusury-a. Imaću preča posla {…} Mogu vam obećati da ja lično neću biti pun bitcoina.“ – Sekretar Treasury-a Stiv Mnučin

„Ja nisam ljubitelj bitcoina {…}, koji nije novac i čija vrednost je jako volatilna i osnovana na praznom vazduhu.“ – Predsednik Donald J. Tramp

Znači, logika skeptika ide ovako: bitcoin ne funkcioniše, ali ako funkcioniše, onda će ga država zabraniti. Ali, države slobodnog sveta neće pokušati da ga zabrane dokle god se on ne pokaže kao ozbiljna pretnja. U tom trenutku, bitcoin će biti vredniji i sigurno teži da se zabrani, pošto će ga više ljudi posedovati na mnogo širem geografskom prostoru. Ignorišite fundamentalne činjenice i asimetriju koja je urođena u globalnom dešavanju monetizacije zato što u slučaju da ste u pravu, države će taj proces zabraniti. Na kojoj strani tog argumenta bi radije stajao racionalan ekonomski učesnik? Posedovanje finansijske imovine kojoj vrednost toliko raste da preti globalnoj rezervnoj valuti, ili nasuprot – nemati tu imovinu? Sa pretpostavkom da individualci razumeju zašto je mogućnost (a sve više i verovatnoća) ove realnosti, koji stav je logičniji u ovom scenariju? Asimetrija dve strane ovog argumenta sama od sebe zahteva da je prvi stav onaj istinit i da fundamentalno razumevanje potražnje bitcoina samo još više ojačava to mišljenje.

Niko ne moze zabraniti bitcoin

Razmislite šta bitcoin u stvari predstavlja pa onda šta bi predstavljala njegova zabrana. Bitcoin je konverzija subjektivne vrednosti, stvorena i razmenjena u realnošću, u digitalne potpise. Jednostavno rečeno, to je konverzija ljudskog vremena u novac. Kad neko zahteva bitcoin, oni u isto vreme ne zahtevaju neki drugi posed, nek to bio dolar, kuća, auto ili hrana itd. Bitcoin predstavlja novčanu štednju koja sa sobom žrtvuje druge imovine i servise. Zabrana bitcoina bi bio napad na najosnovnije ljudske slobode koje je on upravo stvoren da brani. Zamislite reakciju svih onih koji su prihvatili bitcoin: „Bilo je zabavno, alatka za koju su svi eksperti tvrdili da neće nikad funkcionisati, sada toliko dobro radi i sad ti isti eksperti i autoriteti kažu da mi to nemožemo koristiti. Svi idite kući, predstava je gotova.“verovanje da će svi ljudi koji su učestvovali u bitcoin usvajanju, suverenitetu koji nudi i finansiskoj slobodi, odjednom samo da se predaju osnovnom rušenju njihovih prava je potpuno iracionalna pozicija.

Novac je jedan od najbitnijih instrumenata za slobodu koji je ikad izmišljen. Novac je to što u postojećem društvu ostvaruje mogućnosti siromašnom čoveku – čiji je domet veći nego onaj koji je bio dostižan bogatim ljudima pre ne toliko puno generacija.“ – F. A. Hajek

Države nisu uspele da zabrane konzumiranje alkohola, droga, kupovinu vatrenog oružja, pa ni posedovanje zlata. Država može samo pomalo da uspori pristup ili da deklariše posedovanje ilegalnim, ali ne može da uništi nešto što veliki broj raznovrsnih ljudi smatra vrednim. Kada je SAD zabranila privatno posedovanje zlata 1933., zlato nije palo u vrednosti ili nestalo sa finansijskog tržišta. Ono je u stvari poraslo u vrednosti u poređenju sa dolarom, i samo trideset godina kasnije, zabrana je bila ukinuta. Ne samo da bitcoin nudi veću vrednosno obećanje od bilo kog drugog dobra koje su države pokušale da zabrane (uključujući i zlato); nego po svojim osobinama, njega je mnogo teže zabraniti. Bitcoin je globalan i decentralizovan. On ne poštuje granice i osiguran je mnoštvom nodova i kriptografskim potpisima. Sam postupak zabrane bi zahtevao da se u isto vreme zaustavi „open source“ softver koji emituje i izvršava slanje i potvrđivanje digitalno enkriptovanih ključeva i potpisa. Ta zabrana bi morala biti koordinisana između velikog broja zemalja, sa tim da je nemoguće znati gde se ti nodovi i softver nalazi ili da se zaustavi instaliranje novih nodova u drugim pravnim nadležnostima. Da ne pominjemo i ustavske pitanja, bilo bi tehnički neizvodljivo da se takva zabrana primeni na bilo kakav značajan način.

Čak kada bih sve zemlje iz G-20 grupe koordinisale takvu zabranu u isto vreme, to ne bi uništilo bitcoin. U stvari, to bi bilo samoubistvo za fiat novčani sistem. To bi još više prikazalo masama da je bitcoin u stvari novac koji treba shvatiti ozbiljno, i to bi samo od sebe započelo globalnu igru vatanje mačke za rep. Bitcoin nema centralnu tačku za napad; bitcoin rudari, nodovi i digitalni potpisi su rasejani po celom svetu. Svaki aspekt bitcoina je decentralizovan, zato su glavni stubovi njegove arhitekture da učesnici uvek treba kontrolisati svoje potpise i upravljati svojim nodom. Što više digitalnih potpisa i nodova koji postoje, to je više bitcoin decentralizovan, i to je više odbranjiva njegova mreža od strane neprijatelja. Što je više zemalja gde rudari izvršavaju svoj posao, to je manji rizik da jedan nadležni identitet može uticati na njegov bezbednosni sistem. Koordinisan internacionalni napad na bitcoin bi samo koristio da bitcoin još više ojača svoj imuni sistem. Na kraju krajeva, to bi ubrzalo seobu iz tradicionalnog finansijskog sistema (i njegovih valuta) a i inovaciju koja postoji u bitcoin ekosistemu. Sa svakom bivšom pretnjom, bitcoin je maštovito pronalazio način da ih neutrališe pa i koordinisan napad od strane država ne bi bio ništa drugačiji.

Inovacija u ovoj oblasti koja se odlikuje svojom „permissionless“ (bez dozvole centralnih identiteta) osobinom, omogućava odbranu od svakojakih napada. Sve varijante napada koje su bile predvidjene je upravo to što zahteva konstantnu inovaciju bitcoina. To je ona Adam Smitova nevidljiva ruka, ali dopingovana. Pojedinačni učesnici mogu da veruju da su motivisani nekim većim uzrokom, ali u stvari, korisnost kaja je ugrađena u bitcoin stvara kod učesnika dovoljno snažan podsticaj da omogući svoje preživljavanje. Sopstveni interes milione, ako ne milijarde, nekoordinisanih ljudi koji se jedino slažu u svojom međusobnom potrebom za funkcionalnim novcem podstiče inovacije u bitcoinu. Danas, možda to izgleda kao neka kul nova tehnologija ili neki dobar investment u finansijskom portfoliju, ali čak i ako to mnogi ne razumeju, bitcoin je apsolutna nužnost u svetu. To je tako zato što je novac nužnost a historijski priznate valute se fundamentalno raspadaju. Pre dva meseca, tržište američkih državnih obveznica je doživeo kolaps na šta je Federal Reserve reagovao time što je povećao celokupnu količinu dolara u postojanju za $250 milijardi, a još više u bliskoj budućnosti. Tačno ovo je razlog zašto je bitcoin nužnost a ne samo luksuzni dodatak. Kada inovacija omogućava bazično funkcionisanje ekonomije ne postoji ni jedna država na svetu koja može da zaustavi njenu adopciju i rast. Novac je nužnost a bitcoin znatno poboljšava sistem novca koji je ikada postojao pre njega.

Sa više praktične strane, pokušaj zabranjivanja bitcoina ili njegove velike regulacije od nadležnosti bi direktno bilo u korist susedne nadležnih organa. Podsticaj da se odustane od koordinisanog napada na bitcoin bi bio isuviše veliki da bi takvi dogovori bili uspešni. Kada bi SAD deklarisovale posed bitcoina ilegalnim sutra, da li bi to zaustavilo njegov rast, razvoj i adopciji i da li bi to smanjilo vrednost celokupne mreže? Verovatno. Da li bi to uništilo bitcoin? Ne bi. Bitcoin predstavlja najpokretljivije kapitalno sredstvo na svetu. Zemlje i nadležne strukture koje kreiraju regulativnu strukturu koja najmanje ustručava korišćenje bitcoina će biti dobitnici velike količine uliva kapitala u svoje države.

Zabrana Bitcoinove Zatvoreničke Dileme

U praksi, zatvorenička dilema nije igra jedan na jedan. Ona je multidimenzijska i uključuje mnoštvo nadležnosti, čiji se interesi nadmeću međusobno, i to uskraćuje mogućnosti bilo kakve mogućnosti zabrane. Ljudski kapital, fizički kapital i novčani kapital će sav ići u pravcu država i nadležnosti koje najmanje ustručuju bitcoin. To se možda neće desiti sve odjednom, ali pokušaji zabrane su isto za badava koliko bi bilo odseći sebi nos u inat svom licu. To ne znači da države to neće pokušati. India je već probala da zabrani bitcoin. Kina je uvela puno restrikcija. Drugi će da prate njihove tragove. Ali svaki put kada država preduzme takve korake, to ima nepredvidljive efekte povećanja bitcoin adopcije. Pokušaji zabranjivanja bitcoina su jako efektivne marketing kampanje. Bitcoin postoji kao sistem nevezan za jednu suverenu državu i kao novac je otporan na cenzuru. On je dizajniran da postoji van državne kontrole. Pokušaji da se taj koncept zabrani samo još više daje njemu razlog i logiku za postojanje.

Jedini Pobednički Potez je da se Uključiš u Igru

Zabrana bitcoina je trošenje vremena. Neki će to pokušati; ali svi će biti neuspešni. Sami ti pokušaji će još više ubrzati njegovu adopciju i širenje. Biće to vetar od 100 km/h koji raspaljuje vatru. To će ojačati bitcoin sve više i doprineće njegovoj pouzdanosti. U svakom slučaju, verovanje da će države zabraniti bitcoin u momentu kada on postane dovoljno velika pretnja rezervnim valutam sveta, je iracionalan razlog da se on no poseduje kao instrument štednje novca. To ne samo da podrazumeva da je bitcoin novac, ali u isto vreme i ignoriše glavne razloge zašto je to tako: on je decentralizovan i otporan na cenzure. Zamislite da razumete jednu od nojvećih tajni današnjice i da u isto vreme tu tajnu asimetrije koju bitcoin nudi ne primenjujete u svoju korist zbog straha od države. Pre će biti, neko ko razume zašto bitcoin funkcioniše i da ga država ne može zaustaviti, ili nepuno znanje postoji u razumevanju kako bitcoin uopšte funckioniše. Počnite sa razmatranjem fundamentalnih pitanja, a onda primenite to kao temelj da bi procenili bilo koji potencijalan rizik od strane budućih regulacija ili restrikcija državnih organa. I nikad nemojte da zaboravite na vrednost asimetrije između dve strane ovde prezentiranih argumenata. Jedini pobednički potez je da se uključite u igru.

Stavovi ovde prezentirani su samo moji i ne predstavljaju Unchained Capital ili moje kolege. Zahvaljujem se Fil Gajgeru za razmatranje teksta i primedbe.

Originalni tekst

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na dvadesetjedan.com.

Autor: Gigi / Prevod na srpski: Plumsky

---

Postoji sveto carstvo privatnosti za svakog čoveka gde on bira i pravi odluke – carstvo stvoreno na bazičnim pravima i slobode koje zakon, generalno, ne sme narušavati. Džefri Fišer, Arhiepiskop Canterberija (1959)

Pre ne toliko dugo, uobičajen režim interneta je bio neenkriptovan običan tekst (plain text). Svi su mogli špiunirati svakoga i mnogi nisu o tome ni razmišljali. Globalno obelodanjivanje nadzora 2013. je to promenilo i danas se koriste mnogo bezbedniji protokoli i end-to-end enkripcija postaje standard sve više. Iako bitcoin postaje tinejdžer, mi smo – metaforično govoreći – i dalje u dobu običnog teksta narandžastog novčića. Bitcoin je radikalno providljiv protokol sam po sebi, ali postoje značajni načini da korisnik zaštiti svoju privatnost. U ovom članku želimo da istaknemo neke od ovih strategija, prodiskutujemo najbolje prakse, i damo preporuke koje mogu primeniti i bitcoin novajlije i veterani.

Zašto je privatnost bitna

Privatnost je potrebna da bi otvoreno društvo moglo da funkcioniše u digitalnoj eri. Privatnost nije isto što i tajanstvenost. Privatna stvar je nešto što neko ne želi da ceo svet zna, a tajna stvar je nešto što neko ne želi bilo ko da zna. Privatnost je moć da se čovek selektivno otkriva svom okruženju.

Ovim snažnim rečima Erik Hjus je započeo svoj tekst Sajferpankov Manifesto (Cypherpunk's Manifesto) 1993. Razlika između privatnosti i tajanstvenosti je suptilna ali jako važna. Odlučiti se za privatnost ne znači da neko ima tajne koje želi sakriti. Da ovo ilustrujemo shvatite samo da ono što obavljate u svom toaletu ili u spavaćoj sobi nije niti ilegalno niti tajna (u mnogim slučajevima), ali vi svejedno odlučujete da zatvorite vrata i navučete zavese.

Slično tome, koliko para imate i gde ih trošite nije naručito tajna stvar. Ipak, to bi trebalo biti privatan slučaj. Mnogi bi se složili da vaš šef ne treba da zna gde vi trošite vašu platu. Privatnosti je čak zaštićena od strane mnogobrojnih internacionalnih nadležnih organa. Iz Američke Deklaracije Prava i Dužnosti Čoveka (American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man) Ujedinjenim Nacijama, napisano je da je privatnost fundamentalno prava gradjana širom sveta.

Niko ne sme biti podvrgnut smetnjama njegovoj privatnosti, porodici, rezidenciji ili komunikacijama, niti napadnuta njegova čast i reputacija. Svi imaju pravo da se štite zakonom protiv takvih smetnja ili napada. Artikal 12, Deklaracija Ljudskih Prava Ujedinjenih Nacija

Bitcoin i privatnost

Iako je bitcoin često opisivan kao anoniman način plaćanja medijima, on u stvari poseduje potpuno suprotne osobine. On je poluanoniman u najboljem slučaju i danas mnogima nije ni malo lako primeniti taktike da bi bili sigurni da njihov poluanonimni identitet na bitcoin mreži ne bude povezan sa legalnim identitetom u stvarnom svetu.

Bitcoin je otvoren sistem. On je javna baza podataka koju svako može da proučava i analizira. Znači, svaka transakcija koja je upisana u tu bazu kroz dokaz rada (proof-of-work) postojaće i biće otkrivena dokle god bitcoin postoji, što znači - zauvek. Ne primenjivati najbolje prakse privatnosti može imati štetne posledice u dalekoj budućnosti.

Privatnost, kao sigurnost, je proces koji je težak, ali nije nemoguć. Alatke nastavljaju da se razvijaju koje čuvaju privatnost kad se koristi bitcoin and srećom mnoge od tih alatki su sve lakše za korišćenje. Nažalost ne postoji panacea u ovom pristupu. Mora se biti svesan svih kompromisa i usavršavati te prakse dok se one menjaju.

Najbolje prakse privatnosti

Kao i sve u bitcoinu, kontrola privatnosti je postepena, korak po korak, procedura. Naučiti i primeniti ove najbolje prakse zahteva strpljivost i odgovornost, tako da ne budite obeshrabreni ako vam se čini da je to sve previše. Svaki korak, koliko god bio mali, je korak u dobrom pravcu.

Koje korake preduzeti da bi uvećali svoju privatnost:

• Budite u vlasništvu sami svojih novčića
• Nikad ne ponavljajte korišćenje istih adresa
• Minimizirajte korišćenje servisa koji zahtevaju identitet (Know your customer - KYC)
• Minimizirajte sve izloženosti trećim licima
• Upravljajte svojim nodom
• Koristite Lightning mrežu za male transakcije
• Nemojte koristiti javne blok pretraživače za svoje transakcije
• Koristite metodu CoinJoin često i rano pri nabavljanju svojih novčića

Budite u vlasništvu sami svojih novčića: Ako ključevi nisu tvoji, onda nije ni bitcoin. Ako neko drugo drži vaš bitcoin za vas, oni znaju sve što se može znati: količinu, istoriju transakcija pa i sve buduće transakcije, itd. Preuzimanje vlasništva bitcoina u svoje ruke je prvi i najvažniji korak.

Nikad ne kroistite istu adresu dvaput: Ponavljanje adresa poništava privatnost pošiljalca i primaoca bitcoina. Ovo se treba izbegavati pod svaku cenu.

Minimizirajte korišćenje servisa koji zahtevaju identitet (KYC): Vezivati svoj legalni identitet za svoje bitcoin adrese je zlo koje se zahteva od strane mnogih državnih nadležnosti. Dok je efektivnost ovih zakona i regulacija disputabilno, posledice njihovog primenjivanja su uglavnom štetne po korisnicima. Ovo je očigledno pošto je česta pojava da se te informacije često izlivaju iz slabo obezbeđenih digitalnih servera. Ako izaberete da koristite KYC servise da bi nabavljali bitcoin, proučite i razumite odnos između vas i tog biznisa. Vi ste poverljivi tom biznisu za sve vaše lične podatke, pa i buduće obezbeđenje tih podataka. Ako i dalje zarađujete kroz fiat novčani sistem, mi preporučujemo da koristite samo bitcoin ekskluzivne servise koji vam dozvoljavaju da autamatski kupujete bitcoin s vremena na vreme. Ako zelite da potpuno da izbegnete KYC, pregledajte https://bitcoinqna.github.io/noKYConly/.

Minimizirajte sve izloženosti trećim licima: Poverljivost trećim licima je bezbednosna rupa (https://nakamotoinstitute.org/trusted-third-parties/). Ako možete biti poverljivi samo sebi, onda bi to tako trebalo da bude.

Upravljajte svojim nodom: Ako nod nije tvoj, onda nisu ni pravila. Upravljanje svojim nodom je suštinska potreba da bi se bitcoin koristio na privatan način. Svaka interakcija sa bitcoin mrežom je posrednjena nodom. Ako vi taj nod ne upravljate, čiji god nod koristite može da vidi sve što vi radite. Ova upustva (https://bitcoiner.guide/node/) su jako korisna da bi započeli proces korišćenja svog noda.

Koristite Lightning mrežu za male transakcije: Pošto Lightning protokol ne koristi glavnu bitcoin mrežu za trasakcije onda je i samim tim povećana privatnost korišćenja bez dodatnog truda. Iako je i dalje rano, oni apsolutno bezobzirni periodi Lightning mreže su verovatno daleko iza nas. Korišćenje Lightning-a za transakcije malih i srednjih veličina će vam pomoći da uvećate privatnost a da smanjite naplate svojih pojedinačnih bitcoin transakcija.

Nemojte koristiti javne blok pretraživače za svoje transakcije: Proveravanje adresa na javnim blok pretraživačima povezuje te adrese sa vašim IP podacima, koji se onda mogu koristiti da se otkrije vaš identitet. Softveri kao Umbrel i myNode vam omogućavaju da lako koristite sami svoj blok pretraživač. Ako morate koristiti javne pretraživače, uradite to uz VPN ili Tor.

Koristite CoinJoin često i rano pri nabavljanju svojih novčića: Pošto je bitcoin večan, primenjivanje saradničkih CoinJoin praksa će vam obezbediti privatnost u budućnosti. Dok su CoinJoin transakcije svakovrsne, softveri koji su laki za korišćenje već sad postoje koji mogu automatizovati ovu vrstu transakcija. Samourai Whirlpool (https://samouraiwallet.com/whirlpool) je odličan izbor za Android korisnike. Joinmarket (https://github.com/joinmarket-webui/jam) se može koristiti na vašem nodu. A servisi postoje koji pri snabdevanju vašeg bitcoina istog trenutka obave CoinJoin tranzakciju automatski.

Zaključak

Svi bi trebalo da se potrude da koriste bitcoin na što privatniji način. Privatnost nije isto što i tajanstvenost. Privatnost je ljudsko pravo i mi svi trebamo da branimo i primenljujemo to pravo. Teško je izbrisati postojeće informacije sa interneta; a izbrisati ih sa bitcoin baze podataka je nemoguće. Iako su daleko od savršenih, alatke postoje danas koje vam omogućavaju da najbolje prakse privatnosti i vi sami primenite. Mi smo vam naglasili neke od njih i - kroz poboljšanje u bitcoin protokolu kroz Taproot i Schnorr - one će postajati sve usavršenije.

Bitcoin postupci se ne mogu lako opisati korišćenjem tradicionalnim konceptima. Pitanja kao što su "Ko je vlasnik ovog novca?" ili "Odakle taj novac potiče?" postaju sve teža da se odgovore a u nekim okolnostima postaju potpuno beznačajna.

Satoši je dizajnirao bitcoin misleći na privatnost. Na nivou protokola svaka bitcoin transakcija je proces "topljenja" koji za sobom samo ostavlja heuristične mrvice hleba. Protokolu nije bitno odakle se pojavio bilo koji bitcoin ili satoši. Niti je njega briga ko je legalan identitet vlasnika. Protokolu je samo važno da li su digitalni potpisi validni. Dokle god je govor slobodan, potpisivanje poruka - privatno ili ne - ne sme biti kriminalan postupak.

Dodatni Resursi

This Month in Bitcoin Privacy | Janine

Hodl Privacy FAQ | 6102

Digital Privacy | 6102

UseWhirlpool.com | Bitcoin Q+A

Bitcoin Privacy Guide | Bitcoin Q+A

Ovaj članak napisan je u saradnji sa Matt Odellom, nezavisnim bitcoin istraživačem. Nađite njegove preporuke za privatnost na werunbtc.com

Originalni tekst

@ 8d34bd24:414be32b

I’ve been really deeply studying end times prophecy today. Trying to see how all of the prophecies from the initial proto-Gospel in Genesis 3 through the last chapter in Revelation is hard to arrange in my head. That being said, after reading the Bible daily for about 40 years and reading through it each year for about 30 years, I am really starting to see so many links between passages through out the Bible. It has made my Bible study enthralling. I wish I had time to spend hours and hours every day studying and writing about what I have learned.

I thought it might be handy to share some hints on how I study the Bible. Hopefully this can help some people, although I do tend to think my subscribers tend to be those who love Bible study and are already in the word. People who don’t love the Bible are unlikely to read my long, scripture laden posts. Still, hopefully this will be useful.

Starting the Habit of Bible Reading

The first and foremost thing we all need is to start the habit of daily Bible reading. You can’t worship a God you don’t know about and you can’t obey a God whose commands you don’t know. Every Christian needs to read the whole Bible. This needs to be a priority.

I used to recommend people just start at the beginning, Genesis, and read straight through to Revelation, but I’ve lately changed my mind. So many people will start in Genesis, enjoy Genesis and Exodus, which are basically just stories about creation, judgment in the global flood, and God’s chosen people. They then get to Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy (the details of the law including the intricate ceremonial law) and they lose momentum in the tedium. I do think every Christian eventually needs to read and know these books, but I think it is OK to skip some or all of them the first time through. They will mean more once you have read the whole Bible. If you are only going to read one, I’d probably read Deuteronomy.

I also know that it can be helpful for some people to mix up their reading. I used to have book marks with daily readings, so I read some Old Testament, some Psalms/Proverbs, some New Testament. There was one other category, but I can’t remember what it was. This way, you get a little of different types of passages. My bookmarks burnt up when my house burnt down and when I went searching online for something similar, I found a few similar reading plans, but not the one I used and really liked. Here are a couple that looked good, but I haven’t used myself. here. here. here. These plans look good, but don’t have the convenient bookmarks. here. here. For those who like reading online or on your phone (which isn’t me), I found this one. It looked nice I’ve just started using it despite the fact I prefer a Bible I can hold, turn the pages of, and write in. It has a chronological Old Testament Passage and a New Testament reading that relates in some way to the Old Testament Passage. It also links to some maps that let you see where the places mentioned in the passages are located and questions to get you to think about what you read. The one downside is it only lets you attach notes if you create a group. I do really like the idea that you can setup a group to read through the Bible and share your comments and thoughts, but I haven’t tried the feature.

Another thing I’ve found very helpful is a chronological Bible. It is handy having things in the order they happened and the different passages that cover an event (such as from each gospel or 1/2 Samuel vs 1/2 Chronicles or Leviticus vs Deuteronomy, etc.) right by each other. It is handy to see what actually comes before what and the way different writers describe the same event, since different authors include different details. I think reading a chronological Bible has helped me see more links between passages and get a better understanding of the Bible as a whole. I am getting close to finishing my second reading through. I don’t know if one chronological Bible is significantly better than another, but this is the one I am reading right now.

Another tactic I have used, when I started getting bogged down reading through the Bible again and again was to study one book of the Bible in depth. It worked best reading one of the shorter books. I’d read through the book repeatedly for a month, usually in 1-3 days. I’d follow the links in my study Bible to related passages or study where some of the words were used in other parts of the Bible. I’d get so I really knew the book well.

One thing that has helped me with my Bible study is writing in my Bible. The first time I wrote, it felt almost sacrilegious, but it helps me to organize my thoughts. I’ll write what I get out of it, how it relates to another passage, etc. I’ll underline or circle key words or sentences. These are then useful when I read through again and may see something different, but it reminds me of my growth and learning. I’ve actually thought I really need to get a new wide margin Bible to have more room for my notes. I can write really small and have an ultrafine point pen, so I can write even smaller than the print. The problem is my eyes aren’t so good and I now have trouble reading my tiny print. I can’t read my own writing without my reading glasses.

Bible reading starts getting really exciting when you get to know the Bible well enough that you start seeing the links between different passages and different books. Suddenly it opens up a whole new level of understanding. It is like an exciting scavenger hunt finding how all of the ideas in the Bible relate to each other and clarify each other in one whole.

Historically I’ve hated writing. The thought of writing a journal or something sounded like torture, but I have truly found organizing my thoughts in an essay, really helps my understanding of the Scriptures in ways that reading and thinking about it never did. Whether anyone reads my writings or not, I’ll continue writing because it is a blessing to me. I have grown immensely in my understanding of the Bible by writing out a reasoned argument for what I believe the Bible is saying. I’ve also done in depth study and realized that I was not completely right in my understanding and had to adjust my understanding of Scripture.

but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence (1 Peter 3:15)

As Christians, we are supposed to be ready to make a defense. Reading, studying, and knowing the Bible is the only true way to be ready. I made a necklace with the first letter in each word in this verse to help me memorize it.

Memorizing God’s word is also well worth the effort. I’ll admit, that I would be terrible for following my own advice in this, except I have a special needs son, who is in Awana, and needs help memorizing 1-5 verses a week. The only way either of us can pull it off is I make a song for each 1-3 verse passage that he has to memorize. We then sing them together until we know them. I debated on whether to share my songs. They are not well done. The version uploaded is my first rough attempt at the song and we usually fine tune them over the week, but I don’t get around to rerecording them. I also have at best an OK voice. Still, I decided to share in case these songs can help someone else with their Bible memorization. Hopefully I am not embarrassing myself too much.

Another thing that has helped me is finding Open Bible’s geocoding site. When reading Bible passages, there are frequent references to places that are unfamiliar, either because they are far away or because the ancient names, rather than modern names, are used. This site allows you to see on a map (satellite & modern country formats) where places are located and how they relate to each other. I’ve especially found this useful with end times prophecy because the Bible describes places with their ancient, not modern names.

In addition to my direct Bible study, I also daily listen to sermons, Christian podcasts, read Christian substack posts, and read Christian commentaries. All help my understanding of the Bible. FYI, the sermons, podcasts, blogs, and commentaries are a risk if you don’t know the Bible and aren’t being like the Bereans who searched “… the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.” (Acts 17:11) There are so many false or erroneous teachers, that you have to be very careful listening to people and never put the opinions of men above the word of God. Of course, it is possible to learn a bunch from Godly teachers. Sadly, even the best Bible teachers seem to have at least one area of error. For example, I love listening to R.C. Sproul’s “Renewing Your Mind” podcast, but his teaching on the first 11 chapters of Genesis are a bit “squishy” (not outright wrong, but not holding firm enough to the Bible) and I’d say his end times teaching is flat out wrong. Everything I’ve heard him teach between Genesis 12 and Jude is amazing and very true to the Bible. This is where he spends almost all of his time teaching, so I can highly recommend his podcast. Without a firm foundation in the Bible, it is not possible to recognize false teaching, especially when taught by someone who is very good in most respects.

I hope this is useful to people to help them get into the habit of regular Bible reading and seeing how exciting Bible study can be.

May God give you a hunger for and understanding of His word. May you fill your heart and mind with the word of God so it overflows and is seen by all around you.

Trust Jesus.

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na dvadesetjedan.com.

Autor: Matt Corallo / Prevod na hrvatski: Davor

---

Bitcoineri, od programera Bitcoin Core-a preko dugogodišnjih entuzijasta Bitcoina do nedavnih pronalazača /r/Bitcoina, vole razgovarati o tome kako je decentralizacija Bitcoina njegova ultimativna značajka. Doduše, rijetko vidite da netko objašnjava zašto je decentralizacija važna. Zasigurno je to zanimljiva značajka iz perspektive računalne znanosti, no zašto bi potrošači, tvrtke ili investitori marili za to? Ova objava je pokušaj da se napiše zašto je decentralizacija temelj vrijednosti Bitcoina i što je još važnije, postavi buduće objave u kojima se govori o tome kada ona to nije.

Kada Bitcoineri govore o decentralizaciji Bitcoina, prva stvar koja se pojavljuje je često spominjani nedostatak inherentnog povjerenja u treću stranu. Dok je dobro postavljeno povjerenje preduvjet za učinkovit rad mnogih sustava, jednom kada se takvo povjerenje izgubi, sustavi mogu postati nevjerojatno krhki. Uzmimo, za primjer, povjerenje u američke banke prije uspostave FDIC-a (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation). Dok je pristup bankovnim uslugama omogućio više pogodnosti i mnogim tvrtkama učinkovitije poslovanje, poznato je da su banke propadale, pritom upropaštavajući sa sobom sva sredstva klijenata. Dok je predstavljanje FDIC-a i sličnih programa decentraliziralo povjerenje u financijske institucije s jedne strane na dvije, transakcije u velikom dijelu svijeta ne nude takvu zaštitu. Čak i uz takve programe, pojedinci nisu univerzalno zaštićeni od gubitka preko granica i preko određene vrijednosti.

U novije vrijeme, propisi koji dopuštaju pojedinim državnim dužnosnicima jednostrano oduzimanje imovine postali su uobičajeni. Naročito u SAD-u, sada zloglasna “Operacija Choke Point” i programi oduzimanja civilne imovine, omogućili su službenicima za provođenje zakona i privatnim institucijama da zapljenjuju financijsku imovinu i uskraćuju financijske usluge uz malo ili nimalo nadzora. Uklanjanje provjerenih skrbnika i stvaranje sustava s likvidnom imovinom, koja se ne može zaplijeniti, ima potencijal pružiti pouzdanije financijske usluge mnogima koji inače ne bi mogli djelovati učinkovito ili uopće ne bi mogli djelovati. Ova mogućnost da se Bitcoin ne može zaplijeniti, omogućena je samo zbog nedostatka za centraliziranim povjerenjem. Centralizirani sustavi elektroničke gotovine i financijski sustavi su pokušali pružiti takvu pouzdanost, propisi i poslovna stvarnost su to gotovo univerzalno spriječili.

Svojstvo koje je jednako važno za sposobnost Bitcoina da pruža financijske usluge zviždačima, stranim disidentima i porno zvijezdama je njegov otpor cenzuri transakcija. Sposobnost trećih strana da zaplijene imovinu rezultira izravnim i čistim novčanim gubitkom, zamrzavanje imovine može imati sličan učinak. Kada pojedinac ili organizacija više nisu u mogućnosti obavljati transakcije za plaćanje roba i usluga, njihova financijska imovina brzo gubi vrijednost. Iako Bitcoin ima vrlo dobru priču o nemogućnosti zapljene (svaka strana u sustavu nameće nemogućnost bilo koga da potroši Bitcoin bez dodanog privatnog ključa), njegova priča o otporu cenzuri je malo utančanija.

U svijetu u kojem nijedan rudar Bitcoina nema više od 1% ukupne hash snage (ili nešto drugo što je jednako decentralizirano), trebalo bi biti lako pronaći rudara koji je ili anoniman i prihvaća sve transakcije ili je u nadležnosti koja ne pokušava cenzurirati vaše transakcije. Naravno, ovo nije svijet kakav danas imamo, a cenzura transakcija jedan je od većih razloga da se ozbiljno zabrinemo centralizacijom rudarenja (za pune čvorove). Ipak, mogućnost pojedinca da kupi hash snagu (u obliku lako dostupnog starog hardvera ili u obliku njegovog iznajmljivanja) za rudarenje svoje inače cenzurirane transakcije, opcija je sve dok je pravilo najdužeg lanca na snazi ​​kod svih rudara. Iako je znatno skuplji nego što bi bio u istinski decentraliziranom Bitcoinu, to omogućuje Bitcoinu da zadrži neka od svojih anti-cenzuriranih svojstava.

Ako ste već dovoljno dugo u priči oko Bitcoina, možda ćete prepoznati gornja svojstva kao kritična za zamjenjivost. Zamjenjivost, kao ključno svojstvo svakog monetarnog instrumenta, odnosi se na ideju da vrijednost jedne jedinice treba biti ekvivalentna svakoj drugoj jedinici. Bez mogućnosti odmrzavanja/otpora cenzuri i nemogućnosti zapljene, Bitcoin (i svaki drugi monetarni sustav) počinje gubiti zamjenjivost. Trgovci i platni procesori više ne mogu razumno prihvaćati Bitcoin bez provjere niza crnih lista i mnogo truda kako bi bili sigurni da će moći potrošiti Bitcoin koji prihvaćaju. Ako povjerenje u zamjenjivost Bitcoina deformira, njegova bi korist mogla biti značajno deformirana.

Još jedno svojstvo koje proizlazi iz decentralizacije Bitcoina, je njegov otvoreni pristup. Ulagači iz Silicijske doline često ga nazivaju jednim od najzanimljivijih svojstava Bitcoina, a mnogi ga vole nazivati ​​"bez dopuštenja". Sposobnost bilo koga, bilo gdje u svijetu, sa internetskom vezom, da prihvaća Bitcoin za robu i usluge i koristi Bitcoin za kupnju roba i usluga je vrlo uzbudljiva. Opet, ovo svojstvo ovisi o decentralizaciji Bitcoina. Iako postoje mnogi centralizirani pružatelji financijskih usluga, gdje mnogi od njih promoviraju svoju dostupnost bilo kome, sama njihova prisutnost kao centraliziranog tijela koje može proizvoljno uskratiti uslugu, čini ih podložnim budućim promjenama politike iz bilo kojeg razloga. PayPal je, na primjer, utemeljen na idealima univerzalnog pristupa elektroničkoj gotovini. Međutim, zbog svoje pozicije središnje vlasti, brzo je promijenio svoje politike, kako bi udovoljio pritiscima regulatora i politikama postojećeg financijskog sustava na koji se oslanjao. Ovih dana, PayPal je nadaleko poznat po zamrzavanju računa i oduzimanju imovine uz malo ili nimalo upozorenja. U osnovi, oslanjanje na centralizirane strane za usluge nije kompatibilno s univerzalnim otvorenim pristupom u financijskom svijetu.

Primijetit ćete da se sve gore navedene kritične značajke, one koje Bitcoin čine tako uzbudljivim za sve nas, centralizirani sistemi već neko vrijeme mogu implementirati. Zapravo to se radilo i prije, u učinkovitijim sustavima od Bitcoina. Naravno, nikada nisu potrajali, gubeći kritična svojstva nakon podešavanja kako bi se popravila ova ili ona stvar, implementirajući regulatorne sustave cenzure izravno u osnovne slojeve, ograničavajući pristup rastu dobiti i potpuno gašenje. Stvarno, decentralizacija u Bitcoinu sama po sebi nije značajka, već je umjesto toga jedini način za koji znamo da održimo značajke koje želimo u sustavima kojima upravljaju ljudi.

Originalni tekst

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na dvadesetjedan.com.

Autor: Alex Gladstein / Prevod na hrvatski: TheVeka

---

Francuska još uvijek koristi monetarni kolonijalizam za iskorištavanje 15 afričkih nacija. Može li Bitcoin biti izlaz?

U jesen 1993. obitelj Fodéa Diopa štedjela je za njegovu budućnost. Briljantan 18-godišnjak koji živi u Senegalu, Fodé je imao pred sobom svijetlu budućnost kao košarkaš i inženjer. Njegov otac, školski učitelj, pomogao mu je pronaći inspiraciju u računalima i povezivanju sa svijetom oko sebe. A njegov atletski talent donio mu je ponude za studiranje u Europi i Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama.

Ali kada se probudio ujutro 12. siječnja 1994., sve se promijenilo. Preko noći je njegova obitelj izgubila pola svoje ušteđevine. Ne zbog krađe, pljačke banke ili bankrota neke tvrtke - već zbog devalvacije valute koju je nametnula strana sila sa sjedištem udaljenim 5000 kilometara od njih.

Prethodne večeri francuski dužnosnici sastali su se sa svojim afričkim kolegama u Dakaru kako bi razgovarali o sudbini "franca de la Communauté financière africaine" (ili franka Financijske zajednice Afrike), široko poznatog kao CFA franak ili skraćeno "seefa". Tijekom čitavog Fodéova života njegov CFA franak bio je vezan za francuski franak u omjeru od 1 naprama 50, ali kad je kasnonoćni sastanak završio, ponoćna objava postavila je novu vrijednost od 1 naprama 100.

Okrutna je ironija bila da je ekonomska sudbina milijuna Senegalaca bila potpuno izvan njihovih vlastitih ruku. Nikakvi prosvjedi nisu mogli svrgnuti njihove ekonomske gospodare. Desetljećima su novi predsjednici dolazili i odlazili, ali temeljni financijski aranžman nikada se nije mijenjao. Za razliku od tipične fiat valute, sustav je bio daleko podmukliji. Bio je to monetarni kolonijalizam.

Mehanika CFA sustava

U svojoj knjizi koja otvara oči, Posljednja afrička kolonijalna valuta: priča o CFA franku (Africa's Last Colonial Currency: The CFA Franc Story), znanstvenici iz područja ekonomije Fanny Pigeaud i Ndongo Samba Sylla govore o tragičnoj i, ponekad šokantnoj, povijesti CFA franka.

Francuska je, kao i druge europske sile, kolonizirala mnoge nacije diljem svijeta u doba svog imperijalnog vrhunca. Veoma često ta kolonizacija bila je brutalna. Nakon okupacije od strane nacističke Njemačke u Drugom svjetskom ratu, Francusko kolonijalno carstvo "Empire colonial français" počeo se raspadati. Francuzi su se borili da zadrže svoje kolonije, nanoseći pritom ogromne ljudske žrtve. Unatoč vođenju skupog niza globalnih ratova, izgubljena je Indokina, zatim Sirija i Libanon, te, na kraju, francuski teritorij u sjevernoj Africi, uključujući cijenjenu naseljeničku koloniju Alžir, bogatu naftom i plinom. No Francuska je bila odlučna ne izgubiti svoje teritorije u zapadnoj i središnjoj Africi. Oni su osiguravali vojnu snagu tijekom dva svjetska rata i nudili obilje prirodnih resursa - uključujući uran, kakao, drvo i boksit - koji su obogatili i održali metropolu (Francusku u njenim postojećim europskim granicama).

Kako se približavala 1960., dekolonizacija se činila neizbježnom. Europa je bila ujedinjena u povlačenju iz Afrike nakon desetljeća pustošenja i pljačke koju su sponzorirale države. Ali francuske su vlasti shvatile da mogu dobiti svoj kolač i pojesti ga, prepuštanjem političke kontrole uz zadržavanje monetarne kontrole.

Ovo naslijeđe i danas postoji u 15 zemalja koje govore francuski i koriste valutu koju kontrolira Pariz: Senegal, Mali, Obala Bjelokosti, Gvineja Bisau, Togo, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger, Kamerun, Čad, Srednjoafrička Republika, Gabon, Ekvatorijalna Gvineja, Republika Kongo i Komori. U 2022. Francuzi još uvijek vrše monetarnu kontrolu nad više od 2,5 milijuna četvornih kilometara afričkog teritorija, površine 80% veličine Indije.

Francuska je službenu dekolonizaciju započela 1956. s Defferreovim okvirnim zakon "La Loi-cadre Defferre", dijelom zakona koji kolonijama daje više autonomije i stvara demokratske institucije i opće pravo glasa. Godine 1958. francuski ustav je izmijenjen kako bi se uspostavila La Communauté (Zajednica): skupina autonomnih, demokratski upravljanih prekomorskih teritorija. Predsjednik Charles de Gaulle obišao je kolonije diljem zapadne i središnje Afrike kako bi ponudio autonomiju bez neovisnosti kroz La Communauté ili neposrednu potpunu neovisnost. Jasno je dao do znanja da će s prvim biti povlastica i stabilnosti, a s drugim velikih rizika, pa čak i kaosa.

Godine 1960. Francuska je zapravo imala veću populaciju — oko 40 milijuna ljudi — od 30 milijuna stanovnika sadašnjih 15 CFA zemalja. Ali danas 67 milijuna ljudi živi u Francuskoj, a 183 milijuna u CFA zoni. Prema projekcijama UN-a, do 2100. godine Francuska će imati 74 milijuna, a CFA nacije više od 800 milijuna. S obzirom da Francuska još uvijek drži njihovu financijsku sudbinu u svojim rukama, situacija sve više nalikuje ekonomskom apartheidu.

Kada je CFA franak prvobitno uveden 1945., vrijedio je 1,7 francuskih franaka. Godine 1948. ojačan je na 2 francuska franka. Ali u vrijeme kad je CFA franak bio vezan za euro krajem 1990-ih, vrijedio je 0,01 francuski franak. To je ukupna devalvacija od 99,5%. Svaki put kad je Francuska devalvirala CFA franak, povećala je svoju kupovnu moć u odnosu na svoje bivše kolonije i poskupila im uvoz vitalne robe. Godine 1992. Francuzi su putem nacionalnog referenduma mogli glasovati o prihvaćanju eura ili ne. Državljanima CFA-e bilo je uskraćeno takvo pravo i bili su isključeni iz pregovora koji bi njihov novac vezali za novu valutu.

Točan mehanizam CFA sustava evoluirao je od njegovog nastanka, ali osnovna funkcionalnost i metode iskorištavanja su nepromijenjene. Oni su opisani onim što Pigeaud i Sylla nazivaju "teorijom ovisnosti", gdje se resursi perifernih nacija u razvoju "kontinuirano crpe u korist središnjih bogatih nacija... bogate nacije ne ulažu u siromašne nacije da bi ih učinile bogatijima... [ovo] izrabljivanje evoluiralo je tijekom vremena od brutalnih režima ropstva do sofisticiranijih i manje očitih načina održavanja političkog i ekonomskog ropstva.”

Tri središnje banke danas opslužuju 15 zemalja CFA: Središnja banka zapadnoafričkih država (Banque Centrale des États de l'Afrique de l'Ouest - BCEAO) za zapadnoafričke zemlje, Banka država Srednje Afrike (Banque des États de l'Afrique Centrale - BEAC) za srednjoafričke zemlje i Središnja banka Komora (Banque Centrale des Comores BCC) za Komore. Središnje banke drže devizne rezerve (tj. nacionalnu štednju) za pojedinačne nacije u svojoj regiji, koje u svakom trenutku moraju držati nevjerojatnih 50% u francuskoj riznici. Ova brojka, koliko god visoka, rezultat je povijesnih pregovora. Izvorno su bivše kolonije morale držati 100% svojih rezervi u Francuskoj, a tek su 1970-ih stekle pravo kontrolirati neke i ustupiti "samo" 65% Parizu. CFA države nemaju nikakvu diskreciju u pogledu svojih rezervi pohranjenih u inozemstvu. Zapravo, oni ne znaju kako se taj novac troši. U međuvremenu, Pariz točno zna kako se troši novac svake CFA države, budući da vodi "operativne račune" za svaku zemlju u tri središnje banke.

Kao primjer kako ovo funkcionira, kada tvrtka za proizvodnju kave iz Bjelokosti proda robu u vrijednosti od milijun dolara kineskom kupcu, juani od kupca se mijenjaju u eure na francuskom tržištu valuta. Zatim francuska riznica preuzima eure i kreditira iznos u CFA francima na račun Obale Bjelokosti u BCEAO, koji zatim kreditira račun proizvođača kave u zemlji. Sve prolazi kroz Pariz. Prema Pigeaudu i Sylli, Francuska još uvijek proizvodi sve novčanice i kovanice koje se koriste u CFA regiji — naplaćujući 45 milijuna eura godišnje za uslugu — i još uvijek drži 90% zlatnih rezervi CFA, oko 36,5 tona.

Sustav CFA daje pet glavnih prednosti francuskoj vladi:

• rezerve bonusa koje može koristiti prema vlastitom nahođenju;
• velika tržišta za skup izvoz i jeftin uvoz;
• mogućnost kupnje strateških minerala u domaćoj valuti bez smanjenja rezervi;
• povoljne zajmove kada su CFA zemlje u kreditima i povoljne kamatne stope kada su u dugovima (dugo je vremena francuska stopa - inflacije čak premašivala kamatnu stopu zajma, što znači da je Francuska zapravo prisiljavala CFA nacije da plaćaju naknadu za -skladištenje svojih rezervi u inozemstvu); i, konačno,
• "dvostruki zajam", u kojem će CFA nacija posuditi novac od Francuske, i, u potrazi za raspoređivanjem kapitala, imati malo izbora s obzirom na perverzne makroekonomske okolnosti u kojima treba sklopiti ugovor s francuskim tvrtkama. To znači da se glavnica kredita odmah vraća u Francusku, ali je afrička nacija još uvijek opterećena i glavnicom i kamatama.

To dovodi do svojevrsnog fenomena "recikliranja petrodolara" (slično onome kako bi Saudijska Arabija uzimala dolare zarađene prodajom nafte i ulagala ih u američke trezorske zapise), jer bi CFA izvoznici povijesno prodavali sirovine Francuskoj, a dio prihoda bivao prikupljen od strane regionalne središnje banke i “reinvestiran” natrag u dug metropole kroz francuski ili danas europski državni dug. Pored toga, tu je još i selektivna konvertibilnost CFA franka. Poduzeća danas mogu lako prodati svoje CFA franke za eure (prethodno francuske franke), ali građani koji nose CFA franke izvan zone svoje središnje banke ne mogu ih formalno nigdje zamijeniti. Beskorisne su otprilike kao i razglednice. Ako državljanka Bjelokosti napušta svoju zemlju, mora prvo zamijeniti novčanice za eure, gdje francusko ministarstvo financija i Europska središnja banka (ECB) izdvajaju seigniorage (danak feudalnom gospodaru) putem tečaja.

Monetarna represija u igri je da Francuska prisiljava CFA nacije da drže golemu količinu rezervi u pariškim blagajnama, sprječavajući Afrikance u stvaranju domaćih kredita. Regionalne središnje banke na kraju posuđuju vrlo malo po vrlo visokim stopama, umjesto da posuđuju više po niskim stopama. A CFA nacije na kraju, protiv svojih želja, kupuju francuski ili, danas europski, dug svojim strateškim rezervama.

Ono što možda najviše iznenađuje jest posebna povlastica prava prvenstva pri uvozu i izvozu. Ako ste malijski proizvođač pamuka, svoju robu prvo morate ponuditi Francuskoj prije nego što odete na međunarodna tržišta. Ili ako ste u Beninu i želite izgraditi novi infrastrukturni projekt, morate razmotriti francuske ponude, prije ostalih. To je povijesno značilo da je Francuska mogla doći do robe jeftinije od tržišne iz svojih bivših kolonija i prodavati vlastitu robu i usluge po cijenama višim od tržišnih.

Pigeaud i Sylla ovo nazivaju nastavkom "kolonijalnog pakta", koji je bio usredotočen na četiri temeljna načela:

• kolonijama je bila zabranjena industrijalizacija i morale su se zadovoljiti opskrbom metropole sirovinama koje su ih pretvarale u gotove proizvode koji su se zatim preprodani kolonijama,
• metropola je uživala monopol kolonijalnog izvoza i uvoza,
• monopol prilikom slanja kolonijalnih proizvoda u inozemstvo i konačno,
• metropola je dala trgovačke povlastice proizvodima kolonija.

Rezultat toga je situacija u kojoj “središnje banke imaju velike devizne rezerve plaćene po niskim ili čak negativnim stopama u realnom iznosu, u kojoj komercijalne banke drže višak likvidnosti, gdje je pristup kreditima za kućanstva i poduzeća racionaliziran i u kojoj su države sve više prisiljene, kako bi financirali svoje razvojne projekte, ugovarati devizne kredite po neodrživim kamatama, što dodatno potiče bijeg kapitala.

Danas je CFA sustav "afrikaniziran", što znači da novčanice sada prikazuju afričku kulturu te floru i faunu na njima, a središnje banke nalaze se u Dakaru, Yaoundéu i Moroniju - ali to su samo kozmetičke promjene. Novčanice se još uvijek izrađuju u Parizu, operativne račune još uvijek vode francuske vlasti, a francuski dužnosnici još uvijek sjede u odborima regionalnih središnjih banaka i de facto imaju pravo veta. Nevjerojatna je situacija u kojoj građanin Gabona ima francuskog birokrata koji donosi odluke u njezino ime. Kao da ECB ili Federalne rezerve imaju Japance ili Ruse koji odlučuju umjesto Europljana i Amerikanaca.

Svjetska banka i Međunarodni monetarni fond kroz povijest su radili zajedno s Francuskom na provođenju CFA sustava i rijetko, ako ikad, kritiziraju njegovu izrabljivačku prirodu. Zapravo, kao dio sustava Bretton Woods nakon Drugog svjetskog rata - gdje bi Amerikanci vodili Svjetsku banku, a Europljani MMF - položaj generalnog direktora MMF-a često je držao francuski dužnosnik, do nedavno Christine Lagarde. Tijekom godina MMF je pomagao Francuskoj da vrši pritisak na CFA nacije da slijede željenu politiku. Istaknuti primjer bio je ranih 1990-ih, kada Obala Bjelokosti nije htjela devalvirati svoju valutu, ali Francuzi su se zalagali za takvu promjenu. Prema Pigeaudu i Sylli, “krajem 1991., MMF je odbio nastaviti posuđivati novac Obali Bjelokosti, ponudivši zemlji dvije mogućnosti. Ili će država vratiti dugove ugovorene s Fondom ili će prihvatiti devalvaciju.” Obala Bjelokosti i druge CFA nacije su poklekle i prihvatile devalvaciju tri godine kasnije.

U suprotnosti s vrijednostima sloboda, jednakost, bratstvo (liberté, égalité, fraternité), francuski su dužnosnici podupirali tiraniju u CFA zoni posljednjih šest desetljeća. Na primjer, tri čovjeka - Omar Bongo u Gabonu, Paul Biya u Kamerunu i Gnassingbé Eyadéma u Togu - zajedno su skupili 120 godina na vlasti. Sve bi ih njihovi ljudi izbacili daleko prije da Francuzi nisu osigurali gotovinu, oružje i diplomatsko pokriće. Prema Pigeaudu i Sylli, između 1960. i 1991. “Pariz je izveo gotovo 40 vojnih intervencija u 16 zemalja kako bi obranio svoje interese.” Taj je broj danas sigurno veći.

S vremenom je CFA sustav omogućio francuskoj državi da iskorištava resurse i rad CFA nacija, ne dopuštajući im da povećaju svoju akumulaciju kapitala i razviju vlastita izvozno vođena gospodarstva. Rezultati su bili katastrofalni za razvoj društva općenito.

Danas je BDP Obale Slonovače (korigiran za inflaciju) po glavi stanovnika (u dolarima) oko 1.700 USD, u usporedbi s 2.500 USD u kasnim 1970-ima. U Senegalu je tek 2017. BDP po stanovniku premašio visine dosegnute 1960-ih. Kao što primjećuju Pigeaud i Sylla, “10 država zone franka zabilježilo je svoje najviše razine prosječnog dohotka prije 2000-ih. U posljednjih 40 godina prosječna se kupovna moć gotovo posvuda pogoršala. U Gabonu je najveći prosječni prihod zabilježen 1976. godine, nešto ispod 20.000 dolara. Četrdeset godina kasnije smanjio se za pola. Gvineja Bisau pridružila se CFA sustavu 1997. godine, godine u kojoj je zabilježila vrhunac svog prosječnog prihoda. 19 godina kasnije, ovo je palo za 20%.”

Zapanjujućih 10 od 15 CFA zemalja Ujedinjeni narodi smatraju među "najmanje razvijenim zemljama" u svijetu, uz Haiti, Jemen i Afganistan. Na raznim međunarodnim ljestvicama Niger, Srednjoafrička Republika, Čad i Gvineja Bisau često se ubrajaju u najsiromašnije zemlje svijeta. Francuzi održavaju, zapravo, ekstremnu verziju onoga što je Allen Farrington nazvao "kapitalnim površinskim rudnikom".

Senegalski političar Amadou Lamine-Guèye jednom je sažeo CFA sustav kao građani koji imaju "samo dužnosti, a nikakva prava", te da je "zadatak koloniziranih teritorija bio proizvoditi puno, proizvoditi iznad vlastitih potreba i proizvoditi na štetu njihovih neposrednijih interesa, kako bi se metropoli omogućio bolji životni standard i sigurnija opskrba.” Metropola, naravno, odolijeva ovom opisu. Kao što je francuski ministar gospodarstva Michel Sapin rekao u travnju 2017., "Francuska je tu kao prijatelj."

Sada se možete zapitati: Opiru li se afričke zemlje ovom iskorištavanju? Odgovor je da, ali oni plaćaju visoku cijenu. Rani nacionalistički vođe iz doba afričke neovisnosti prepoznali su kritičnu vrijednost ekonomske slobode.

“Neovisnost je samo uvod u novu i uključeniju borbu za pravo na vođenje vlastitih gospodarskih i društvenih poslova [..] neometano uništavajućom i ponižavajućom neokolonijalističkom kontrolom i uplitanjem,” izjavio je 1963. Kwame Nkrumah, koji je vodio pokret koji je Ganu učinio prvom neovisnom nacijom u podsaharskoj Africi. Ali kroz povijest CFA regije, nacionalni čelnici koji su se suprotstavili francuskim vlastima uglavnom su loše prolazili.

Godine 1958. Gvineja je pokušala zatražiti monetarnu neovisnost. U poznatom govoru, vatreni nacionalist Sekou Touré rekao je gostujućem Charlesu de Gaulleu: "Radije bismo imali siromaštvo u slobodi nego bogatstvo u ropstvu," i nedugo zatim napustio sustav CFA. Prema The Washington Postu, “kao reakcija, i kao upozorenje drugim područjima s francuskim govornim područjem, Francuzi su se povukli iz Gvineje tijekom dva mjeseca, odnoseći sa sobom sve što su mogli. Odvrnuli su žarulje, uklonili planove za kanalizacijske cjevovode u Conakryju, glavnom gradu, pa čak i spalili lijekove umjesto da ih ostave Gvinejcima.”

Zatim, kao čin destabilizirajuće odmazde, Francuzi su pokrenuli operaciju Persil, tijekom koje su, prema Pigeaudu i Sylli, francuske obavještajne službe krivotvorile goleme količine novih gvinejskih novčanica i zatim ih "masovno" ubacile u zemlju. "Rezultat", pišu oni, "bio je kolaps gvinejskog gospodarstva." Demokratske nade zemlje srušene su zajedno s njezinim financijama, jer je Touré uspio učvrstiti svoju moć u kaosu i započeti 26 godina brutalne vladavine.

U lipnju 1962. malijski vođa za neovisnost Modibo Keita objavio je da Mali napušta CFA zonu kako bi kovao vlastitu valutu. Keita je detaljno objasnio razloge za taj potez, kao što su ekonomska prevelika ovisnost (80% malijskog uvoza dolazi iz Francuske), koncentracija ovlasti za donošenje odluka u Parizu i usporavanje ekonomske diversifikacije i rasta.

“Istina je da je vjetar dekolonizacije prošao preko starog zdanja, ali nije ga previše poljuljao”, rekao je o statusu quo. Kao odgovor, francuska vlada učinila je malijski franak nekonvertibilnim. Uslijedila je duboka gospodarska kriza, a Keita je svrgnut vojnim udarom 1968. Mali je na kraju odlučio ponovno ući u CFA zonu, ali su Francuzi nametnuli dvije devalvacije malijskog franka kao uvjete za povratak i nisu dopustili ponovni ulazak do 1984. godine.

Godine 1969., kada je predsjednik Nigera Hamani Diori tražio "fleksibilniji" aranžman, gdje bi njegova zemlja imala veću monetarnu neovisnost, Francuzi su to odbili. Prijetili su mu uskraćivanjem plaćanja za uran koji su skupljali iz pustinjskih rudnika koji će Francuskoj dati energetsku neovisnost putem nuklearne energije. Šest godina kasnije, Diorijevu vladu svrgnuo je general Seyni Kountché, tri dana prije planiranog sastanka za ponovno pregovaranje o cijeni nigerskog urana. Diori je želio povisiti cijenu, ali se njegov bivši kolonijalni gospodar nije složio s tim. Francuska vojska bila je stacionirana u blizini tijekom puča, ali, kako Pigeaud i Sylla primjećuju, nisu ni prstom maknuli.

Godine 1985., revolucionarni vojni vođa Thomas Sankara iz Burkine Faso upitan je u intervjuu: “Nije li CFA franak oružje za dominaciju Afrikom? Planira li Burkina Faso nastaviti nositi ovaj teret? Zašto afričkom seljaku u njegovom selu treba konvertibilna valuta?” Sankara je odgovorio: “Je li valuta konvertibilna ili ne to nikada nije bila briga afričkog seljaka. On je protiv svoje volje bačen u ekonomski sustav protiv kojeg je bespomoćan.”

Sankaru je dvije godine kasnije ubio njegov najbolji prijatelj i drugi zapovjednik, Blaise Compaoré. Nikada nije održano suđenje. Umjesto toga, Compaoré je preuzeo vlast i vladao do 2014., lojalan i brutalan sluga CFA sustava.

Borba Faride Nabourema za financijsku slobodu Toga

U prosincu 1962. prvi postkolonijalni vođa Toga Sylvanus Olympio formalno je krenuo u osnivanje središnje banke Togoa i togoanskog franka. Ali ujutro 13. siječnja 1963., nekoliko dana prije nego što je trebao zacementirati ovu tranziciju, ubili su ga togoanski vojnici koji su prošli obuku u Francuskoj. Gnassingbé Eyadéma bio je jedan od vojnika koji su počinili zločin. Kasnije je preuzeo vlast i postao diktator Toga uz punu francusku podršku, vladajući više od pet desetljeća i promičući CFA franak do svoje smrti 2005. Njegov sin vlada do danas. Olympiovo ubojstvo nikada nije riješeno.

Obitelj Faride Nabourema uvijek je bila uključena u borbu za ljudska prava u Togu. Njezin otac bio je aktivni vođa opozicije, a služio je kao politički zatvorenik. Njegov se otac suprotstavljao Francuzima tijekom kolonijalnih vremena. Danas je ona vodeća figura demokratskog pokreta u zemlji.

Farida je imala 15 godina kada je saznala da je povijest diktature Toga bila isprepletena s CFA frankom. Do tog vremena, ranih 2000-ih, počela se zbližavati sa svojim ocem i postavljati mu pitanja o povijesti svoje zemlje. “Zašto je naš prvi predsjednik ubijen samo nekoliko godina nakon što smo stekli neovisnost?” upitala je.

Odgovor: opirao se CFA franku.

Godine 1962. Olympia je započela pokret prema financijskoj neovisnosti od Francuske. Parlament je glasovao za početak takve tranzicije i stvaranje togoanskog franka i držanje njihovih rezervi u vlastitoj središnjoj banci. Farida je bila šokirana kada je saznala da je Olympio ubijen samo dva dana prije nego što je Togo trebao napustiti CFA aranžman. Kako je rekla: “Njegova odluka da traži monetarnu slobodu viđena je kao uvreda hegemoniji u frankofonskoj Africi. Bojali su se da će ih drugi slijediti.”

Danas je, kaže ona, za mnoge togoanske aktiviste CFA glavni razlog za traženje veće slobode. “To je ono što animira mnoge u oporbenom pokretu.”

Razlozi zašto su jasni. Farida je rekla da Francuska drži više od polovice rezervi Toga u svojim bankama, gdje Togoanci nemaju nikakav nadzor nad time kako se te rezerve troše. Često se te rezerve, koje su zaradili Togoanci, koriste za kupnju francuskog duga za financiranje aktivnosti francuskog naroda. Zapravo, taj se novac često posuđuje bivšem kolonijalnom gospodaru uz negativan stvarni prinos. Togoanci plaćaju Parizu da im čuva novac, a pritom financiraju životni standard Francuza.

Godine 1994. devalvacija koja je ukrala ušteđevinu obitelji Fode Diopa u Senegalu teško je pogodila i Togo, uzrokujući ogroman porast državnog duga, smanjenje javnog financiranja lokalne infrastrukture i povećanje siromaštva.

“Zapamtite,” rekla je Farida, “naša vlada je prisiljena dati prednost držanju naših rezervi u francuskoj banci umjesto trošenju kod kuće, tako da kada nas udari šok, moramo se degradirati, kako bismo osigurali da odgovarajuća količina gotovine bude u rukama Parižana .”

To stvara nacionalnu klimu ovisnosti, u kojoj su Togoanci prisiljeni isporučivati sirovu robu i unositi gotovu robu. To je zatvoreni krug iz kojeg nema izlaza.

Farida je rekla da je prije otprilike 10 godina pokret protiv CFA-a počeo dobivati na snazi. Zbog mobilnih telefona i društvenih medija ljudi su se mogli ujediniti i organizirati na decentraliziran način. Nekada su se samo građani Bjelokosti i Togoa borili odvojeno, rekla je, ali sada postoji regionalni napor između aktivista.

Desetljećima postoji ideja o "eko" valuti za sve zemlje Ekonomske zajednice zapadnoafričkih država (ECOWAS), uključujući regionalne gospodarske sile Nigeriju i Ganu. Farida je rekla da su Francuzi pokušali preoteti ovaj plan, videći ga kao način za proširenje vlastitog financijskog carstva. Godine 2013. tadašnji predsjednik François Hollande formirao je komisiju koja je izradila dokument za francusku budućnost u Africi. U njemu su izjavili da je imperativ uključiti anglofone zemlje (afričke zemlje u kojima se priča engleskim jezikom) poput Gane.

Administracija Emmanuela Macrona sada pokušava preimenovati CFA franak u Eco, u kontinuiranom procesu "afrikanizacije" francuskog kolonijalnog financijskog sustava. Nigerija i Gana odustale su od Eko projekta, nakon što su shvatile da će Francuzi i dalje imati kontrolu. Ništa se još formalno nije dogodilo, ali zemlje kojima trenutačno upravlja središnja banka BCEAO na putu su da pređu na ovu eko valutu do 2027. Francuzi će i dalje imati sposobnost donošenja odluka i ne postoje službeni planovi za prilagodbu središnjeg bankarstva srednjoafričkih CFA nacija ili Komora.

"Vrhunac je licemjerja za francuske vođe poput Macrona da odu u Davos i kažu da su gotovi s kolonijalizmom", rekla je Farida, "dok ga zapravo pokušavaju proširiti."

Rekla je da je izvorno CFA franak stvoren na temelju valutnog plana koji su koristili nacistički okupatori Francuske. Tijekom Drugog svjetskog rata, Njemačka je stvorila nacionalnu valutu za francuske kolonije kako bi mogla lako kontrolirati uvoz i izvoz koristeći samo jednu financijsku polugu. Kada je rat završio i Francuzi ponovno stekli slobodu, odlučili su koristiti isti model za svoje kolonije. Dakle, rekla je Farida, temelj CFA franka je zapravo nacistički.

Sustav ima mračnu genijalnost u tome što su Francuzi s vremenom uspjeli tiskati novac za kupnju vitalnih dobara iz svojih bivših kolonija, ali te afričke zemlje moraju raditi kako bi zaradile rezerve.

"To nije fer, to nije neovisnost", rekla je Farida. “To je čista eksploatacija.”

Francuska tvrdi da je sustav dobar jer osigurava stabilnost, nisku inflaciju i konvertibilnost Togoancima. Ali konvertibilnost na kraju olakšava bijeg kapitala - kada je tvrtkama lako pobjeći od CFA-a i danas parkirati svoje profite u eurima - dok zarobljavaju Togoance u režimu seigniorage. Kad god se CFA pretvori - a mora biti pretvoren, jer se ne može koristiti izvan ekonomske zone u kojoj građani međusobno razmijenjuju dobra i usluge - Francuzi i ECB uzimaju svoj dio.

Da, rekla je Farida, inflacija je niska u Togu u usporedbi s neovisnim državama, ali velik dio njihove zarade ide za borbu protiv inflacije umjesto za podršku razvoju infrastrukture i industrije kod kuće. Istaknula je rast Gane, koja ima neovisnu monetarnu politiku i višu inflaciju tijekom vremena od CFA zemalja, u usporedbi s Togom. Po svim pokazateljima - zdravstvu, rastu srednje klase, nezaposlenosti - Gana je superiornija. Zapravo, kad pogledamo iz većega, rekla je da niti jedna CFA nacija nije među 10 najbogatijih zemalja u Africi. Ali od 10 najsiromašnijih, polovica je u CFA zoni.

Farida kaže da francuski kolonijalizam nadilazi novac. Također utječe na obrazovanje i kulturu. Na primjer, rekla je, Svjetska banka daje 130 milijuna dolara godišnje za potporu frankofonim zemljama (zemlje u kojima se priča francuskim jezikom) za plaćanje udžbenika u javnim školama. Farida kaže da je 90% tih knjiga tiskano u Francuskoj. Novac ide izravno iz Svjetske banke u Pariz, a ne u Togo ili bilo koju drugu afričku naciju. Knjige su alat za ispiranje mozga, rekla je Farida. Usredotočeni su na slavu francuske kulture i potkopavaju postignuća drugih naroda, bilo da su američki, azijski ili afrički.

U srednjoj školi Farida je pitala svog oca: "Koriste li ljudi u Europi neki drugi jezik osim francuskog?" On se smijao. Učili su samo o francuskoj povijesti, francuskim izumiteljima i francuskim filozofima. Odrasla je misleći da su jedini pametni ljudi Francuzi. Nikada nije pročitala nijednu američku ili britansku knjigu prije nego što je prvi put otputovala u inozemstvo.

Općenito, rekla je Farida, Francuska Afrika konzumira 80% knjiga koje Francuzi tiskaju. Predsjednik Macron želi proširiti ovu dominaciju i obećao je potrošiti stotine milijuna eura za jačanje francuskog jezika u Africi, izjavljujući da bi on mogao biti "prvi jezik" kontinenta i nazivajući ga "jezikom slobode". S obzirom na trenutne trendove, do 2050. 85% svih govornika francuskog moglo bi živjeti u Africi. Jezik je jedan od stupova podrške opstanku CFA franka.

Politika je nešto drugo. Važan dio CFA sustava je francuska podrška diktaturi. S iznimkom Senegala, niti jedna zemlja bloka CFA nije imala smislenu demokratizaciju. Svaki pojedini uspješni tiranin u frankofonskoj Africi, rekla je Farida, imao je punu podršku francuske države. Kad god dođe do državnog udara protiv demokracije, Francuzi podržavaju pučiste sve dok su oni prijatelji CFA režima. Ali u trenutku kad netko ima antifrancuske tendencije, vidite sankcije, prijetnje ili čak atentate.

Farida ističe primjer Chad i Malija danas. Obje zemlje su pod prijetnjom terorizma i pobune. U Cahdu je pokojnog vojnog diktatora Idrissa Debyja Francuska podržavala tri desetljeća do njegove smrti u travnju. Prema chadskom ustavu, čelnik parlamenta obično je sljedeći na redu za predsjednika, no umjesto toga vojska je postavila Debyjeva sina, generala u vojsci. Francuska vlada pozdravila je ovu ilegalnu tranziciju, a predsjednik Macron je čak posjetio Chad kako bi proslavio ovu prijevaru. U govoru odavanja počasti nazvao je Debyja "prijateljem" i "hrabrim vojnikom" i rekao "Francuska neće dopustiti da itko dovede u pitanje ili prijeti stabilnosti i integritetu Chada danas ili sutra". Sin će, naravno, promovirati CFA franak.

Mali je, s druge strane, rekla je Farida, imao državni udar mjesec dana nakon Chadovog. Hunta i stanovništvo nisu toliko prijateljski raspoloženi prema Parizu i čini se da u Rusiji traže novog partnera za suzbijanje terorizma. Tako je francuska vlada državni udar nazvala "neprihvatljivim", prijeti da će povući trupe iz Malija kako bi ih "ostavila nasamo s teroristima", kako je rekao Farida, i priprema sankcije. Mali je kažnjen od strane Francuske jer je učinio isto što i Chad. Ima despotizma i korupcije s obje strane. Jedina razlika je u tome što se Mali želio odmaknuti od francuske monetarne kontrole, dok Chad i dalje surađuje.

“Kada ste diktator, dokle god radite za Francusku, oni će i dalje nalaziti izgovore da vam pomognu da ostanete na vlasti”, rekla je Farida. Isto su učinili 2005. u njezinoj zemlji Togo, što je dovelo do toga da je sin preuzeo vlast od svog oca diktatora i do njezinog vlastitog političkog buđenja.

Misija Fode Diopa da donese bitcoin u Senegal

Tek kada je Fodé Diop imao priliku otputovati u SAD, mogao je početi gledati svoju zemlju Senegal izvana.

Isprva je devalvacija CFA franka 1994. dovela njegovu akademsku budućnost u opasnost. Imao je priliku otići studirati i igrati košarku na sveučilištu u Kansasu, ali je njegova obiteljska ušteđevina bila uništena. Sretniji od većine oko njega, njegova je obitelj imala još jednu mogućnost: njegov je otac imao prava na knjige za nastavne materijale koje je on izradio, a on ih je mogao upotrijebiti da posudi ono što je bilo potrebno da Fodé ode u školu.

Jednog dana, nekoliko godina nakon što je završio fakultet, dok je živio u SAD-u i radio na novoj web stranici za video on demand sa svojim bratom, Fodé je slučajno naišao na YouTube video dr. Cheikha Anta Diopa, senegalskog znanstvenika i povjesničara, govoreći o tome kako su novac i jezik bili alati za kontrolu ljudskih umova i sredstava za život.

Fodé je već čuo za dr. Diopa - najveće sveučilište u Senegalu nazvano je po njemu - ali nije slušao njegovu kritiku CFA sustava. To je teško pogodilo Fodéa. Kaže da je to bilo poput trenutka u "Matrixu", jednom od njegovih omiljenih filmova, kada Neo uzima crvenu pilulu od Morpheusa i bježi iz svoje kapsule u uznemirujuće brutalni stvarni svijet. Napokon je ugledao vodu u kojoj je plivao dok je odrastao.

"Ovo je bio prvi put u životu da sam počeo razmišljati svojom glavom", rekao je Fodé. “Prvi put sam shvatio da je valuta moje zemlje mehanizam kontrole.”

Rekao je da je to više od puke kontrole nad valutom. Budući da Francuzi tiskaju i kontroliraju novac preko operativnih računa svake zemlje, oni imaju podatke.

“Oni znaju što kamo ide, imaju informacije o svim zemljama. Oni imaju prednost nad tim zemljama. Oni znaju tko je korumpiran. Oni znaju tko kupuje nekretnine u Francuskoj. Oni znaju što je dostupno. Oni imaju prvo pravo odbijanja povlaštenih uvoznih i izvoznih cijena. Imaju potpunu dominaciju,” rekao je Fodé.

Kasnije će razmišljati o devalvaciji iz 1994. godine. Tada je imao samo 18 godina pa nije shvaćao što se dogodilo, osim činjenice da su obiteljske financije postale znatno teže.

“Stavljaju vam vreću na glavu kako ne biste primijetili svoju stvarnost”, rekao je.

U retrospektivi, o tome se vodila velika javna rasprava. Ljudi su shvatili da kada bi išli pretvarati u francuski franak, dobili bi upola manje za svoj novac, iako su radili istu količinu posla. Francuski razlog, rekao je Fodé, bio je učiniti izvoz jeftinijim kako bi afričke zemlje mogle proizvoditi konkurentnije. Ali Fodé to vidi drugačije: to je Francuskoj omogućilo da udari bičem i kupi jeftiniju robu.

Fodé je imao još dva trenutka "crvene pilule". Sljedeći je došao 2007., kada je radio u Las Vegasu na tehnološkoj sceni. Gledao je video Stevea Jobsa, koji je upravo predstavio prvi iPhone. Fodé je bio zapanjen: mobilni telefon koji je imao izvorni preglednik sa zaslonom osjetljivim na dodir. Ista stvar koja je bila na vašem računalu sada je bila i na vašem telefonu. Odmah je znao da će to promijeniti svijet. Njegova sljedeća misao: Kako da izvorna plaćanja unesemo u iPhone aplikacije, tako da ljudi bez bankovnih računa i kreditnih kartica mogu koristiti mobilni novac?

Posljednja crvena pilula za Fodéa bilo je učenje o Bitcoinu 2010. godine. Živio je u Los Angelesu kada je prvi put pročitao bitcoin white paper (bijeli knjiga) Satoshija Nakamota za "peer-to-peer elektronički novčani sustav". Od trenutka kada ga je pročitao, Fodé je pomislio: Po prvi put imamo oružje kojim se možemo boriti protiv ugnjetavanja i kolonijalizma. Novac naroda, koji ne kontroliraju vlade. "Ovo je", rekao je, "upravo ono što nam treba."

Godinama ranije, Fodé je pročitao "Izvan kontrole" Kevina Kellyja. Jedno od poglavlja bilo je o e-valutama. Znao je da će na kraju sav novac biti digitalan, dio velike globalne elektroničke revolucije. Ali nikada nije preduboko razmišljao o transformativnoj snazi koju digitalni novac može imati, sve do Bitcoina.

“Što je novac? Odakle dolazi? Postavljajući ova pitanja, to je ono što je Bitcoin učinio za mene,” rekao je. "Prije toga, ne postavljate sami sebi ova pitanja."

Možda, mislio je, jednog dana Francuska više neće imati pravo ili mogućnost tiskati i kontrolirati novac senegalskog naroda.

Fodé i njegov cimer u Las Vegasu ostajali bi do kasno mnogo puta tijekom narednih godina, razmišljajući o tome što bi Bitcoin mogao omogućiti za plaćanja, štednju i sve gospodarske aktivnosti. Saznao je što se dogodilo kad ste ukrali svoju kreditnu karticu, kakve je informacije to otkrilo. I što su treće strane radile s tim informacijama.

Mislio je da bi brak pametnog telefona i Bitcoina bio nevjerojatan alat za osnaživanje. Fodé bi se često vraćao u Senegal, a svaki put kad bi išao, sa sobom bi ponio hrpu telefona koje bi poklonio. Promatrao ih je kao veze s vanjskim svijetom za svoje prijatelje kod kuće.

Tijekom sljedećih godina radio je u različitim startupovima, a sve u industriji digitalizacije različitih dijelova naših života. Godine 2017. napustio je Vegas i otišao u San Francisco. Pridružio se kampu za kodiranje i odlučio postati računalni inženjer. U početku se jako uključio u scenu kriptovaluta u cjelini, no na kraju se, kaže, "odljubio" od Ethereuma, otprilike u vrijeme kad je počeo ići na sokratske seminare u San Franciscu s osnivačem Rivera Alexom Leishmanom. Upoznao je mnoge programere koji su radili na razvoju bitcoina i najranije korisnike Lightning mreže.

Godine 2019. pobijedio je na hackathonu u sektoru transporta, izradivši Lightning fakturu koja bi otključala Teslu. To mu je dalo veliki poticaj samopouzdanju da može pomoći promijeniti svijet. Odlučio je otići kući u Senegal kako bi širio znanje o Bitcoin. Na putu mu je izvršna direktorica Lightning Labsa Elizabeth Stark dala stipendiju za putovanje na Lightning konferenciju u Berlinu. Tamo je upoznao Richarda Myersa iz GoTenne i programera Willa Clarka, koji su razmišljali o tome kako se mesh mrežama boriti protiv internetske cenzure. Fodé je pomislio: U Senegalu francuski telekom Orange kontrolira sve telefonske mreže. Možda bi mogli pronaći način da zaobiđu francusku kontrolu nad komunikacijama i mogućnost "isključivanja interneta" putem Bitcoina i Lightninga.

Sve telekomunikacijske kanale u Senegalu kontrolira Francuska i mogu ih zatvoriti u slučaju prosvjeda protiv čelnika zemlje, kojeg podržavaju sve dok se drži CFA sustava. Ali, moguće je pronaći krajnje točke, rekao je Fodé, preko drugih pružatelja usluga. To mogu biti druge nacionalne telefonske mreže ili čak satelitske veze. Fodé je stvorio uređaj koji može hvatati ove druge signale. Mobilni telefoni mogli bi se spojiti s tim uređajem, omogućujući korisnicima da budu online čak i kada su Francuzi isključili internet. Kako bi potaknuo ljude koji upravljaju takvim uređajima, plaćao bi im u bitcoinu. Za usmjeravanje podataka i održavanje ovih uređaja u Senegalu plaća se putem Lightninga. To je ono na čemu Fodé danas radi.

"Vrlo je riskantno", rekao je Fodé. “Možete se suočiti sa zatvorom ili novčanom kaznom. Ali uz novčane poticaje, ljudi su voljni.”

Sljedeći put kada Orange isključi internet kako bi zaštitio svog saveznika u vladi, ljudi će možda imati novi način komuniciranja koji režim ne može zaustaviti.

Lightning je, rekao je Fodé, sve.

“Potrebna su nam trenutna i jeftina plaćanja. Ne možemo vršiti on-chain Bitcoin plaćanja. Naknade su jednostavno preskupe. Moramo koristiti Lightning. Nema druge opcije”, rekao je. "I radi."

To posebno zvuči istinito u području doznaka, koje su, prema Svjetskoj banci, glavni izvor BDP-a za mnoge CFA zemlje. Na primjer: 14,5% BDP-a temelji se na inozemnim doznakama. Za Senegal je 10,7%; Gvineja Bisau, 9,8%; Togo, 8,4%; i Mali, 6%. Prosječni trošak slanja doznake od 200 USD u sub-saharsku Afriku je 8%, a prosječni trošak slanja 500 USD 9%. Devizne doznake putem servisa poput Strike-a koje se temelje na bitcoinu mogu smanjiti naknade ispod 1%. Usvajanjem bitcoin modela i koriptenjem ovakvih usluga može se uštedjeti od 0,5% do 1% BDP-a CFA zemalja.Ako to pogledamo izdaleka, svake godine pošiljatelji doznaka širom svijeta šalju kući otprilike 700 milijardi dolara. Moglo bi se uštedjeti između 30 i 40 milijardi dolara, što je otprilike isti iznos koji SAD troši svake godine na inozemnu pomoć.

Fodé razumije zašto bi ljudi na Zapadu mogli biti skeptični prema Bitcoinu. “Ako imate aplikaciju Venmo i Cash, možda ne vidite zašto je to važno. Imate sve pogodnosti modernog monetarnog sustava. Ali kad odete u Senegal, više od 70% naših ljudi nikada nije kročilo u banku. Mama nikada nije imala kreditnu ili debitnu karticu”, rekao je.

Pita se: Kako će uopće sudjelovati u globalnom financijskom sustavu?

Rekao je da će brak pametnih telefona i Bitcoina osloboditi ljude i promijeniti društvo. Fodé je spomenuo "Mobilni val", knjigu koju je izvršni direktor MicroStrategyja Michael Saylor napisao o revoluciji pomoću uređaja koji stanu u jednu ruku. Kad je Fodé prvi put dotaknuo iPhone, znao je da je to ono što je čekao. Svemir se urotio, pomislio je. U samo nekoliko kratkih godina, vidio je iPhone, Veliku financijsku krizu, Satotshijevo izdanje Bitcoina i vlastitu tranziciju da postane američki građanin.

Rekao je da, budući da je pola života proveo u Africi, a pola u SAD-u, vidi put naprijed.

“Kada odem kući, vidim kako su ljudi sputani. Ali na isti način na koji smo preskočili fiksne telefone i prešli ravno na mobitele, preskočit ćemo banke i prijeći ravno na Bitcoin.”

Još jedan učinak koji vidi u Senegalu je da kada su ljudi izloženi Bitcoinu, počnu štedjeti.

“Danas, kod kuće, razmišljam o tome kako pomoći ljudima da uštede novac”, rekao je. “Ovdje nitko ništa ne štedi. Samo troše svaki CFA franak koji mogu dobiti.”

Fodé je "zauvijek zahvalan" za bitcoin koji mu je Leishman dao, jer ga je na kraju dao u malim dijelovima ljudima u Senegalu - onima koji su dolazili na događaje ili postavljali dobra pitanja. Ljudi su vidjeli kako njegova vrijednost raste s vremenom.

S velikim je uzbuđenjem promatrao što se događa u El Salvadoru. Kada je ranije ovog mjeseca stajao u konferencijskoj dvorani u Miamiju i slušao osnivača Strikea Jacka Mallersa kako najavljuje da je jedna država dodala bitcoin kao zakonsko sredstvo plaćanja, Fodé je rekao da je zaplakao. Mislio je da se ovo nikada neće dogoditi.

“Ono što je počelo kao pohrana vrijednosti, sada se razvija u sredstvo razmjene”, rekao je.

El Salvador ima neke sličnosti sa zemljama CFA zone. To je siromašnija nacija, vezana za stranu valutu, ovisna o uvozu, sa slabijom izvoznom bazom. Njegovu monetarnu politiku kontrolira vanjska sila. 70% zemlje nema bankarstvo, a 22% nacionalnog BDP-a oslanja se na inozemne doznake.

"Ako bi to mogla biti dobra opcija za njih," mislio je Fodé, "možda bi mogla biti i za nas."

Ali zna da postoje velike prepreke.

Jedan je francuski jezik. Nema puno francuskih informacija na GitHubu ili u dokumentacijskim materijalima za Lightning ili o Bitcoin coreu. Trenutno Fodé radi na prevođenju dijela ovoga na francuski kako bi se lokalna zajednica programera mogla više uključiti.

Može li se zajednica Bitcoin Beach (Bitcoin plaža) na kraju pojaviti u Senegalu? Da, rekao je Fodé. Zato se vratio i zato vodi sastanke, prikuplja donacije putem Lightninga i gradi verziju Radija Slobodna Europa koju pokreću građani i koja se temelji na Bitcoinu.

"Mogli bi me zatvoriti", rekao je. "Ali kroz sastanke se trudim da ne budem niti jedina točka neuspjeha (single point of failure)."

On misli da će biti teško usvojiti Bitcoin u Senegalu zbog francuskog utjecaja.

"Neće proći bez borbe", rekao je.

Kao što je rekao Ndongo Samba Sylla, “Danas se Francuska suočava s relativnim ekonomskim padom u regiji koju je dugo smatrala svojim privatnim rezervatom. Čak i suočena s usponom drugih sila poput Kine, Francuska nema namjeru odustati od vlasti - borit će se do posljednjeg."

Ali možda bi to, umjesto nasilne revolucije, mogla biti postupna mirna revolucija tijekom vremena koja izbacuje kolonijalizam.

"Ne iznenadno isključivanje, već paralelni sustav, gdje se ljudi mogu sami odlučiti tijekom vremena", rekao je Fodé. “Bez prisile.”

Što se tiče ljudi koji misle da samo trebamo tražiti od vlade da zaštiti naša prava?

"Oni ne znaju da demokracije poput Francuske imaju lošu stranu", rekao je Fodé. “Neće nam dati slobodu. Umjesto toga, trebali bismo slijediti korake cypherpunka i zgrabiti našu slobodu koristeći otvoreni kod.”

Na pitanje o šansama Bitcoina da zamijeni središnje bankarstvo, Fodé je rekao da ta ideja “Amerikancima može zvučati ludo, ali za Senegalce ili Togoance, središnje banke su parazit našeg društva. Moramo uzvratiti.”

Fodé smatra da Bitcoin "mijenja život".

“Nikada prije nismo imali sustav u kojem bi se novac mogao kovati na decentraliziran način. Ali ovo je ono što imamo danas. To je rješenje za one kojima je najpotrebnije. Po prvi put imamo moćno oruđe za suzbijanje ugnjetavanja”, rekao je. “Možda nije savršeno, ali moramo koristiti alate koje danas imamo da se borimo za ljude. Ne čekati da nam netko dođe pomoći.”

Odvajanje novca od države

Godine 1980. kamerunski ekonomist Joseph Tchundjang Pouemi napisao je Novac, ropstvo i sloboda: Afrička monetarna represija (Monnaie, servitude et liberté: La répression monétaire de l’Afrique) Teza: novčana ovisnost je temelj svih drugih oblika ovisnosti. Završne riječi knjige posebno snažno zvuče danas: “Sudbina Afrike bit će iskovana novcem ili se uopće neće iskovati.”

Novac i valuta zakopani su ispod površine u globalnom pokretu za ljudska prava. Oni se gotovo nikada ne spominju na konferencijama o ljudskim pravima i rijetko se o njima raspravlja među aktivistima. Ali pitajte zagovornika demokracije iz autoritarnog režima o novcu, i ispričat će vam nevjerojatne i tragične priče. Demonetizacija u Eritreji i Sjevernoj Koreji, hiperinflacija u Zimbabveu i Venezueli, državni nadzor u Kini i Hong Kongu, zamrznuta plaćanja u Bjelorusiji i Nigeriji i ekonomski zaštitni zidovi u Iranu i Palestini. A sada: monetarni kolonijalizam u Togu i Senegalu. Bez financijske slobode pokreti i nevladine organizacije ne mogu se održati. Ako su njihovi bankovni računi zatvoreni, novčanice demonetizirane ili sredstva obezvrijeđena, njihova moć je ograničena i tiranija maršira.

Monetarna represija i dalje se skriva i o njoj se ne govori u pristojnim krugovima. Današnja stvarnost za 182 milijuna ljudi koji žive u CFA zemljama je da iako su možda politički neovisni po imenu, njihova su gospodarstva i novac još uvijek pod kolonijalnom vlašću, a strane sile još uvijek zlorabe i produljuju taj odnos kako bi iscijedile i iskorištavale što više vrijednosti iz njihova društva i geografije što je više moguće.

Posljednjih godina građani CFA zone sve više ustaju. Slogan Francusko odobrenje "France Dégage!" postao je poklič okupljanja. No čini se da najglasniji kritičari sustava, među njima Pigeaud i Sylla, ne nude održivu alternativu. Oni odbacuju status quo i ropstvo MMF-a, samo kako bi predložili ili regionalnu valutu, koju kontroliraju lokalni čelnici, ili sustav u kojem svaka CFA nacija stvara i upravlja vlastitom valutom. Ali samo zato što su Senegal ili Togo dobili monetarnu neovisnost od Francuske, ne jamči da će imati dobre rezultate ili da čelnici zemlje neće zlorabiti valutu.

Još uvijek postoji prijetnja domaće diktatorske loše vladavine ili novog zarobljavanja od strane ruskih ili kineskih stranih sila. Jasno je da ljudima treba novac koji zapravo lomi kotač, novac koji mogu kontrolirati i kojim vlade bilo koje vrste ne mogu manipulirati. Baš kao što je došlo do povijesnog odvajanja crkve i države koje je utrlo put prosperitetnijem i slobodnijem ljudskom društvu, u tijeku je odvajanje novca od države.

Bi li građani CFA nacija, s vremenom, s povećanjem pristupa internetu, mogli popularizirati Bitcoin do te mjere da bi vlade bile prisiljene de facto ga usvojiti, kao što se dogodilo u zemljama Latinske Amerike poput Ekvadora s "dolarización popular" (popularna dolarizacija)? Povijest ostaje za pisati, ali jedno je sigurno: Svjetska banka i MMF oduprijet će se svim trendovima u tom smjeru. Već su zamahnuli protiv El Salvadora.

Nedavno je glumac Hill Harper citiran u The New York Timesu u vezi s njegovim aktivizmom oko Bitcoina u afroameričkoj zajednici. Rekao je, vrlo jednostavno, "Oni ne mogu kolonizirati Bitcoin."

Farida Nabourema se slaže. “Bitcoin”, rekla je, “prvi put ikada da postoji novac koji je zapravo decentraliziran i dostupan svakome u svijetu bez obzira na boju kože, ideologiju, nacionalnost, količinu bogatstva ili kolonijalnu prošlost.”

Rekla je da je to narodna valuta, pa čak ide i korak dalje.

"Možda", rekla je, "bitcoin bismo trebali nazvati valutom dekolonizacije."

Originalan tekst autora Alex Gladstein objavljen je na portalu Bitcoin Magazine. Prijevod teksta napravljen je uz dozvolu autora.

@ 557c650b:b04c6817

Um exercício mental

@ 8671a6e5:f88194d1

Users are not employees Continued from (part 1)

Bitcoiners know how a lot of stuff works, so we think everybody knows. That’s a project management assumption that belongs more in the hobby-code project sphere (where it’s even cool to do so). And sure, I enjoy that myself when I’m building a small tool for fun with no one to answer to. But that mindset doesn’t scale when the goal is to make Bitcoin more accessible and structurally sound for new users. Some argue we don’t need new users at all—that Bitcoin is so good, so perfect, that people will eventually come around. Imagine being forced to use bitcoin by economic and monetary circumstances, to realize you hate to work with things like Nunchuk ‘s multisig or a Trezor hardware wallet from 2025.

An impression: Bitcoiners know that opening a Lightning channel comes with an on-chain fee—unless the provider covers it and claws it back through subscriptions or service charges. But the average user doesn’t. So when that fee appears out of nowhere, or gets buried in cryptic devspeak jargon, so they bounce, often left confused, frustrated, and unlikely to return.

That’s not that bad on itself, as long as companies know who their audience is and take care of the way you inform users. You have to “raise” your customers. Not scare them away with a wall of nonsense.

Same goes for onboarding people into Nostr sometimes by the way.

If features like this or natural onboarding hurdles were explained with more than just puzzling error codes or vague on-screen prompts, half the users wouldn’t vanish in the first 10 seconds, confused and frustrated. It’s the same story we’ve seen with PGP: people stumble during the initial key creation, or get lost trying to sign a message with someone’s public key. The tech works; the experience doesn’t. Have trust in what you’ve build underneath!

It’s a barrier for newcomers. Just keep it in mind. Take care of the user. They do like to come on board! Most people do want to come on board. Our goal is to help free them from fiat, not drown them in confusing UX or half-baked tools. Bitcoin's underlying value might be incredible, but that doesn’t matter to someone still trapped in the fiat bubble. They won’t get onboarded through broken apps or confusing flows, just like they’ll use something like SimpleX on Linux.

To make it even worse, some bitcoin organizations and companies don’t seem to grasp the extent of this alienation of the user — because it’s always brushed off as ‘niche’ or just an edge case. It’s all so obvious for them on how to use it. But it adds up. Sites like Highlighter.com (I like their underlying service by the way!) is not working properly with Nos2x (a key handler) on the first try. A user needs to know to reload, re-try, re-load again after selecting the public key, then maybe it works). These are exactly the kind of small annoyances that new users won’t wade through. It’s also not that difficult to tackle it with proper testing.

Users who encounter such thing, certainly when they just wanted to see what the site or service did, just leave. Let someone who just discovered Nostr try logging in there for example, and unless they're unusually determined, they'll get stuck immediately, wondering why pasting their public key and clicking “login” doesn’t lead anywhere. It’s a brick wall; and the creators think it’s a nice landing page.

These things also lead to other frustrations and eventual software cycling through the interested users’ hands.

About a year ago I “onboarded” a friend of mine, and she already tried four wallets since I introduced her to the wonderful world of Bitcoin/LN wallets. First just to get things going she used Wallet of Satoshi, then when the custodial story was getting traction for this user, we moved to Phoenix (which failed due to upfront money). Next, Aqua wallet, which was too cumbersome and had hiccups, and then moving on to Mutiny wallet, which shut down a bit later.

And so we ended up back with Wallet of Satoshi, with Blink being a second choice but having to give a telephone number was too much for the user (yes, you can skip that if you carefully read and put it in test / demo mode or whatever it’s called).

People kept recommending other wallet brands, other names to try, … there are always other names. “Try Muun” “Get Zeus”, “Why don’t you go for CoinOs, just as a web app?” (that last one is actually good) … but it’s always like that … if you talk to ten bitcoiners, then you’ll have heard five different ‘best wallets’ to try, and you’ve had probably get about four referral links from all of these people. (Or some Relai squad member trying to get a few sats out of your genuine interest:)

Real testing is a ghost town

We saw in part 1 that Bitcoin companies do some testing these days—but it lacks specialization. It’s often so superficial that the cracks are visible in the software itself: clumsy onboarding flows, unclear settings, or unexpected fields asking for information users don’t have and don’t know how to get. Much of this stems from the habit of pulling in a handful of “fans” or supporters to try out a beta version.

That’s the wrong way to go (the fiat companies that do this, usually get bad or inconclusive results as well, unless you’re doing it a scale and a very diverse audience).

Most of the people brought in this way have no background in structured testing, let alone in reporting bugs clearly or identifying critical failure points. The feedback you get is vague and surface-level: “I like the colors,” “the buttons feel small,” or “I got an error when I tried to send something.”

But rarely do you hear what caused it, what preceded it, or what device or settings were involved. That kind of insight doesn’t come from random fans trying to get their hands on some products or perks. You’ll have to pay professionals to do it. And even when meaningful feedback does come in, it often ends up on the wrong or overworked hands, forwarded to whichever developer drew the short straw that weekend. There's usually no structured triage, no internal testing culture that treats usability or edge cases as part of the real product. Just a sigh, a shrug, and back to building features that sound cool when they dreamed it up.

I keep hammering this point because this might be the only time you’ll actually read about it. No company—bitcoin or fiat—tries to win users by focusing on boring but critical details like onboarding clarity or robust edge-case handling. They’ll avoid claiming “this just works,” because saying so invites scrutiny and backlash. The only company bold (or arrogant) enough to occasionally say that is Apple—and even they drop the ball more often than they like to admit.

By design

The dream I have, is “Usability by design”. And that dream is close to non-existent in the realm and everyday reality of Bitcoin. From the moment something gets drawn up or is being created, the design and user flow, the easy adoption, should be kept in mind as well as the real implementation factors for the intended purpose (and beyond even). Then you hardly have any discussions like “yeah, but technically the user has to make an input here, so we can’t do otherwise, and it works on my machine”

Users that have to trial and error, are maybe bitcoin-natives, and like that sort of stuff. Other people just want to try something out (wallet, nostr, an exchange, a node, lightning …) and expect it to work smooth. It gives them trust in the system.

These issues all create enormous opportunity for companies that would start to take software delivery quality more serious. But I’m afraid that would cost them two things most Bitcoin companies already lack: time and proper funding.

Many are stuck in a “pump-my-bags” mindset, focused more on hype than durability, while others simply don’t have the resources to invest in thoughtful UX, thorough testing, or long-term support.

The very few companies that do “get it”, and make something that just works, with good leadership and a focus on clear, usable interfaces—often catch flack for it. They’re criticized for making things “too easy,” “too centralized,” or for “lowering the bar,” as if simplicity and accessibility are somehow problems. But in reality, these are the companies pushing the space forward, making it easier for people to use Bitcoin without the constant headache. And newsflash: you can do so with keeping bitcion’s ethos alive I think, even without a company as a middleman. Which raises another problem about funding and hard money, something I’ll write more about in chapter 12 of this series.

Back to the software…. Protonmail’s wallet comes to mind where most bitcoiners I know just scoffed at like “it doesn’t have lightning”, or “why do we need another wallet?”. While they deliver an excellent product that just works.

Exactly. Take the Stack Wallet project, for example. They had the audacity to incorporate Monero, and because of that, they’re shunned by many Bitcoiners — despite offering a solid, open-source, multi-platform wallet that actually works. It’s a perfect example of how Bitcoiners can sometimes reject the very things that could help bring more users into the space, all because they don’t align perfectly with some purist ideology. While on the other hand these same bitcoiners support middlemen multi-level-marketing tactics from questionable companies.

But I guess yelling “oooh shiiiitcoooooin” is the easier answer, instead of making something that works fine. And by the way, if you want, you can fork that wallet and take a bitcoin-only version to market, however, the same people say “Oh, but that’s no my task”. (Yeah, we all know what your “task” is, gluing a sticker on a pole).

Another nice illustration is the kind of reaction you get if you “provoke the beast” by using the really usable, always working, always compatible, fast starting, lightning wallet “Wallet of Satoshi”. If you use that wallet at a bitcoin meetup, you’ll get clever remarks (from people that ar technically right, I mind saying) like: “You know… that’s custodial right?” (this came after I gave a presentation, and some smartass walked in when I ordered a beer from the honesty bar at the local meetup…) “Yeah I know man, but I’m scanning an LNurl here, so I just want it to work fine” (like I have to defend myself to them) “But you’re supporting these custodial thieves, they have already so much power man”, … said the dude that never even lifted a finger at the meetups to help anyone out or get things set up. “So… make something better.” I answered “Yeah, there’s like Zeus and stuff” “Uhuh, I tried it… I never got it to work properly. I just use this WoS today”

They usually get mad. Because they want everyone to follow their lead, and that lead is always the way of most resistance and acting like a normal user-repellent. I know we’re all rat-poison in bitcoin, but not take it too far please.

Other discussions like this always evolve into the “you’re dumb” argument (I like to provoke these types at meetups by scanning a qr and getting a payment through, while they’re fiddling with their whatever it is that runs on a node they need to reboot every few hours or so). calling out the ones who act like they know it all, but don’t have a solid grasp on the fundamentals themselves. We all make mistakes, and that’s where the real growth happens.

The other answer you can give is: “Hey why are you sending me a WhatsApp message man? Why don’t you use a Free BDS and a GNUPGP encrypted message brought to me on a micro-sd card through a sneaker net currier?” And they would be like “eh now, I just send you a WhatsApp message” “Oh you know these are all collecting your meta data right?”…

The double standard among bitcoiners these days regarding usability is incredible.

I know there’s plenty of software trying to be both non-custodial and user-friendly—don’t remind me. My point is: in the Bitcoin world, usability is often treated like a dirty word, something suspicious or even dangerous. But it’s the opposite—we're the hope, and usability is our fire starter, the spark that lights the fuse for real adoption. Without it, we’ll just be another niche tool used by a few, and not the global movement we could be.

Nod to the Node So, I can finally say it like I think it is: 90% of bitcoin software sucks donkey balls when it comes to usability, UX and UI.

A few things I want to mention in that regard, because things move too fast to write it all down in a book to keep up with.

Some examples of bad UX and/or rotten software experiences:

In Sparrow 2.0, commonly praised as as a “good” wallet, lacks of good interface. Try to create a multisig wallet there, and you’ll soon be met with a persistent bug that frustrates users when signing a transaction. The software prompts for a hardware wallet for example, even when a software wallet's seed is loaded, creating a confusing and poorly designed user interface experience. And yes, for bitcoin this is considered a good wallet, as the others are even worse (Nunchuk and Electrum don’t do much better).

Or Blue Wallet, which finally in 2025 fixed a few UI bugs and annoyances, but otherwise has a few really rotten design choices which makes using it not intuitive enough. Users don’t get much further on some aspects without looking anything up in youtube tutorials. And only bitcoiners do that anyway. Users just stop opening the app after a while.

Try to create a multi-sig wallet for example in Blue wallet, then take a random part away from the setup and try to use it with the leftover parts. It works. But you’ll be really pressed to get it done within 40 minutes. (Unless that’s your job and you demo it every so often in a studio).

Bitcoin Core, is also a prime example of bitcoin software, that has a command line interface repelling users like it’s a steaming turd on the street. It has a (let’s say) “spartan” way of working. And yes, I know this piece of software is not meant to be the next Instagram-like user interface for everyday use by the masses, but it’s a far cry from being usable in the really real world. Getting anything done inside that software is a constant battle against clunky commands, and their cryptic error messages. Even getting a private key out for one of your addresses of your own wallet, is hell. bitcoin core’s infamous command line at work

Also puzzling to me is the “success” of Bitcoin Core’s wallet. It’s command line “help” is enough to frustrate even the most willing of new users.

For example (and there are a dozen things like this) , try to get a command like “dumppriv” key (to see the private key from a wallet address) working.

And some more:

Jade wallet’s inability to store BIP39 compatible seed phrases (at the time of testing, beginning of 2024), when the seed contained a double word. Don’t know if they ever fixed it, as I couldn’t get into my Jade wallet v1 anymore after the pin code entry screen froze and was not even coming back after a factory reset.

We have Phoenix (where finding the right URL for downloading it, is already a first hurdle to take by the way:) try to tell the URL by heart to another person, without searching online… I’ll wait.

And Strike app, alongside the much despised Wallet of Satoshi (in my opinion the only people in bitcoin together with the creators of the Minibits.cash creators) that get the importance of a simple to use interface and a good well-thought out inner working.

And when I took a shot at the new Trezor Safe 5 wallet I got some critique because I “tested it like an end user” (yeah, it was my fault… I made the exact same mistakes than the end user that had this wallet and asked me for help, after 30 min. of trying, we figured out that the words were in fact not seed words but some verification method that also created a 20 words SLIP39 seed by default… and we fat fingered the stupid interface design a few times, on which the whole thing had to be restarted after a reset to defaults… Try to explain that to a new user that just wanted to have a wallet and had about 1 hour time…

But I guess people demonstrating such things in a studio don’t mind that. It’s just “what do you sell?” now. If the hardware with the unknown supply chain attack vectors sells well, then everyone is happy… the manufacturer, the marketing team, the podcasts that get sponsorship and the events that can have a budget; the user is really at the very back-end last in line… usually queuing up for coffee with the rest of the liquidity-cows.

Also it had accompanying software that kept hanging though some updating loops, it has a clumsy swipe/touch (and sometimes) hold, then swipe again-interface that no one I tested it with, could get through when creating a new wallet. But of course, it’s always the dumb users’ fault I guess.

The Zeus wallet that claims to be super user friendly and cool, is also something… weird. Where you can’t really set it up, without some very technical guidance. To their advantage: the very first thing you read on their website is “To start using ZEUS you will need to be running your own Bitcoin lightning node.” (they at least mention it, that’s progress) But… there it ends for most users of course. Babysitting a Lightning node is absolutely not something you want to entrust a new user with. Not in order to get a wallet up and running at least :)

Then you get the Linuxsplaining : “Then you’re not the intended user”.

NWC (nostr wallet connect) is some very promising tool, and it has features and way of working I like in theory. But I’ve yet have to see the first smooth implementation that can be understood by normal non-tech people (even the wording of the text fields it completely unclear).

A small example of making your software unusable? Well… do like NWC does and indicate that the user needs to “connect” through this service with : “nostr+walletconnect://”

So when I asked some people what I needed to fill in there, and how I would get these values… they said “it’s a string”. which tells me nothing. And so, the user left

Tip: add real user guidance. When you connect to a service, at least point to WHERE people get explained how to create such a wallet string, or where to get it, from which website or service.

It’s the same as telling someone “hey you have to call a number to reach our catering service” ”Ok, your website says “phone us“ ”yeah, its a number man.. a phone number” ”Ok; but where do I get which phone number I need to call” ”It’s like… a number man, duh you’re so dumb”

So, if there’s no user guidance, the user will leave. After searching for a few minutes I just gave up.

Nostr is also starting to feel like that usability-averse stance is getting traction, although there are promising signs, as they need new users to thrive and seem to realize that all too well. But still… it has it’s moments of user-repelling snags. Nostr relay lists don’t allow you to copy relay addresses, making it a hassle to set up on mobile. No one seems to realize that users want to simply copy these values rather than struggle to recall if it’s “ssw,” “wss,” or “wws://” and type them out manually. And make mistakes eventually.

puzzling for people who don’t have Alby and want to get such code Arrays are not human Then there’s the BIP39 seed system (12 or 24 words representing a key derived via a KDF and mapped through a lookup table). Mathematically, this wordlist is an array—and arrays start at 0. So, word 0 = "abandon". But most humans naturally count from 1, making "abandon" word 1 in their eyes. Both are valid depending on perspective: 0 is technically correct, 1 is intuitive. There’s no clear winner—both versions float around in Bitcoinland. Same mess with compressed vs. uncompressed keys (don’t get me started). So, when I made bip39tool.com I gave users the option: go full math mode with 0 = abandon, or go human mode and start with 1 (the default). Even hardware makers don’t agree. Blockplate starts at 1 = abandon (source), While the widely used master BIP39 list has no number attached (just a raw list), but appears to be starting at 1 because of Githubs’s line numbering (source) while some others use 0 = abandon

As one user (Codebender) excellently put it: ”Array is an offset, not a cardinal number. The first entry is zero away from the beginning of the array, the second entry is one away.”

Sink through the ceiling

Most tools today cater purely to Bitcoiners, built with a 'Bitcoin' mindset that expects non-Bitcoin users to adapt instead of being taken along for the ride.

That works as we’ve seen, but hits an “orange colored glass ceiling” at some point. You can build the next “Lotus notes” and be really happy about Lotus notes enthusiasts and the consultants that got hired to implement and migrate that office note system, and it’s e-mail software at a hefty fee. But you’re still in your own niche bubble, thinking your software owns the world and you can be bothered to look further than your own audience.

The same way people that were into Lotus Notes were very keen on a big player like IBM acquiring the software and brand to build on it some more.

And of course,… Bitcoin is bitcoin, there can’t be a second best, there can’t be a replacement that comes in and swoops up the market share or replaces the functions like Lotus Notes was replaced by Google workspace, Microsoft Exchange or Slack.

I don’t want to make the point that bitcoin will be replaced by a new player (I’m not a shitcoiner). I do however, want to make the point that we’ve become collectively lazy, complacent about usability, to the point that we’re actually the Google, Microsoft and so on… but with the interface of our own underlying “Lotus Notes” or PGP .

If We Don’t Fix UX, Bitcoin Becomes the next PGP

To understand how bad it is, we again need to take a small look at the past. To better understand the now, and to avoid some future mistakes.

Let’s quickly recall some examples from the '90s, like Microsoft’s Clippy, Bob, Vista, and Netscape Navigator 4—failures driven by poor usability, feature creep, or mishaps that eroded trust. Lotus Notes serves as a warning: even widely used platforms can lose their edge if usability and modernization are neglected, leaving room for competitors. Bitcoin doesn’t face competition in the traditional sense, but it does face something worse: the erosion of usability and trust, which threatens the very foundation of hard money we rely on. It’s our only shot at hard money we’re ever going to have. It’s do-or-die.

And that’s our Achilles heel: we stand or die with that trust.

For now, Bitcoin’s trust comes from its decentralized, secure network and its value propositions. But usability has been sidelined for years, largely due to a lack of serious testing. Some companies recently hired 14 new team members: - 4 Software Engineers - 3 R&D Engineers - 2 Data Scientists - 1 Machine Learning Engineer - 1 Talent Acquisition Specialist - 1 Global Controller, 2 Marketeers… No testers.

I’m serious about this: when the broader bitcoin space (from Bitcoin Core to the newest coolest and latest Nostr plugin) don’t take testing more serious, then we’ll end up just being the creators of the software equivalent of a “Bonzi Buddy” or the next “Lotus Notes”.

Because we’ll be catering to the same people that liked the system 10+ years ago, and have no clue why new users don’t flock to it anymore. Then our core value we’re so proud of right now, will be nothing more than a laughing stock because it stands only through trust.

If we don’t take this seriously, Bitcoin’s core value will fade, and we’ll lose trust—not to altcoins, but to our own neglect.

Fiat parasites and our own complacency is our real “competitor”.

When we lose this battle for usability and relevancy, then the math, code and the core of bitcoin would still go on to exist, with more and more users being locked out because the complexity rises. While others would reluctantly try to make efforts to get in. This will impact how you interact with and maintain nodes, as well as manage lightning channels and participate in the P2P economy of the Bitcoin standard. We would become a small island that “gets it”. A curiosum. We’de be the Moloka‘i1 of decentralization. (Make your own ‘Father Damien’ joke here if you like).

You can’t see me

This is happening right now.

The real usability repels new users, with only a few exceptions holding the fort.

It doesn’t bother the store-of-value and pump-my-bags crowd—they're not using Bitcoin anyway and don’t care either way, as long as they make their fiat gains in a quarterly report or at the end of a year. When you onboard a business and teach them self custody, they’re usually set... then forget. You encounter the real issues along the way. There’s little real use, as average people still need a "specialist" to hold their hand.

After a while, Bitcoiners who explain things end up like Lotus Notes consultants, trying to make a buck on a system no one else understands or really cares about.

Usability in the Bitcoin ecosystem is stagnating. The so-called "studio usability" presented by Bitcoin influencers with nice podcasts, who demo new stuff and ignore flaws to stay “positive,” is part of the problem. It's the same with the flood of metal plate seed bearers (as an example) We have about 25 products that aren’t as innovative as they’re made out to be. And it’s all fan-tas-tic and cool on every review. Unless you really test it. (luckily some actually do that)

The real issue is that nobody dares saying: “This hardware wallet sucks” or “This product is too buggy to trust.”

On the flip side of that coin we’ve got the LinuxSplaining crowd—treating lack of usability like a virtue. For them, being one of the ten people on a metaphorical Bitcoin leper colony who can navigate some convoluted tool is a badge of honor. They’ll call it a success even if the other eight billion people can’t—or won’t—bother opening the app, dismissing those users as simply too clueless to matter.

These folks would happily sit beside the 30th Satoshi Nakamoto statue, ignoring the peanuts tossed at their face by passersby. Some will reach 60, sporting stained Star Wars t-shirts, proud to be the only ones who still understand Bitcoin. To them, that’s success — because Bitcoin was always meant to be their obscure triumph and it’s becoming a way of life for them to be that weird uncle that’s into computers and stuff like “crypto”. ’No man, it’s bitcoin, not cryptooh!’

I want bitcoin to open the door to freedom and abundance of ideas and real-life solutions, and not becoming a barbed wire fence around a lepper colony. Even in that grim outpost, you’d still find two Bitcoiners barricaded in their hut without AC, boycotting the òther eight because one tweaked their node settings the wrong way.

Let’s build tools and bridges towards bitcoin, as a "usable bitcoin” (because that’s bitcoin too!) Build tools that invite everyone to the table, not just the converted, the Linuxsplainers and know-it-alls.

Only then will we move onwards, to a thriving, open ecosystem where you’re not feeling like a Lotus Notes consultant that ran away from 1994, but a bitcoiner who’s part of positive changes in the world. ”Fix your bugs, before you try to fix the world.”

by AVB

Support my work here : coinos / avb

@ 2e8970de:63345c7a

Beijing has stopped publishing hundreds of statistics, making it harder to know what’s going on in the country

Data stops. Data stops. Data stops.

https://www.wsj.com/world/china/china-economy-data-missing-096cac9a?st=j7V11b&reflink=article_copyURL_share

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/973942

@ 0e29efc2:ff142af2

Table of Contents

1. Intro
2. Important Terminology
3. Getting Started
4. Where do I buy bitcoin?
5. Okay, I bought some bitcoin-now what?
6. Less than 0.01 BTC
7. More than 0.01 BTC and less than 0.1 BTC
8. More than 0.1 BTC
9. How Bitcoin Works
10. Skepticism
11. Someone will hack it
12. The government will try to stop it
13. It’s not backed by anything
14. Conclusion

Intro

Maybe you saw an article in Forbes, a news segment about MicroStrategy (MSTR), or you glanced at the bitcoin price chart; whatever the spark, your curiosity led you here. Enough friends and relatives keep asking me about bitcoin that I finally organized my thoughts into a single reference. This is not a comprehensive guide—it assumes you trust me as a heuristic.

Important Terminology

Sat (satoshi) – the smallest unit of bitcoin. One bitcoin (₿) equals 100 000 000 sats.

Getting Started

Where do I buy bitcoin?

I use River because it publishes proof‑of‑reserves, supports the Lightning Network, and pays interest on idle USD balances (currently 3.8 %).

Okay, I bought some bitcoin-now what?

Withdraw it immediately. Centralized exchanges can and do fail. Your next step depends on how much bitcoin you hold.

If at any point you're struggling, please reach out to me.

Less than 0.01 BTC

1. On your phone open Safari (iOS) or Chrome (Android).
2. Paste https://wallet.cashu.me?mint=https://mint.westernbtc.com. Confirm the prompt that asks whether you trust https://mint.westernbtc.com. I run this mint so beginners can skip the gnarly parts.
3. Complete setup.
4. Tap Receive → LIGHTNING → enter amount → COPY.
5. In River choose Send → Send to a Bitcoin wallet, paste the invoice, verify, and send.
6. Return to the wallet; your sats should appear.

More than 0.01 BTC and less than 0.1 BTC

It's time for cold storage. Cold storage means a dedicated signing device not connected to the internet. Think of it like keys to a house. If you have the keys (your cold storage signing device), you can get into your house (the bitcoin). I recommend and use the COLDCARD Q or COLDCARD MK4 from COLDCARD. See this thorough walkthrough.

The creator nostr:npub1rxysxnjkhrmqd3ey73dp9n5y5yvyzcs64acc9g0k2epcpwwyya4spvhnp8 makes reliable content.

More than 0.1 BTC

The next security upgrade involves something called multisig. It requires the use of multiple devices instead of one. Think of those nuclear launch silos in movies where two keys need to be turned in order to launch the missile. One person can't reach both keys, so you need two people. Like the two keys needing to be turned, we need a certain number of keys (signing devices) to be used.

This offers a number of benefits. Say you have a 2-of-3 multisig setup. You would need two of the three keys to move the bitcoin. If you were to lose one, you could use the two others to move it instead. Many choose to geographically distribute the keys; choosing to keep one at a friend’s house or with a bank.

The previous video I linked covers multisig as well. Again, please reach out to me if you need help.

How Bitcoin Works

I'm going to paint a scene portraying the basics of how bitcoin works. Picture a race that's supposed to take 10 minutes to run start-to-finish, and there's a crowd of people spectating. When the fastest runner crosses the finish line, they're awarded 50 bitcoin. Everyone in the crowd recognizes who won, and writes it down on their own scoreboard. Then, the next race begins.

Now, let's say more racers who've had special training join. They start winning consistently because of it, and now the race only lasts about 9 minutes. There's a special rule everyone in the crowd agreed to, that they can make the race harder to ensure it's around 10 minutes long. So they make the race harder to counteract the faster runners.

With this in mind, let's get to the skepticism you might have.

Skepticism

Someone will hack it

Think of bitcoin as the people in the crowd. If someone tries to cheat and writes on their scoreboard that they have a billion bitcoin, their scoreboard is going to look different than everybody else’s. The other people in the crowd will cross-reference with each other and decide to ignore that person who cheated.

The government will try to stop it

Again, think of the crowd. In reality, the "crowd participants" are scattered all around the world. You might be able to stop many of them, but it would be almost impossible to stop everyone. Imagine people are watching the race on TV, can you find everyone who's spectating? Ironically, attempted bans often increase interest.

It’s not backed by anything.

Think of the runners. The runners are bitcoin miners. They have to expend real energy to participate in the race. The more bitcoin miners, the more secure the network. In summary, it's backed by electricity and work.

Conclusion

There are too many topics to cover in one article. I haven't even touched on the history of money, what money is, scarcity, etc. The best way to learn is to research the topics you're interested in for yourself. It took months of deep diving before I was sold on bitcoin, and I had many touch points before that.

Once you see it though, you can't unsee it.

@ bbef5093:71228592

Az Európai Bizottság terve az orosz urán- és energiafüggőség felszámolására

Az Európai Bizottság bejelentette, hogy korlátozni kívánja az új urán-, dúsított urán- és egyéb, Oroszországból származó nukleáris anyagokra vonatkozó ellátási szerződéseket, ezzel is elősegítve, hogy az Európai Unió „teljesen megszüntesse” az orosz energiától való függését[8][6][2].

A Bizottság új ütemtervet mutatott be, amely részletesen tartalmazza, hogyan kívánja megszüntetni az orosz energiafüggőséget, miközben biztosítja az EU energiaellátásának és árainak stabilitását[6][2][15].

Főbb intézkedések és célok

• Az EU az orosz gázimport arányát 45%-ról 19%-ra csökkentette a 2022 májusában indított REPowerEU tervnek köszönhetően, de 2024-ben ismét növekedett az orosz gáz behozatala[2][20].
• Az új ütemterv szerint az orosz olaj, gáz és nukleáris energia fokozatosan, összehangoltan és biztonságosan kerül ki az uniós piacokról, miközben az EU a tiszta energiára való átállást gyorsítja fel[6][15][7].
• Az EU-tagállamoknak 2025 végéig nemzeti terveket kell készíteniük arról, hogyan járulnak hozzá az orosz gáz, nukleáris energia és olaj importjának megszüntetéséhez[13][7][18].
• Az orosz eredetű urán, dúsított urán és egyéb nukleáris anyagok esetében új korlátozásokat vezetnek be: az Euratom Ellátási Ügynökség (ESA) nem hagy jóvá új orosz beszállítási szerződéseket, és gazdasági eszközökkel is igyekeznek visszaszorítani az importot[4][5][16].
• A meglévő rövid távú szerződéseket 2025 végéig meg kell szüntetni, új szerződéseket pedig nem lehet kötni; a hosszú távú szerződéseket 2027 végéig kell felmondani[5][7][6].
• Az intézkedések célja, hogy a teljes orosz gáz- és olajimport 2027 végéig megszűnjön, az orosz atomenergia pedig fokozatosan kivezetésre kerüljön[3][9][17].

Nukleáris háttér

• Az ESA jelentése szerint 2023-ban az EU-ban felhasznált természetes urán 23,4%-a érkezett Oroszországból, ami 72,6%-os növekedést jelentett, főként a VVER típusú orosz atomerőművek üzemanyag-felhalmozása miatt[16].
• Az EU-ban 19 VVER reaktor működik (Bulgáriában, Csehországban, Finnországban, Magyarországon és Szlovákiában).
• Az EU természetes uránszükséglete a globális igények mintegy 22%-át teszi ki, a beszerzések 91%-a Kanadából, Oroszországból, Kazahsztánból és Nigerből származik[16].

Célkitűzés és indoklás

A Bizottság szerint az orosz energiafüggőség felszámolása nemcsak gazdasági, hanem biztonságpolitikai kérdés is, mivel Oroszország többször is eszközként használta az energiát az EU-val szemben[2][12]. A lépések célja, hogy az EU energiaellátása biztonságos, stabil és kiszámítható maradjon, miközben az orosz energiaimportból származó bevételek ne finanszírozhassák tovább az Ukrajna elleni háborút[6][2][12].

---

Források alapján készült magyar összefoglaló és fordítás

Citations: [1] Döntött az Európai Bizottság: teljes mértékben megszüntetik ... - 444 https://444.hu/2025/05/06/dontott-az-europai-bizottsag-teljes-mertekben-megszuntetik-az-orosz-energiatol-valo-fuggest [2] Három éven belül felszámolná az orosz energiafüggőséget az ... https://hu.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/05/06/harom-even-belul-felszamolna-az-orosz-energiafuggoseget-az-europai-bizottsag [3] 2027-re teljesen leállítaná az Európai Bizottság az orosz ... - Új Szó https://ujszo.com/kozelet/2027-re-teljesen-leallitana-az-europai-bizottsag-az-orosz-energiabehozatalt-a-nuklearis [4] Bejelentették Brüsszelben: megkerülik Magyarországot, teljesen ... https://www.portfolio.hu/gazdasag/20250506/bejelentettek-brusszelben-megkerulik-magyarorszagot-teljesen-levalik-az-orosz-olajrol-es-gazrol-az-eu-759267 [5] Érik az újabb ütközés: Brüsszel betiltaná az orosz energiát https://www.valaszonline.hu/2025/05/06/energia-szankcio-oroszorszag-haboru-eu-olaj-gaz-uran/ [6] Az EU teljes mértékben megszünteti az orosz energiától való függését https://hungary.representation.ec.europa.eu/az-eu-teljes-mertekben-megszunteti-az-orosz-energiatol-valo-fuggeset-2025-05-06_hu?prefLang=en [7] Megvan az ütemterv, végleg betiltaná az orosz energiát az Európai ... https://index.hu/kulfold/2025/05/06/orosz-energiafuggoseg-orosz-gaz-olaj-import-europai-unio-repowereu/ [8] European Commission Unveils Plans To Restrict New Uranium ... https://www.nucnet.org/news/european-commission-unveils-plans-to-restrict-new-uranium-deals-with-russia-5-3-2025 [9] Az EU teljes mértékben megszünteti az orosz energiától való ... https://infostart.hu/belfold/2025/05/06/az-eu-teljes-mertekben-megszunteti-az-orosz-energiatol-valo-fuggoseget-a-nap-hirei [10] [PDF] EURÓPAI BIZOTTSÁG Brüsszel, 2025.4.9. COM(2025) 159 final ... https://secure.ipex.eu/IPEXL-WEB/download/file/082d29089612ec1e019619f955940250 [11] Kiszivárgott az Európai Bizottság 2025-ös munkaprogramja https://www.eu-monitor.hu/hu/cikk/20250206-kiszivargott-az-europai-bizottsag-2025-os-munkaprogramja [12] EU says it will end dependency on Russian energy supplies https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20250507_B4/ [13] Végleg leválik az orosz energiáról az Európai Unió ... - Népszava https://nepszava.hu/3278673_oroszorszag-europai-unio-foldgaz-koolaj-levalas-terv [14] Egyre több európai ország támogatja az atomenergiát https://www.vg.hu/nemzetkozi-gazdasag/2025/03/atomenergia-energiatarolas-europa [15] Az EU teljes mértékben megszünteti az orosz energiától való ... https://karpatinfo.net/energiafuggetlenseg-orosz-foldgaz-orosz-energiafuggoseg-2025-05-07 [16] EU outlines measures to end Russian gas, oil imports by end-2027 https://balkangreenenergynews.com/eu-outlines-measures-to-end-russian-gas-oil-imports-by-end-2027/ [17] Az Európai Unió 2027 végére betiltaná az orosz gáz importját https://www.korkep.sk/cikkek/gazdasag/2025/05/05/az-europai-unio-2027-vegere-betiltana-az-orosz-gazimportot/ [18] Ficónak és Orbánnak sem tetszik, hogy az EU teljesen kitiltaná az ... https://napunk.dennikn.sk/hu/4623240/ficonak-es-orbannak-sem-tetszik-hogy-az-eu-teljesen-kitiltana-az-orosz-energiat/ [19] Várhelyi Olivér késlelteti az EU orosz energiafüggőségét felszámoló ... https://telex.hu/kulfold/2025/05/05/varhelyi-oliver-europai-bizottsag-orosz-energia-kivaltas-hatraltatas [20] REPowerEU roadmap - Energy - European Commission https://energy.ec.europa.eu/strategy/repowereu-roadmap_en

@ 83279ad2:bd49240d

@ 83279ad2:bd49240d

@ 005bc4de:ef11e1a2

The beautiful evil of horse racing

Horse racing intrigues me. And, it appalls me. I find it to be both gloriously beautiful and brutally cruel.

One of the fun facts shared tirelessly around social media for Kentucky Derby #151 was something like this: "This is the first Derby where every horse is in the bloodline of Secretariat." Secretariat, if you don't know, won the Triple Crown in 1973 (KY Derby, Preakness, Belmont) and still holds the fastest times in all three of those races.

That's really a nice fun fact when you first hear it, but maybe it shouldn't be too surprising. After a successful racing career, a male racehorse "retires" to a life of studding himself out, which is where the real horse money is. His post-racing stats: he bred 60 mares per year, he sired 660 foals, and he earned an estimated $120 million in stud fees. When you start branching out the Secretariat family tree over several generations, well, the sheer numbers must be very large. That means the chances that any given Thoroughbred might have a hint of Secretariat blood must get rather high. Grok AI estimates there are 500,000 Thoroughbreds today worldwide, and that beteen 250,000 to 400,000 are in Secretariat's lineage, that's 50% to 80% of every Thoroughbred. Suddenly, the social media snippet from Derby #151 is less surprising, less cool.

Secretariat, retired from racing.

The beautiful side of horse racing

Horse racing is beautiful. This is the easy part to write. If you've ever been to a horse track, especially on a big race day, it's a true multi-sensory experience.

• There are smells that we typically don't smell often in this modern world...especially if you hang out near the paddock. Personally, I don't find horse dung particularly stinky, but earthy.
• There are tastes and good smells. Food and drink are a huge part of horse racing. There is a reason that the Derby has its own pie (a chocolate pecan pie) and each major race has its own drink. Feasting and tailgating are huge parts of horse racing.
• There are things to feel, actually to bodily feel. Aside from crowds of people to bump into, if you stand close to the track, you can feel the reverberation of hooves beating the dirt. We hear the term "thundering herd" sometimes in college sports, but, that term is not just words. You can actually feel the thunder of those hooves.
• The sounds are distinctly horse racing. The announcer's calls of "Less than a minute," "They're in the gates," and "And they're off!" are iconic, not to mention the terms "down to the wire," "won by a nose," or "photo finish." And then there's the bugle's announcement, the singing of "My Old Kentucky Home" at the Derby, the roar of the crowd, and moans of loss from bad bets, shrieks of joy from good bets, and that thunder from the herd, of course.
• The visuals are just stunning. People-wise, the women in their pastel sundresses, the men are snazzy in their colors too (though some go too over-the-top for my liking; they move from classy to clownish), and then there are the hats which are their own category altogether. There's the track, and the spires, and the grass and dirt (or mud) and roses. And there's the jockeys and their colorful silks. But, mostly, there's the horses. A Thoroughbred racehorse at full speed, in full stride, is incredible to look upon. It is a beast that is entirely built for one pure reason: speed. You might be familiar with ESPN's "The Body Issue" that features elite, pro athletes in the nude so that their incredible physiques are displayed. Horse racing is the same thing, equine style. The Derby, in particular, is a sports photographer's bonanza. If you actually know what you're doing, you can't not get great results. Below are some photos amateur me point-and-clicked on Derby Day at a horse track (not Churchill Downs):

!(image)[https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/crrdlx/Eq7LSG39v5H5NpQppxhzwhfAtJVQikYVppRJsgZXh6KxGXU2YochRXqoJaW7NMZ8Yd8.jpg]

!(image)[https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/crrdlx/23wWw7ZbXPJxKFAyLwuraK1QypVcLV6QpsyG6Ccr6ZLiPYgNtUBa3ALWx1XR4wPYayhmT.png]

!(image)[https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/crrdlx/2432HqW3ZtUCjvGD7WTkg2z2ngoByX2rV6htgENN1eytUYXycRCaQdevL7xn1mdKC8qG8.gif]

!(image)[https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/crrdlx/245HijMM8pQ7c2EdJwrzUPa3LDjm1P51WqU6j5mYkAJnAXJrkbAn6XBNCzR7G28MSR62u.png]

!(image)[https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/crrdlx/EpVAhnScSoAVCYvw2Faf7ZyipskYLvu9MuBXzmHN3jdVPoDBVAVR8yqrrGf1c7Apxzb.jpg]

!(image)[https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/crrdlx/245Hm6k5HafqiMfzUiNK7Z3pUG752f4CmLc5pMVuonkQVY1sKG9ucSrdGgvNVQGNud628.gif]

Horse racing appeals to all senses and is viscerally exhilarating in so many ways. It is beautiful.

Genetics

But, let's get back to the real point: this game is all about Brave New World-like breeding and genetics. It is horse eugenics. The idea is simple: fast Mommy horse and fast Daddy horse means fast baby horse. In horse racing, a horse's blood lineage is called its dosage. Personally, I pay zero attention to dosage (I focus on track length and closing the long races), but dosage is a mathematical stat that tries to answer, "How much is this horse truly a Thoroughbred and a genetic winner?" This question of dosage begs another question, "What actually is a Thoroughbred?"

A Thoroughbred is a horse breed. There are a lot of horse breeds, a lot. For a novice like me, it's very hard to distinguish one from another. I think most people can see a difference between a draft horse, bred for pulling heavy loads, and a Thoroughbred, bred for speed. I think most people, if betting on a foot race, would bet on the Thoroughbred below, left and not on "Jupiter, the largest draft horse in America" on the right. If betting on hauling a wagon load of beer up a steep hill, most would bet Jupiter.

!(image)[https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/crrdlx/23yx8AjtVZkpE7jXJ2RXzV78hhXSvsgU97i2FkvfcFcEZevfshNgwPw2diJNhmL344gmR.png]

But, when comparing racing horses, there are also Sandardbreds which are bred for harness racing and thus have a heavier build than Thoroughbreds. The two breeds are shown below, but their distinctions are not particularly outstanding to my novice eye. Can you tell the difference, which is the Standardbred versus the Thoroughbred? (Answer at the bottom of page.) Maybe side-by-side you can tell, but could you tell if you saw one standing alone? If you saw two of the same breed, could you judge by appearance which one runs faster? If you can, I tip my cap to you.

!(image)[https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/crrdlx/23zbTqFJgYpKyXwxbGsVeQiKv4tTZSj8S8QboTJWEhTETPqjnaUVDtX2BirjBXH5KVNo6.png]

I imagine most people are much more familiar with, and can more readily notice, the differences in dog breeds. For instance, take the French Bulldog, the Greyhound, or the world's best dog breed, the Labrador Retriever (totally unbiased here).

!(image)[https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/crrdlx/244oozGkxAwS4sqoWiT8phQv8ssrqq4caB9bHgDufsogds7scUUfhp54WTKmosDzfL5WT.png]

The French Bulldog is bred for cosmetics, the greyhound for pure speed, and the Labrador for all-around everything...intelligence, sturdy athleticism, loyal companionship (totally unbiased here). In these three dogs, we can clearly see the differences that have resulted from breeding.

The evil side of horse racing

Horse racing is evil. And, it is cruel. But, for now, let's step back to the dogs. Dog breeding can be cruel as well.

The French Bulldog is something of the "it" dog right now. A quick Google Gemini search reported it as the most popular breed in 2025.

I remember when "101 Dalmatians" came out 1996. Dalmatians skyrocketed in popularity. But, that popularity was anything but a blessing for Dalmatian pups. They were overbred (and are too inbred as it is), oversold, and were taken in by people eager to get in on the "it" dog then and scoop up the cute spotted pups. But, Dalmatians are very active pups that grow into very active dogs. When the novelty of the spotted pup wore off, many were returned or given away or taken to shelters as being uncontrollable.

The French Poodle situation is not too different. The dogs were bred for little purpose beyond the sin of human vanity. People wanted a short, stocky, smoosh-faced dog that they perceived as cute. And, that's what they got: an unathletic dog that looked a certain way, with middle-of-the-road intelligence, and little use aside from its appearance.

Worse, seeking out this certain "toy dog" look, French Bulldogs suffer from a plethora of health issues. Summed up, they have the lowest life expectancy "by a large margin" of all dogs at only 4.5 years (average is 11.2. years).

There is a neighbor near to me who breeds French Bulldogs. Evidently, it's a lucrative business as they apparently sell for an estimated $2,000 to $8,000 dollars each. I don't know how many litters the neighbor's have bred and pawned, but it has been several. The breeder bitch is constantly given a little trot outside before being hauled to the vet for insemination. (Sadly, this seems to be about the only time she is taken out for exercise and family "fun.") Considering he and his wife have no real job, this seems to be their job. Breed, advertise (complete with foofy tutu outfit photos), market, sell, repeat. With only a 4.5 year life span, I see the lucrative nature in this business.

All told, it's basically a sin and a shame that humans do this to these dogs. A certain segment of people desire a certain unnatural smooshed face in a dog. And because we vainly want a certain look in a dog, so as to accessorize our own look, we breed them into forms unnatural to a canine, curse them with severe breathing difficulties and other serious health issues, and short lives.

A Greyhound is essentially a canine Thoroughbred. From generations of selective breeding, it has a massive chest, long body with a narrow waist, and long, spindly legs. It's sole purpose is speed. Ironically, both the Thoroughbred and Greyhound can race at about the same speed...44 mph, give or take.

Man's sinful nature has abused the Greyhound too. These hounds are racing dogs and racing means gambling. So, dog tracks for have been common. The pups are bred, they race a few years, then they are hopefully adopted out. A good friend of mine once adopted a retired racer to become the family dog. "Bandit" initially had a post-race job as a business's guard dog. But, due to him constantly doing nothing but laying around and sleeping, he was fired as a guard dog (who gets a Greyhound for a guard dog anyway?). Bandit eventually went to my friend, was a bit neurotic, but turned out to be a good family dog.

I think most Greyhounds don't have the fortunate story of Bandit. Once raced out, they're done and forgotten. Man's thrills are fleeting, whatever sparkles in his eye soon fades. To combat the ills of dog racing, I know that the citizens of Florida voted to outlaw dog racing in 2018 (and it indeed ended Dec. 31, 2020). Now, dog tracks lay rusting away, and Greyhounds are largely forgotten.

And then, there's the Labrador Retriever. What's not to like? These dogs can do it all, and they do it all well. Name a dog task, Labs do that well. Full disclosure: I once had a Lab (or rather, half Lab, and half...Great Dane? Doberman? Something?). Her mother was Lab and my dog looked Lab, though a bit taller and leaner. She was incredible. So, yes, I favor Labs.

But, even my beloved Labs and all that they excel in, even Labs have their issues, such as high rates of hip dysplasia. Selective breeding, and a too-narrow gene pool, have consequences.

Back to horses

Let's try to bring this back to horses. Thoroughbreds and horse racing mirror both of the characteristics seen in the French Bulldog and the Greyhound.

• Thoroughbreds have been, and still are, extremely selectively bred to accentuate certain qualities: speed, speed, speed.
• Thoroughbreds are bred for money. Literally, a champion stud or mare doesn't breed for free.

Regarding speed, Thoroughbreds have a massive muscular chest, almost no waist at all, massive muscular hindquarters, and long, spindly, almost cartoonishly thin legs. And, this built-for-speed physique brings up one of the cruelest aspects of horse racing: Thoroughbreds are prone to "break down."

These horses are structured unnaturally, like aliens. Having such a massive, muscular, powerful architecture stilted on such twig-like legs (and getting more massive and twiggier due to constant selective breeding of these traits) is a recipe for disaster. "Breaking down" in horse terms is a rather correct term. Their leg bones break under the stress and force of running, then the horse's weight and thrust breaks the legs down further.

The name Barabaro might come to memory. Barbaro won the Kentucky Derby in 2006 impressively, by a full 6.5 lengths. Hopes were high for a Triple Crown winner. At the Preakness two weeks later, Barabaro broke down. Actually, in his pre-start excitement he broke through the gate to false start. These animals are bred to run and race, they know when it's race time. He was so jacked up and ready to run while in the starting gate, he bucked up, banged his head hard, then literally broke through the gate to false start. Then, after reentering, he started off the race clean before breaking down in front of the main grandstand of viewers. Horse's can break any of their several leg bones. Barbaro broke the cannon, sesamoid, long pastern, and dislocated the fetlock (ankle joint). In other words, he shattered his leg.

When horses break their legs, they're usually put down. As to why, there are lots of reasons, but it comes down to the fact that horses are built for standing and running, especially Thoroughbreds. They are not built for laying down to recuperate, and actually suffer health consequences for not standing. Understandably, a broken leg causes the horse to favor weight to the other legs while standing and this, in turn, can cause other issues. Altogether, the horse suffers.

In Barbaro's case, they tried to rehab him. I think normally he would have been put down on the track in the equine ambulance (the "meat wagon"), but this was Barbaro. The resources were there, he was beloved, and millions had witnessed his injury live. Not trying to save him would have been a public relations nightmare. Putting him down on live TV would have been even worse. There was surgery, then laminitis (inflammation under the hoof) in his opposite good hoof, the result of standing unnaturally. He rallied, then had more setbacks including laminitis in his front hooves. He was in pain, with no way to stand, and then was euthanized in 2007.

!(image)[https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/crrdlx/23wgoS1v6e2i2gizAqeMeXHf6Zwhz3BTuYMuYNL676tqbPZWwvXUhw7R1J6K4r7DmRj2K.png]

Regarding the money, top studs earn $200 to $400,000 for stud service. A top mare can be bought for $100 to $300,000, then you need the stud service. This is only to breed the foal. This has nothing to do with stabling or training the animals. In other words, it's extremely expensive.

Also regarding the money, there is, of course, the gambling. You might say this is the whole point of horse racing. It's certainly the whole point for breeding Thoroughbreds. It was the whole point for Greyhounds in Florida, before that point was banned.

This year, an estimated $200 million was bet on the Kentucky Derby, the one race alone. $300 million was bet on the races combined. Grok estimated that globally in 2022, horse racing was a $402 billion dollar industry and expects it to grow to $793 billion by 2030.

Those numbers are staggering. But, again, I come back to sinful man. Our love of money is the root of this beautiful evil called horse racing.

I really don't know many scenes more beautiful than a Kentucky horse ranch and a Thoroughbred running across the bluegrass. Add a colt running with his mother, the beauty is staggering. But, underneath that beauty, there is an evil side to horse racing. That side is fueled by sinful man's pride to win and his love of money.

Horse racing is a beautiful evil.

Image sources: https://wikipedia.org, original by me at the track, equine bones at https://www.anatomy-of-the-equine.com/distal-limb-bones.html, the final two images from https://pixabay.com

---

Note: In the "Can you tell the difference" side-by-side images above, the Thoroughbred was on the left, the Standardbred on the right.

---

@ b83a28b7:35919450

This article was originally part of the sermon of Plebchain Radio Episode 109 (April 25, 2025) that nostr:nprofile1qyxhwumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmvqyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnvv9hxgqpqtvqc82mv8cezhax5r34n4muc2c4pgjz8kaye2smj032nngg52clq7fgefr and I did with Noa Gruman from nostr:nprofile1qyv8wumn8ghj7urjv4kkjatd9ec8y6tdv9kzumn9wsqzqvfdqratfpsvje7f3w69skt34vd7l9r465d5hm9unucnl95yq0ethzx7cf and nostr:nprofile1qye8wumn8ghj7mrwvf5hguewwpshqetjwdshguewd9hj7mn0wd68ycmvd9jkuap0v9cxjtmkxyhhyetvv9usz9rhwden5te0dehhxarj9ehx2cn4w5hxccgqyqj8hd6eed2x5w8pqgx82yyrrpfx99uuympcxmkxgz9k2hklg8te7pq0y72 . You can listen to the full episode here:

https://fountain.fm/episode/gdBHcfDgDXEgALjX7nBu

Let’s start with the obvious: Bitcoin is metal because it’s loud, it’s aggressive, it’s uncompromising. It’s the musical equivalent of a power chord blasted through a wall of amps—a direct challenge to the establishment, to the fiat system, to the sanitized, soulless mainstream. Metal has always been about rebellion, about standing outside the norm and refusing to be tamed. Bitcoin, too, was born in the shadows, dismissed as the currency of outlaws and freaks, and it thrived there, fueled by the energy of those who refused to bow down

But Bitcoin isn’t just any metal. It’s progressive metal. 
Prog metal is the genre that takes metal’s aggression and fuses it with experimentation, complexity, and a relentless drive to push boundaries. It’s not satisfied with three chords and a chorus. Prog metal is about odd time signatures, intricate solos, unexpected detours, and stories that dig into philosophy, psychology, and the human condition. It’s music for those who want more than just noise—they want meaning, depth, and innovation.

That’s Bitcoin. Bitcoin isn’t just a blunt instrument of rebellion; it’s a living, evolving experiment. It’s code that’s open to anyone, a protocol that invites innovation, a system that’s constantly being pushed, prodded, and reimagined by its community.

Like prog metal, Bitcoin is for the thinkers, the tinkerers, the relentless questioners. It’s for those who see the flaws in the mainstream and dare to imagine something radically different. 


Both prog metal and Bitcoin are about freedom — freedom from the tyranny of the predictable, the safe, the centrally controlled. They are countercultures within countercultures, refusing to be boxed in by genre or by law. Both attract those who crave complexity, who aren’t afraid to get lost in the weeds, who want to build something new and beautiful from the chaos. 


If you want to reach the heart of Bitcoin’s counterculture, you don’t do it with bland, safe, mainstream pop. You do it with prog metal—with music that refuses to compromise, that demands your attention, that rewards those who dig deeper. Prog metal is the true voice of Bitcoin’s core: the plebs, the builders, the dreamers who refuse to accept the world as it is. 


Bitcoin is prog metal. It’s technical, it’s rebellious, it’s unafraid to be different. It’s music and money for those who want to break free—not just from the old systems, but from the old ways of thinking. And as the mainstream tries to water down both, the true counterculture survives at the core, pushing boundaries, making noise, and refusing to die.

---

The sermon and episode clearly had an impact on people, as evidenced by the fountain charts here (snapshot taken on May 6, 2025)

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqkcpsw4kc03j906dg8rt8thes432z3yy0d6fj4phylz48xs3g437qqsy7rfh8n6vgxppkwzq2ntjps0lmt4njkxjrv3rv5r59l7lkv6ahps2eavd9 And here's the clip of the sermon:

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzpwp69zm7fewjp0vkp306adnzt7249ytxhz7mq3w5yc629u6er9zsqqsptkpkd0458yshe7gfshck2f9nfxnqe0nrjz0ptlkm9rhv094rxagapyv4d

@ 7e538978:a5987ab6

Across Switzerland, customers at SPAR supermarkets are now able to pay for their groceries using Lightning on Bitcoin — a step towards everyday Bitcoin adoption. This rollout was led by DFX, a Bitcoin services company focused on onboarding businesses and individuals to Bitcoin. Behind the scenes LNbits plays a key role.

## Lightning at the Checkout

SPAR’s approach is simple: at the till, customers can scan a static QR code to pay in Bitcoin using the Lightning Network. Each checkout in each participating store has its own unique LNURL address — a reusable QR code designed for fast, low-friction Lightning payments.

To manage these LNURLs, DFX leverages LNbits. Using the LNbits Pay Links extension, DFX generates LNURLs for each till across the network of participating SPAR locations. The result is a robust, reliable setup that works at scale. Store staff do not interact with LNbits directly — instead, DFX manages the backend, ensuring each till has a dedicated LNURL without operational overhead for SPAR employees.

At SPAR we use static QR codes that meet the LNURL standard. Therefore we use LNbits. Each checkout has its own personal LNURL address which we generate with LNbits.

— Cyrill Thommen, CEO of DFX.Swiss— Cyrill Thommen, CEO of DFX.Swiss

## LNbits in Action

LNbits provided DFX with a modular, open-source solution that allows them to build only what they need, without locking into a rigid platform. For instance, DFX built custom monitoring around payment events using the LNbits API, while keeping full control over wallet infrastructure.

The ability to generate and manage LNURLs through the LNbits API, while layering additional monitoring and business logic on top, made LNbits a practical choice.

DFX’s setup highlights how open source software, Bitcoin and purpose-built tools can underpin enterprise-grade deployments. The system works reliably — without introducing friction for customers or staff.

Bitcoin in the Real World

Switzerland is already one of Europe’s most Bitcoin-friendly environments, with over 1,000 businesses accepting Bitcoin. But SPAR’s implementation is noteworthy for its scale and practicality: everyday purchases, completed with Bitcoin, at a national supermarket chain.

LNbits' flexible architecture, API-first design, and plug-in system make it well suited to precisely this kind of adoption.

As more retailers explore Lightning integration, SPAR’s rollout sets a precedent — showing how modular, open-source tools like LNbits can bring Bitcoin into daily life, seamlessly.

@ 9c35fe6b:5977e45b

Sailing the Nile on the Dahabiya Gorgonia Nile Cruise offers an intimate way to experience the timeless beauty of Egypt. This elegant boat is ideal for travelers who seek calm, charm, and tradition. With only a few cabins onboard, guests can enjoy a more serene atmosphere compared to larger vessels. ETB Tours Egypt offers this unique cruise option as part of its Egypt vacation packages, blending cultural richness with comfort.

Cultural Encounters Along the Nile The Dahabiya Nile Cruises give you a chance to witness life along the riverbanks up close. Onboard the Gorgonia, travelers visit lesser-known villages, ancient temples, and local markets far from the tourist crowds. With ETB Tours Egypt, your itinerary includes authentic experiences guided by knowledgeable Egyptologists—an ideal choice for those seeking Egypt private tours.

Scenic Sailing with Modern Comfort Although traditional in style, the Dahabiya Gorgonia is equipped with modern amenities to ensure a pleasant journey. Guests enjoy spacious decks, elegant dining, and personalized service. Whether part of an All inclusive Egypt vacations or a custom-designed plan, this cruise ensures you travel in style without missing out on comfort.

Smart Choices for Smart Travelers ETB Tours Egypt also makes sure that the Dahabiya Gorgonia Nile Cruise is available as part of their Egypt budget tours, offering excellent value without compromising on experience. It's perfect for those who want to enjoy the best of Egypt without overspending. Flexible options are also available through their wide range of Egypt travel packages, making it easy to match your schedule and interests.

To Contact Us: E-Mail: info@etbtours.com Mobile & WhatsApp: +20 10 67569955 - +201021100873 Address: 4 El Lebeny Axis, Nazlet Al Batran, Al Haram, Giza, Egypt

@ 78b3c1ed:5033eea9

各ノードにポリシーがある理由 → ノードの資源（CPU、帯域、メモリ）を守り、無駄な処理を避けるため

なぜポリシーがコンセンサスルールより厳しいか 1.資源の節約 コンセンサスルールは「最終的に有効かどうか」の基準だが、全トランザクションをいちいち検証して中継すると資源が枯渇する。 ポリシーで「最初から弾く」仕組みが必要。

1. ネットワーク健全性の維持 手数料が低い、複雑すぎる、標準でないスクリプトのトランザクションが大量に流れると、全体のネットワークが重くなる。 これを防ぐためにノードは独自のポリシーで中継制限。

2. 開発の柔軟性 ポリシーはソフトウェアアップデートで柔軟に変えられるが、コンセンサスルールは変えるとハードフォークの危険がある。 ポリシーを厳しくすることで、安全に新しい制限を試すことができる。

---

標準ポリシーの意味は何か？ ノードオペレーターは自分でbitcoindの設定やコードを書き換えて独自のポリシーを使える。 理論上ポリシーは「任意」で、標準ポリシー（Bitcoin Coreが提供するポリシー）は単なるデフォルト値。 ただし、標準ポリシーには以下の大事な意味がある。

1. ネットワークの互換性を保つ基準 みんなが全く自由なポリシーを使うとトランザクションの伝播効率が落ちる。 標準ポリシーは「大多数のノードに中継される最小基準」を提供し、それを守ればネットワークに流せるという共通の期待値になる。

2. 開発・サービスの指針 ウォレット開発者やサービス提供者（取引所・支払いサービスなど）は、「標準ポリシーに準拠したトランザクションを作れば十分」という前提で開発できる。 もし標準がなければ全ノードの個別ポリシーを調査しないと流れるトランザクションを作れなくなる。

3. コミュニティの合意形成の場 標準ポリシーはBitcoin Coreの開発・議論で決まる。ここで新しい制限や緩和を入れれば、まずポリシーレベルで試せる。 問題がなければ、将来のコンセンサスルールに昇格させる議論の土台になる。

つまりデフォルトだけど重要。 確かに標準ポリシーは技術的には「デフォルト値」にすぎないが、実際にはネットワークの安定・互換性・開発指針の柱として重要な役割を果たす。

---

ビットコインノードにおける「無駄な処理」というのは、主に次のようなものを指す。 1. 承認される見込みのないトランザクションの検証 例: 手数料が極端に低く、マイナーが絶対にブロックに入れないようなトランザクション → これをいちいち署名検証したり、メモリプールに載せるのはCPU・RAMの無駄。

1. 明らかに標準外のスクリプトや形式の検証 例: 極端に複雑・非標準なスクリプト（non-standard script） → コンセンサス的には有効だが、ネットワークの他ノードが中継しないため、無駄な伝播になる。

2. スパム的な大量トランザクションの処理 例: 攻撃者が極小手数料のトランザクションを大量に送り、メモリプールを膨張させる場合 → メモリやディスクI/O、帯域の消費が無駄になる。

3. 明らかに無効なブロックの詳細検証 例: サイズが大きすぎるブロック、難易度条件を満たさないブロック → 早期に弾かないと、全トランザクション検証や署名検証で計算資源を浪費する。

これらの無駄な処理は、ノードの CPU時間・メモリ・ディスクI/O・帯域 を消耗させ、最悪の場合は DoS攻撃（サービス妨害攻撃） に悪用される。 そこでポリシーによって、最初の受信段階、または中継段階でそもそも検証・保存・転送しないように制限する。 まとめると、「無駄な処理」とはネットワークの大勢に受け入れられず、ブロックに取り込まれないトランザクションやブロックにノード資源を使うこと。

---

無駄な処理かどうかは、単に「ポリシーで禁止されているか」で決まるわけではない。

本質的には次の2つで判断される 1. ノードの資源（CPU、メモリ、帯域、ディスク）を過剰に使うか 2. 他のノード・ネットワーク・マイナーに受け入れられる見込みがあるか

将来のBitcoin CoreのバージョンでOP_RETURNの出力数制限やデータサイズ制限が撤廃されたとする。 この場合標準ポリシー的には通るので、中継・保存されやすくなる。 しかし、他のノードやマイナーが追随しなければ意味がない。大量に流せばやはりDoS・スパム扱いされ、無駄な資源消費になる。

最終的には、ネットワーク全体の運用実態。 標準ポリシーの撤廃だけでは、「無駄な処理ではない」とは断定できない。 実質的な「無駄な処理」の判定は、技術的制約＋経済的・運用的現実のセットで決まる。

@ 866e0139:6a9334e5

Autor: Nicolas Riedl. Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben. Sie finden alle Texte der Friedenstaube und weitere Texte zum Thema Frieden hier. Die neuesten Pareto-Artikel finden Sie in unserem Telegram-Kanal.

Dieser Beitrag erschien zuerst bei Radio München.

---

Die neuesten Artikel der Friedenstaube gibt es jetzt auch im eigenen Friedenstaube-Telegram-Kanal.

---

Das Kriegsgrauen kriecht unter die Haut. Bilder von verstümmelten Beinen und Armen, von Kriegstraumatisierten schweigenden Männern, von Kriegsgräbern steigen auf. Als Mutter, Schwester, Tante, Großmutter wachsen die Ängste, dass sich ein Verwandter von der politischen und medialen Kriegslust anstecken lässt und tatsächlich die Beteiligung an den näher kommenden kriegerischen Auseinandersetzungen in Erwägung zieht. Einen wütenden Kommentar anlässlich der wachsenden Kriegstreiberei verfasste unser Autor Nicolas Riedl.

https://soundcloud.com/radiomuenchen/sofa-soldaten-an-die-front-von-nicolas-riedl?utm_source=clipboard&utm_campaign=wtshare&utm_medium=widget&utm_content=https%253A%252F%252Fsoundcloud.com%252Fradiomuenchen%252Fsofa-soldaten-an-die-front-von-nicolas-riedl

---

Nicolas Riedl, Jahrgang 1993, geboren in München, studierte Medien-, Theater- und Politikwissenschaften in Erlangen. Den immer abstruser werdenden Zeitgeist der westlichen Kultur dokumentiert und analysiert er in kritischen Texten. Darüber hinaus ist er Büchernarr, strikter Bargeldzahler und ein für seine Generation ungewöhnlicher Digitalisierungsmuffel. Entsprechend findet man ihn auf keiner Social-Media-Plattform. Von 2017 bis 2023 war er für die Rubikon-Jugendredaktion und Videoredaktion tätig.

---

LASSEN SIE DER FRIEDENSTAUBE FLÜGEL WACHSEN!

Hier können Sie die Friedenstaube abonnieren und bekommen die Artikel zugesandt.

Schon jetzt können Sie uns unterstützen:

• Für 50 CHF/EURO bekommen Sie ein Jahresabo der Friedenstaube.
• Für 120 CHF/EURO bekommen Sie ein Jahresabo und ein T-Shirt/Hoodie mit der Friedenstaube.
• Für 500 CHF/EURO werden Sie Förderer und bekommen ein lebenslanges Abo sowie ein T-Shirt/Hoodie mit der Friedenstaube.
• Ab 1000 CHF werden Sie Genossenschafter der Friedenstaube mit Stimmrecht (und bekommen lebenslanges Abo, T-Shirt/Hoodie).

Für Einzahlungen in CHF (Betreff: Friedenstaube):

Für Einzahlungen in Euro:

Milosz Matuschek

IBAN DE 53710520500000814137

BYLADEM1TST

Sparkasse Traunstein-Trostberg

Betreff: Friedenstaube

Wenn Sie auf anderem Wege beitragen wollen, schreiben Sie die Friedenstaube an: friedenstaube@pareto.space

---

Sie sind noch nicht auf Nostr and wollen die volle Erfahrung machen (liken, kommentieren etc.)? Zappen können Sie den Autor auch ohne Nostr-Profil! Erstellen Sie sich einen Account auf Start. Weitere Onboarding-Leitfäden gibt es im Pareto-Wiki.

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Wild parrots tend to fly in flocks, but when kept as single pets, they may become lonely and bored https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHcAOlamgDc

Source: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-taught-pet-parrots-to-video-call-each-other-and-the-birds-loved-it-180982041/

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/973639

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Your device, your data. TRMNL's architecture prevents outsiders (including us) from accessing your local network. TRMNAL achieve this through 1 way communication between client and server, versus the other way around. Learn more.

Learn more at https://usetrmnl.com/

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/973632

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Here’s Sean Voisen writing about how programming is a feeling:

For those of us who enjoy programming, there is a deep satisfaction that comes from solving problems through well-written code, a kind of ineffable joy found in the elegant expression of a system through our favorite syntax. It is akin to the same satisfaction a craftsperson might find at the end of the day after toiling away on well-made piece of furniture, the culmination of small dopamine hits that come from sweating the details on something and getting them just right. Maybe nobody will notice those details, but it doesn’t matter. We care, we notice, we get joy from the aesthetics of the craft.

This got me thinking about the idea of satisfaction in craft. Where does it come from?

Continue Reading https://blog.jim-nielsen.com/2025/craft-and-satisfaction/

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/973628

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

CryptPad

Collaboration and privacy. Yes, you can have both Flagship instance of CryptPad, the end-to-end encrypted and open-source collaboration suite. Cloud administered by the CryptPad development team. https://cryptpad.fr/

ONLYOFFICE DocSpace

Document collaboration made simpler. Easily collaborate with customizable rooms. Edit any content you have. Work faster using AI assistants. Protect your sensitive business data. Download or try STARTUP Cloud (Limited-time offer) FREE https://www.onlyoffice.com/

SeaFile

A new way to organize your files Beyond just syncing and sharing files, Seafile lets you add custom file properties and organize your files in different views. With AI-powered automation for generating properties, Seafile offers a smarter, more efficient way to manage your files. Try it Now, Free for up to 3 users https://seafile.com/

SandStorm

An open source platform for self-hosting web apps Self-host web-based productivity apps easily and securely. Sandstorm is an open source project built by a community of volunteers with the goal of making it really easy to run open source web applications. Try the Demo or Signup Free https://alpha.sandstorm.io/apps

NextCloud Hub

A new generation of online collaboration that puts you in control. Nextcloud offers a modern, on premise content collaboration platform with real-time document editing, video chat & groupware on mobile, desktop and web. Sign up for a free Nextcloud account https://nextcloud.com/sign-up/

LinShare

True Open Source Secure File Sharing Solution We are committed to providing a reliable Open Source file-sharing solution, expertly designed to meet the highest standards of diverse industries, such as government and finance Try the Demo https://linshare.app/

Twake Drive

The open-source alternative to Google Drive. Privacy-First Open Source Workplace. Twake workplace open source business. Improve your effeciency with truly Open Source, all-in-one digital suite. Enhance the security in every aspect of your professional and private life. Sign up https://sign-up.twake.app/

SpaceDrive

One Explorer. All Your Files. Unify files from all your devices and clouds into a single, easy-to-use explorer. Designed for creators, hoarders and the painfully disorganized. Download desktop app (mobile coming soon) https://www.spacedrive.com/

ente

Safe Home for your photos Store, share, and discover your memories with end-to-end encryption. End-to-end encryption, durable storage and simple sharing. Packed with these and much more into our beautiful open source apps. Get started https://web.ente.io

fileStash

Turn your FTP server into... Filestash is the enterprise-grade file manager connecting your storage with your identity provider and authorisations. Try the demo https://demo.filestash.app

STORJ

Disruptively fast.‍ Globally secure. S3-compatible distributed cloud services that make the most demanding workflows fast and affordable. Fast track your journey toward high performance cloud services. Storj pricing is consistent and competitive in meeting or exceeding your cloud services needs. Give the products a try to experience the benefits of the distributed cloud. Get Started https://www.storj.io/get-started

FireFile

The open‑source alternative to Dropbox. Firefiles lets you setup a cloud drive with the backend of your choice and lets you seamlessly manage your files across multiple providers. It revolutionizes cloud storage management by offering a unified platform for all your storage needs. Sign up Free https://beta.firefiles.app

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/973626

@ 502ab02a:a2860397

สัปดาห์นี้ถือว่าเป็นเบรคคั่นพักผ่อนแก้เครียดนิดหน่อยแล้วกันครับ เรามาเล่าย้อนอดีตกันนิดหน่อย เหมือนสตาร์วอส์ที่ฉายภาค 4-5-6 แล้วย้อนไป 1-2-3 ฮาๆๆๆ

เคยได้ยินคำว่า Nuremberg Trials ไหมครับ ย้อนความนิดนึงว่า Nuremberg (Nürnberg อ่านว่า เนือร์นแบร์ก) คือชื่อเมืองในเยอรมนีที่เคยเป็นเวทีพิจารณาคดีประวัติศาสตร์หลังสงครามโลกครั้งที่ 2

“Nuremberg Trials” คือการไต่สวนผู้มีส่วนเกี่ยวข้องกับ อาชญากรรมสงครามของนาซีเยอรมัน หลังสงครามโลกครั้งที่ 2 ในปี 1945–46 พันธมิตรผู้ชนะสงครามได้จับตัวผู้นำนาซี นักการเมือง หมอ นักวิทยาศาสตร์ มาขึ้นศาล ข้อหาของพวกเขาไม่ได้แค่ฆ่าคน แต่รวมถึงการละเมิดศีลธรรมมนุษย์ขั้นพื้นฐาน อย่างการทดลองทางการแพทย์กับนักโทษ โดยไม่มีการขอความยินยอม

จากการไต่สวนนี้ จึงเกิดหลักจริยธรรมที่ชื่อว่า “Nuremberg Code” ซึ่งกลายเป็นรากฐานของการทดลองทางการแพทย์ยุคใหม่ หัวใจของโค้ดนี้คือคำว่า “Informed Consent” แปลว่า ถ้าจะทำอะไรกับร่างกายใคร ต้องได้รับความยินยอมจากเขาอย่างเต็มใจ และมีข้อมูลครบถ้วน นี่แหละ คือบทเรียนจากบาดแผลของสงครามโลก

แต่แล้ว...ในปี 2020 โลกก็เข้าสู่ยุคที่ใครบางคนบอกว่า “ต้องเชื่อผู้เชี่ยวชาญ” ใครกังวล = คนไม่รักสังคม ใครถามเยอะ = คนต่อต้านวิทยาศาสตร์ การยินยอมโดยสมัครใจ เริ่มกลายเป็นแค่คำเชิงสัญลักษณ์

ในช่วงหลังนี้เราอาจจะได้ยินข่าวหรือทฤษฎีในอินเตอร์เนทเกี่ยวกับคำว่า Nuremberg 2.0 กันนะครับ เพราะเริ่มผุดขึ้นตามกระทู้เงียบ ๆ คลิปใต้ดิน และเวทีเสวนาแปลก ๆ ที่ไม่มีใครอยากอ้างชื่อบนเวที TED Talk ซึ่ง กลุ่มที่ใช้คำนี้มักจะหมายถึงความต้องการให้มีการ “ไต่สวน” หรือ “เอาผิด” กับนักการเมือง นักวิทยาศาสตร์ แพทย์ หรือองค์กรที่เกี่ยวข้องกับ การออกคำสั่ง การบังคับ การเซ็นเซอร์ข้อมูลที่ขัดแย้งกับแนวทางรัฐ การเผยแพร่ข้อมูลโดยไม่โปร่งใส พวกเขามองว่า นโยบายเหล่านั้นละเมิดสิทธิเสรีภาพของประชาชนในระดับที่เปรียบได้กับ “อาชญากรรมต่อมนุษยชาติ” จึงเสนอแนวคิด “Nuremberg 2.0”

พวกเขาไม่ได้เรียกร้องแค่ความโปร่งใส แต่เขาอยากเห็นการทบทวน ว่าใครกันแน่ที่ละเมิดหลักจริยธรรมที่โลกเคยตกลงกันไว้เมื่อ 80 ปีก่อน

Nuremberg คือการไต่สวนคนที่ใช้อำนาจรัฐฆ่าคนอย่างจงใจ Nuremberg 2.0 คือคำเตือนว่า “การใช้ความกลัวครอบงำเสรีภาพ” อาจไม่ต่างกันนัก

ทีนี้เคยสงสัยไหม แล้วมันเกี่ยวอะไรกับอาหาร?

เพราะจากวิกฤตโรคระบาด เราเริ่มเห็น “วิทยาศาสตร์แบบผูกขาด” คุมเกมส์ บริษัทเทคโนโลยีเริ่มเข้ามาทำอาหาร ชื่อใหม่ของเนื้อสเต๊กกลายเป็น “โปรตีนทางเลือก” อาหารจากแล็บกลายเป็น “ทางรอดของโลก” สารเคมีอัดลงไปแทนเนื้อจริง ๆ แต่มีฉลากติดว่า "รักษ์โลก ปลอดภัย ยั่งยืน"

แต่ถ้ามองให้ลึกลงไปอีกนิด บางกลุ่มคนกลับเริ่มเห็นอะไรบางอย่างที่ขนลุกกว่า เพราะมันคือ “ระบบควบคุมสุขภาพ” ที่อาศัย “ความกลัว” เป็นหัวเชื้อ และ “วิทยาศาสตร์แบบผูกขาด” เป็นกลไก

จากนั้น…ทุกอย่างก็จะถูกเสิร์ฟอย่างสวยงามในรูปแบบ "นวัตกรรมเพื่ออนาคต" ไม่ว่าจะเป็นอาหารเสริมชนิดใหม่ เนื้อสัตว์ปลูกในแล็บ หรืออาหารที่ไม่ต้องเคี้ยว

ลองคิดเล่น ๆครับ ถ้าสารอาหารถูกควบคุมได้ เหมือนที่เราเคยถูกบังคับกับบางอย่างได้ล่ะ? วันหนึ่ง เราอาจถูกขอให้ "กิน" ในสิ่งที่ระบบสุขภาพอนาคตเขาบอกว่าดี แล้วถ้าเฮียบอกว่าไม่อยากกิน...เขาอาจไม่ห้าม แต่ App สุขภาพจะเตือนว่า “คุณมีพฤติกรรมเสี่ยงต่อโลกใบนี้” แต้มเครดิตจะสุขภาพจะลดลงและส่วนลดข้าวกล่องเนื้อจากจุลินทรีย์จะไม่เข้าบัญชีเฮียอีกเลย

ใช่…มันไม่เหมือนการบังคับ แต่มันคือการสร้าง “ระบบทางเดียว” ที่ทำให้คนที่อยากเดินออกนอกแถว เหมือนเดินลงเหว

Nuremberg 2.0 จึงไม่ใช่แค่เรื่องของอดีตหรือโรคระบาด แต่มันเป็นกระจกที่สะท้อนว่า “ถ้าเราไม่เรียนรู้จากประวัติศาสตร์ เราอาจกินซ้ำรอยมันเข้าไปในมื้อเย็น”

อนาคตของอาหารอาจไม่ได้อยู่ในจาน แต่อยู่ในนโยบาย อยู่ในบริษัทที่ผลิตโปรตีนจากอากาศ อยู่ในทุนที่ซื้อนักวิทยาศาสตร์ไว้ทั้งวงการ และถ้าเราหลับตาอีกครั้ง หลายคนก็กลัวว่า...บทไต่สวน Nuremberg รอบใหม่ อาจไม่สามารถเกิดขึ้นอีกต่อไป เพราะคราวนี้ คนร้ายจะไม่ได้ถือปืน แต่อาจถือใบรับรองโภชนาการระดับโลกในมือแทน

#pirateketo #กูต้องรู้มั๊ย #ม้วนหางสิลูก #siamstr

@ a9e24cc2:597d8933

𝐌𝐄𝐒𝐒𝐀𝐆𝐄  BlackHat_Nexus 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐀𝐍𝐘 𝐊𝐈𝐍𝐃 𝐎𝐅 𝐒𝐄𝐑𝐕𝐈𝐂𝐄 𝐑𝐄𝐂𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐑 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐀𝐂𝐂𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐓Fast, Available and Reliable for any of the following services 🤳 Recovery of lost funds🤳 Facebook Hack🤳 WhatsApp Hack 🤳 Instagram Hack🤳 Spying🤳 Windows Hacking🤳 Recover lost wallet 🤳 Credit score trick 🤳 Recover Password🤳 Gmail Hack🤳 SnapChat Hacking 🤳 Cellphone Monitoring 🤳 Tik Tok Hack🤳 Twitter Hack🤳 Lost Phone Tracking🤳 Lost IaptopTracking🤳 Lost Car Tracking🤳 Cloning WhatsApp🤳 Cryptocurrency Wallet🤳 Hacking🤳 Iphone unlock 🤳 Got banned 🤳 Private Number available🤳 Telegram hacking 🤳 Websites hacking 🤳 Hack University 🤳 IOS and Android hack 🤳 Wifi Hacking 🤳 CCTV hacking🤳 Hack Bot Game 🤳 Free fire hack 🤳 Changing of school grades 🤳 Cards 💳hackingNo 🆓 services 🚫WhatsApp +1 3606068592Send a DM https://t.me/BlackHat_Nexus@BlackHat_Nexus

@ 752f5d10:88491db3

Opinion about Trendo: Forex Trading & Broker (android)

L o s i n g $111,555 overnight was a crushing blow. The account lockout and subpar customer service that followed left me stunned. However, I gained invaluable insights from this ordeal : Conduct thorough research before committing Verify credentials and read reviews from multiple sources Be c a u t i o u s of un realistic promises Demand responsive and reliable support. Fortunately, I found chelsy__desmarais__54__A T__g=m=a=i=l__D=o=t__c_o_m, which helped me re-cover from this financial setback. W_h_a_t_s_A_p_p ; +1=8=5=9=4=3=6=4=2=1=1

WalletScrutiny #nostrOpinion

Join the conversation!

@ c9badfea:610f861a

• Bitcoin Exchanges
• Bitcoin Wallets
• Bitcoin Circular Economies
• Nostr Apps

ℹ️ To add profiles to the follow packs, please leave a comment

@ 8671a6e5:f88194d1

"I tried pasting my login key into the text field, but no luck—it just wouldn't work. Turns out, the login field becomes completely unusable whenever the on-screen keyboard shows up on my phone. So either no one ever bothered to test this on a phone, or they did and thought, ‘Eh, who needs to actually log in anyway?’."

### \ \ Develop and evolve

Any technology or industry at the forefront of innovation faces the same struggle. Idealists, inventors, and early adopters jump in first, working to make things usable for the technical crowd. Only later do the products begin to take shape for the average user.

Bitcoin’s dropping the Ball on usability (and user-experience)

First, we have to acknowledge the progress we've made. Bitcoin has come a long way in terms of usability—no doubt about it. Even if I still think it’s bad, it’s nowhere near as terrible as it was ten or more years ago. The days of printing a paper wallet from some shady website and hoping it would still work months or years later are behind us. The days of buggy software never getting fixed are mostly over.

The Bitcoin technology itself made progress through many BIPs (Bitcoin Improvement Proposals) and combined with an increasing number of apps, devs, websites and related networks (Liquid, Lightning, Nostr, ....) we can say that we're seeing a strong ecosystem going its way. The ecosystem is alive and expanding, and technically, things are clearly working. The problem is that we’re still building with a mindset where developers and project managers consider usability—but don’t truly care about it in practice. They don’t lead with it. (Yes, there are always exceptions.)

All that progress looks cool, when you see the latest releases of hardware wallets, software wallets, exchanges, nostr clients and services built purely for bitcoin, you're usually thinking that we've progressed nicely. But I want to focus on the downside of all these shiny tools. Because if Bitcoin has made it this far, it’s mostly thanks to people who deeply understand its value and are stubborn enough to push through the friction. They don’t give up when the user experience sucks.

Many bitcoiners completely lost their perspective on the software front in my opinion. Because we could have been so much further ahead, and we didn't because some of the most important components on the user-facing side of Bitcoin (arguably the most important part) hasn’t kept pace with the popularity and possible growth. And that should be a great concern, because Bitcoin is meant to be open and accessible. The blockchain is public. This is supposed to be for everyone. This is an open ledger technology so in theory everything is user-facing to one extent or another. Yet we fail on that front to make the glue stick. Somewhere, we’re easily amused by the tools we create, and often contains hurdles we can’t see or feel. While users reject it after 5 seconds tops.

We didn’t came a lot further yet, because we’ve ignored usability at its core (pun intended).

I’m not talking about usability in the “it works on my machine” sense. I’m talking about usability that meets the standard of modern apps. Think Spotify, Instagram, Uber, Gmail. Products that ordinary people use without reading a manual or digging through forums.

That’s the bar. We’re still far from it.

Bad UX scares your grandma away

… and that’s how many bitcoiners apparently like it.

Subsequently, when I say usability, I’m using it as an umbrella term. For me, it covers user experience, user interface, and real-life, full-cycle testing—from onboarding a brand new user to rolling out a new version of the app. And oh boy, our onboarding is so horrible. (“Hey wanna try bitcoin? Here’s an app that takes up to 4 minutes or more to get though, but wait, you’ll have to install a plugin, or wait I’ll send you an on-chain transaction…)

Take a look at the listings on Bitvocation, an excellent job board for Bitcoiners and related projects. You’ll quickly notice a pattern: almost no companies are hiring software testers. It’s marketing, more marketing, some sales, and of course, full-stack developers. But … No testers.

Because testing has become something that’s often skipped or automated in a hurry. Maybe the devs run a test locally to confirm that the feature they just built doesn’t crash outright. That’s it. And if testing does happen at a company, it’s usually shallow—focused only on the top five percent of critical bugs. The finer points that shape real user experience, like button placement, navigation flow, and responsiveness, are dumped on “the community.”

Which leads to some software being rushed out to production, and only then do teams discover how many problems exist in the real world. If there’s anyone left to care that is, since most teams are scattered all over the world and get paid by the hour by some VC firm on a small runway to a launch date.

This has real life consequences I’ve seen for myself with new users. Like a lightning wallet having a +5 minute onboarding time, and a fat on-screen error for the new users, or a hardware wallet stuck in an endless upgrade loop, just because nobody tested it on a device that was “old” (as in, one year old).

The result is clear: usability and experience testing are so low on the priority list, they may as well not exist. And that’s tragic, because the enthusiasm of new users gets crushed the moment they run into what I call Linux’plaining.

That’s when something obvious fails — like a lookup command that’s copied straight from their own help documentation but doesn’t work — and the answer you get as a user is something like: “Yeah, but first you have to…” followed by an explanation that isn’t mentioned anywhere in the interface or documentation. You were just supposed to know. No one updates the documentation, and no one cares. As most of the projects are very temporary or don’t really care if it succeeds or not, because they’re bitcoiners and bitcoin always wins. Just like PGP always was super cool and good, and users should just be smarter.

Lessons from the past usability disasters

We can always learn from the past especially when its precedents are still echoing through the systems we use today

So here goes, some examples from the legacy / fiat industry:

Lotus Notes, for example. Once a titan in enterprise communication software, which managed to capture about 145 million mailboxes. But its downfall is an example of what happens when you ignore and keep ignoring real-life user needs and fail to evolve with the market. Software like that doesn’t just fade, it collapses under the weight of its own inertia and bloat. If you think bitcoin can’t have that, yes… we’re of course not having a competitor in the market (hard money is hard money, not a mailbox or office software provider of course). But we can erode trust to the extent that it becomes LotusNotes’d.

Its archaic 1990s interface came with clunky navigation and a chaotic document management system. Users got frustrated fast—basic tasks took too long. Picture this: you're stuck in a cubicle, trying to find the calendar function in Lotus Notes while a giant office printer hisses and spits out stacks of paper behind you. The platform never made the leap to modern expectations. It failed to deliver proper mobile clients and clung to outdated tech like LotusScript and the Domino architecture, which made it vulnerable to security issues and incompatible with the web standards of the time. By 2012, IBM pulled the plug on the Lotus brand, as businesses moved en masse to cloud-based alternatives.

Another kind of usability failure has plagued PGP1 (and still does so after 34 years). PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) is a time-tested and rock-solid method for encryption and key exchange, but it’s riddled with usability problems, especially for anyone who isn’t technically inclined.

Its very nature and complexity are already steep hurdles (and yes, you can’t make it fully easy without compromising how it’s supposed to work—granted). But the real problem? Almost zero effort has gone into giving even the most eager new users a manageable learning curve. That neglect slowly killed off any real user base—except for the hardcore encryption folks who already know what they’re doing.

Ask anyone in a shopping street or the historic center of your city if they’ve heard of PGP. And on the off chance someone knows it’s not a trendy new fast-food joint called “Perfectly Grilled Poultry,” the odds of them having actually used it in the past six months are basically zero, unless you happen to bump into that one neckbeard guy in his 60s wearing a stained Star Wars T-shirt named Leonard.

The builders of PGP made one major mistake: they never treated usability as a serious design goal (that’s normal for people knee deep in encryption, I get that, it’s the way it is). PGP is fantastic on itself. Other companies and projects tried to build around it, but while they stumbled, tools like Signal and ProtonMail stepped in; offering the same core features of encryption and secure messaging, minus the headache. They delivered what PGP never could: powerful functionality wrapped in something regular people can actually use. Now, we’ve got encrypted communication flowing through apps like Signal, where all the complex tech is buried so deep in the background, the average user doesn’t even realize it’s there. ProtonMail went one step further even, integrating PGP so cleanly that users never need to exchange keys or understand the cryptography behind it all, yet still benefit from bulletproof encryption.

There’s no debate—this shift is a good thing. History shows that unusable software fades into irrelevance. Whether due to lack of interest, failure to reach critical mass, or a competitor swooping in to eat market share, clunky tools don’t survive. Now, to be clear, Bitcoin doesn’t have to worry about that kind of threat. There’s no real competition when it comes to hard money. Unless, of course, you genuinely believe that flashy shitcoins are a viable alternative—in which case, you might as well stop reading here and go get yourself scammed on the latest Solana airdrop or whatever hype train’s leaving the station today for the degens.

The main takeaway here is that Bitcoin must avoid becoming the next Lotus Notes, bloated with features but neglected by users—or the next PGP, sidelined by its own lack of usability. That kind of trajectory would erode trust, especially if usability and onboarding keep falling behind. And honestly, we’re already seeing signs of this in bitcoin. User adoption in Europe, especially in countries like Germany is noticeably lagging. The introduction of the EU’s MiCA regulations isn’t helping either. Most of the companies that were actually pushing adoption are now either shutting down, leaving the EU, or jumping through creative loopholes just to stay alive. And the last thing on anyone’s mind is improving UX. It takes time, effort, and specialized people to seriously think through how to build this properly, from the beginning, with this ease of use and onboarding in mind. That’s a luxury most teams can’t or won’t prioritize right now. Understandably when the lack of funds is still a major issue within the bitcoin space. (for people sitting on hard money, there’s surprisingly little money flowing into useful projects that aren’t hyped up empty boxes)

The number of nodes being set up by end users worldwide isn’t exactly skyrocketing either. Sure, there’s some growth but let’s not overstate it. Based on Bitnodes’ snapshots taken in March of each year, we’re looking at: 2022 : around 10500 2023 : around 17000 2024 : around 18500 2025 : around 21000 (I know there are different methods of measuring these, like read-only nodes, the % change is roughly the same nonetheless)

In my opinion, if we had non-clunky software that was actually released with proper testing and usability in mind, we could’ve easily doubled those node numbers. A bad user experience with a wallet spreads fast—and brings in exactly zero new users. The same goes for people trying to set up a miner or spin up a node, only to give up after a few frustrating steps. Sure, there are good people out there making guides and videos2 to help mitigate those hurdles, and that helps. But let’s be honest: there’s still very little “wow” factor when average users interact with most Bitcoin software. Almost every time they walk away, it’s because of one of two things—usability issues or bugs.

For the record: if a user can’t set up a wallet because the interface is so rotten or poorly tested, so they don’t know where to click or how to even select a seed word from a list, then that’s a problem — that’s a bug. Argue all you want: sure, it’s not a code-level bug and no, it’s not a system crash. But it is a usability failure. Call it onboarding friction, UX flaw, whatever fits your spreadsheet or circus Maximus of failures in your ticketing system. Bottom line: if your software doesn’t help users accomplish its core purpose, it’s broken. It’s a bug. Pretending it’s something a copywriter or marketing team can fix is pure deflection. The solution isn’t to relabel the problem, 1990’s telecom-style, just to avoid dealing with it. It’s to actually sit down, think, collaborate, and go through the issue, and getting real solutions out. ”No it’s not an issue, that’s how it works” like someone from a failing (and by now defunct) wallet told me once, is not a solution.

You got 21 seconds

The user can’t be onboarded because your software has an “issue”? In my book, that’s a bug. The usual response when you report it? “Yeah, that’s not a priority.” Well, guess what? It actually is a priority. All these small annoyances, hurdles, and bits of BS still plague this industry, and they make the whole experience miserable for regular people trying it out for the first time. The first 21 seconds (yeah, you see what I did there) are the most important when someone opens new software. If it doesn’t click right away—if they’re fiddling with sats or dollar signs, or hunting for some hidden setting buried behind a tiny arrow—it’s game over. They’re annoyed. They’re gone.

And this is exactly why we’re seeing a flood of shitcoin apps sweeping new users off their feet with "faster apps" or "nicer designs" apps that somehow can afford the UI specialists and slick, centralized setups to spread their lies and scams.

I hate to say it, but the Phantom wallet for example, for the Solana network, loaded with fake airdrop schemes and the most blatant scams — has a far better UX than most Bitcoin wallets and Lightning Wallets. Learn from it. Download that **** and get to know what we do wrong and how we can learn from the enemy.

That’s a hard truth. So, instead of just screaming “Uh, shitcooooin!” (yes, we know it is), maybe we should start learning from it. Their apps are better than ours in terms of UI and UX. They attract more people 5x faster (we know that’s also because of the fast gains and retardation playing with the marketing) but we can’t keep ignoring that. Somehow these apps attract more than our trustworthiness, our steady, secure, decentralized hard money truth.

It’s like stepping into one of the best Italian restaurants in town—supposedly. But then the menu’s a mess, the staff is scrolling on their phones, and something smells burnt coming from the kitchen. So, what do you do? You walk out. You cross the street to the fast food joint and order a burger and fries. And as you’re walking out with your food, someone from the Italian place yells at you: “Fast food is bad!” ”Yeah man I know, I wanted a nice Spaghetti aglio e olio, but here I am, digesting a cheeseburger that felt rather spongy.” (the problem is so gone so deep now, that users just walk past that Italian restaurant, don’t even recognize it as a restaurant because it doesn’t have cheeseburgers).

Fear of the dark

Technical people, not marketeers built bitcoin, it’s build on hundreds of small building blocks that interacted over time to have the bitcoin network and it’s immer evolving value. At one point David Chaum cooked up eCash, using blind signatures to let people send digital money anonymously — except it was still stuck on clunky centralized servers. Go back even further, to the 1970s, when Diffie, Hellman, and Rivest introduced public-key cryptography—the magic sauce that gave us secure digital signatures and authentication, making sure your messages stayed private and tamper-proof.

Fast forward to the 1990s, where peer-to-peer started to take off, decentralized networks getting started. Adam Back’s Hashcash in ‘97 used proof-of-work to fight email spam, and the cypherpunks were all about sticking it to the man with privacy-first, the invention 199 Human-Readable 128-bit keys3, decentralized systems. We started to swap files over p2p networks and later, torrents.

All these parts—anonymous cash, encryption, and leaderless networks finally clicked into place when Satoshi Nakamoto poured them into a chain of blocks, built on an ingenious “time-stamping” system: the timechain, or blockchain if you prefer. And just like that, Bitcoin was born—a peer-to-peer money system that didn’t need middlemen and actually worked without any central servers.

So yes, it’s only natural that Bitcoin and the many tools, born from math, obscurity, and cryptography, isn’t exactly always a user-interface darling. That’s also it’s charm for me in any case, as the core is robust and valuable beyond belief. That’s why we love to so see more use, more adoption.

But that doesn’t mean we can’t squash critical “show-stopper” bugs before releasing bitcoin-related software. And it sure as hell doesn’t mean we should act like jerks when a user points out something’s broken, confusing, or just doesn’t meet expectations. We can’t be complacent either about our role as builders of the next generations, as the core is hard money, and it would be a fatal mistake for the world to see it being used only for some rockstars from Wall Street and their counterparts to store their debt laden fiat. We can free people, make them better, make them elevate themselves. And yet, the people we try to elevate, we often alienate. All because we don’t test our stuff well enough. We should be so good, we blow the banking apps away. (they’re blowing themselves out of the market luckily with fiat “features” and overly over the top use of “analytics” to measure your carbon footprint for example).

We should be so damn professional that someone using Bitcoin apps for a full year wouldn’t even notice any bugs, because there wouldn’t be much to get annoyed by.

So… we have to do better. I’ve seen it time and time again — on Lightning tipping apps, Nostr plugins, wallets, hardware wallets, even metal plates we can screw up somehow … you name it. “It works on my machine”, isn’t enough anymore! Those days are over.

Even apps built with solid funding and strong dev and test teams like fedi.xyz4 can miss the mark. While the idea was good and the app itself ran fine without too much hurdles and usual bugs. But usability failed on a different front: there was just nothing meaningful to do in the app beyond poking around, chatting a bit, and sending a few sats back and forth. The communities it’s supposed to connect, just aren’t there, or weren’t there “yet”.

It’s a beautifully designed application and a strong proof-of-concept for federated community funds. But then… nothing. No one I know uses it. Their last blogpost was from beginning of October 2024, which doesn’t bode well, writing this than 6 months after. That said, they got some great onboarding going, usually under 20 seconds, which proves it can be done right (even if it was all a front-end for a more complex backend).

As you can see “usability” is a broad terminology, covering technical aspects, user-interface, but also use-cases. Even if you have a cool app that works really well and is well thought-out users won’t use it if there’s no real substance. You can’t get that critical mass by waiting for customers to come in or communities to embrace it. They won’t, because most of the individuals already had past experiences with bitcoin apps or services, and there’s a reason for them not being on-board already.

A lot of bitcoin companies build tools for new people. Never for the lapsed people, the persons that came in, thought of it as an investment or “a coin”… then left because of a bad experience or the price going down in fiat. All the while we have some software that usually isn’t so kind to new people, or causes loss of funds and time. Even if they make one little “mistake” of not knowing the system beforehand.

Bitcoin’s Moby Dick

\ Bitcoin itself has a big issue here. The user base could grow faster, and more robust, if there wasn’t software that worked as a sort of repellent against users.

I especially see a younger and less tech-savvy audience absolutely disliking the software we have now. No matter if it’s Electrum’s desktop wallet (hardly the sexiest tool out there, although I like it myself, but it lacks some features), Sparrow, or any lightning wallet out there (safe for WoS). I even saw people disliking Proton wallet, which I personally thought of as something really slick, well-made and polished. But even that doesn’t cut it for many people, as the “account” and “wallet” system wasn’t clear enough for them. (You see, we all have the same bias, because we know bitcoin, we look at it from a perspective of “facepalm, of course it’s a wallet named “account”, but when you sit next to a new user, it becomes clear that this is a hurdle. (please proton wallet: name a wallet a wallet, not “account”. But most users already in bitcoin, love what you’re doing)

Naturally disliking usability

The same technically brilliant people who maintain Bitcoin and build its apps haven’t quite tapped into their inner Steve Jobs—if that person even exists in the Bitcoin space. Let’s be honest: the next iOS-style wow moment, or the kind of frictionless usability seen in Spotify or Instagram, probably won’t come from hardcore Bitcoin devs alone. In fact, some builders in the space seem to actively disregard—or even look down on—discussions about usability. Just mention names like Wallet of Satoshi (yes, we all know it’s a custodial frontend) or the need for smoother interactions with Bitcoin, and you’ll get eye-rolls or defensive rants instead of curiosity or openness.

Moving more towards a better user interface for things like Sparrow or Bitcoin Core for example, would bring all kinds of “bad things” according to some, and on top of that, bring in new users (noobs) that ask questions like: “Do you burn all these sats when I make a transaction?” (Yes, that’s a real one.)

I get the “usability sucks” gripe — fear of losing key features, dumbing things down, or opening the door to unwanted changes (like BIP proposals real bitcoiners hate) that tweak bitcoin to suit any user’s whim. Close to no one in bitcoin (really in bitcoin!) wants that, including me.

That fear is however largely unfounded; because Bitcoin doesn’t change without consensus. Any change that would undermine its core use or value proposition simply won’t make it through. And let’s be honest: most of the users who crave these “faster,” centralized alternatives—those drawn to slick apps, one-click solutions, and dopamine-driven UI—will either stick with fiat, ape into the shitcoin-of-the-month, or praise the shiny new CBDC once it drops (“much fast, much cool”). These degen types, chasing fiat gains and jackpot dreams, aren’t relevant to this story, No matter what we build for bitcoin, they’ll always love the fiat-story and will always dislike bitcoin because it’s not a jackpot for them. (Honestly, why don’t they just gamble at a casino?)

People who fear that improving usability will somehow bring down the Bitcoin network are being a bit too paranoid—and honestly, they often don’t understand what usability or proper testing actually means.

They treat it like fluff, when in reality it's fundamental. Usability doesn't mean dumbing things down or compromising Bitcoin's core values; it means understanding why your fancy new app isn’t being used by anyone outside of your bubble. Testing is the beating heart of getting things out with confidence. Nothing more satisfying in software building than to proudly show even your beta versions to users, knowing it’s well tested. It’s much more than clicking a few buttons and tossing your code on GitHub. It's about asking real questions: can someone outside your Telegram group actually use this and will it they be using the software at all?

If you create a Nostr app that opens an in-app browser window and then tries to log you in with your NIPS05 or NIPS07 or whatever number it is that authenticates you, then you need to think about how it’s going to work in real life. Have people already visited this underlying website? Is that website using the exact same mechanism? Is it really working like we think it is in the real world? (Some notable good things are happening with the development of Keychat for example, I have the feeling they get it, it’s not all bad). And yes, there are still bugs and things to improve there, they’re just starting. (The browser section and nostr login need some work imho).

Guess what? You can test your stuff. But it takes time and effort. The kind of effort that, if skipped, gets multiplied across thousands of people. Thousands of people wasting their time trying to use your app, hitting errors, assuming they did something wrong, retrying, googling workarounds—only to eventually realize: it’s not them. It’s a bug. A bug you didn’t catch. Because you didn’t test. And now everyone loses. And guess what? Those users? They’re not coming back.

A good example (to stay positive here) is Fountain App, where the first versions were , eh… let’s say not so good, and then quickly evolved into a company and product that works really well, and also listens to their users and fixes their bugs. The interface can still be better in my opinion, but it’s getting there. And it’s super good now.

A bad example? Alby. (Sorry to say.) It still suffers from a bloated, clunky interface and an onboarding flow that utterly confuses new or returning users. It just doesn’t get the job done. Opinions may vary, sure, but hand this app to any non-technical user and ask them to get online and do a Nostr zap. Watch what happens. If they even manage to get through the initial setup, that is.

Another example? Bitkit. When I tried transferring funds from the "savings" to the "spending" account, the wallet silently opened a Lightning channel—no warning, no explanation—and suddenly my coins were locked up. To make things worse, the wallet still showed the full balance as spendable, even though part of it was now stuck in that channel. That was in November 2024, the last time I touched Bitkit. I wasted too much time trying to figure it out, I haven’t looked back (assuming the project is even still alive, I didn’t see them pop up anywhere).

Some metal BIP39 backup tools are great in theory but poorly executed. I bought one that didn’t even include a simple instruction on how to open it. The person I gave it to spent two hours trying to open it with a screwdriver and even attempted drilling. Turns out, it just slides open with some pressure. A simple instruction would’ve saved all that frustration.

Builders often assume users “just get it,” but a small guide could’ve prevented all the hassle. It’s a small step, but it’s crucial for better user experience. So why not avoid such situations and put a friggin cheap piece of paper in the box so people know how to open it? (The creators would probably facepalm if they read this, “how can users nòt see this?”). Yeah,… put a paper in there with instructions.

That’s natural, because as a creator you’re “in” it, you know. You don’t see how others would overlook something so obvious.

Bitcoiners are extremely bad on that front.

I’ll dive deeper into some examples in part 2 of this post.

By AVB

end of part 1

If you like to support independent thought and writings on bitcoin, follow this substack please https://coinos.io/allesvoorbitcoin/receive\ \ footnotes:

1 https://philzimmermann.com/EN/findpgp/

2 BTC sessions: set up a bitcoin node

3 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1751

4 https://www.fedi.xyz/

@ bbef5093:71228592

India csökkentené az atomerőművek építési idejét ambiciózus nukleáris céljai eléréséhez

India célja, hogy a jelenlegi 10 évről a „világszínvonalú” 6 évre csökkentse atomerőművi projektjeinek kivitelezési idejét, hogy elérje a 2047-re kitűzött, 100 GW beépített nukleáris kapacitást.

Az SBI Capital Markets (az Indiai Állami Bank befektetési banki leányvállalata) jelentése szerint ez segítene mérsékelni a korábbi költségtúllépéseket, és vonzóbbá tenné az országot a globális befektetők számára.

A jelentés szerint a jelenlegi, mintegy 8 GW kapacitás és a csak 7 GW-nyi építés alatt álló kapacitás mellett „jelentős gyorsítás” szükséges a célok eléréséhez.

A kormány elindította a „nukleáris energia missziót”, amelyhez körülbelül 2,3 milliárd dollárt (2 milliárd eurót) különített el K+F-re és legalább öt Bharat kis moduláris reaktor (BSMR) telepítésére, de további kihívásokat kell megoldania a célok eléréséhez.

Az építési idők csökkentése kulcsfontosságú, de a jelentés átfogó rendszerszintű reformokat is javasol, beleértve a gyorsabb engedélyezést, a földszerzési szabályok egyszerűsítését, az erőművek körüli védőtávolság csökkentését, és a szabályozó hatóság (Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) nagyobb önállóságát.

A jelentés szerint a nemzet korlátozott uránkészletei miatt elengedhetetlen az üzemanyagforrások diverzifikálása nemzetközi megállapodások révén, valamint az indiai nukleáris program 2. és 3. szakaszának felgyorsítása.

India háromlépcsős nukleáris programja célja egy zárt üzemanyagciklus kialakítása, amely a természetes uránra, a plutóniumra és végül a tóriumra épül. A 2. szakaszban gyorsneutronos reaktorokat használnak, amelyek több energiát nyernek ki az uránból, kevesebb bányászott uránt igényelnek, és a fel nem használt uránt új üzemanyaggá alakítják. A 3. szakaszban fejlett reaktorok működnek majd India hatalmas tóriumkészleteire alapozva.

2025 januárjában az indiai Nuclear Power Corporation (NPCIL) pályázatot írt ki Bharat SMR-ek telepítésére, először nyitva meg a nukleáris szektort indiai magáncégek előtt.

Eddig csak az állami tulajdonú NPCIL építhetett és üzemeltethetett kereskedelmi atomerőműveket Indiában.

A Bharat SMR-ek (a „Bharat” hindiül Indiát jelent) telepítése a „Viksit Bharat” („Fejlődő India”) program része.

Engedélyezési folyamat: „elhúzódó és egymásra épülő”

A Bharat atomerőmű fejlesztésének részletei továbbra sem világosak, de Nirmala Sitharaman pénzügyminiszter júliusban elmondta, hogy az állami National Thermal Power Corporation és a Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited közös vállalkozásában valósulna meg a fejlesztés.

Sitharaman hozzátette, hogy a kormány a magánszektorral közösen létrehozna egy Bharat Small Reactors nevű céget, amely SMR-ek és új nukleáris technológiák kutatás-fejlesztésével foglalkozna.

Az SBI jelentése szerint javítani kell az SMR programot, mert az engedélyezési folyamat jelenleg „elhúzódó és egymásra épülő”, és aránytalan kockázatot jelent a magánszereplők számára a reaktorfejlesztés során.

A program „stratégiailag jó helyzetben van a sikerhez”, mert szigorú belépési feltételeket támaszt, így csak komoly és alkalmas szereplők vehetnek részt benne.

A kormánynak azonban be kellene vezetnie egy kártérítési záradékot, amely védi a magáncégeket az üzemanyag- és nehézvíz-ellátás hiányától, amely az Atomenergia Minisztérium (DAE) hatáskörébe tartozik.

A jelentés szerint mind az üzemanyag, mind a nehézvíz ellátása a DAE-től függ, és „a hozzáférés hiánya” problémát jelenthet. India legtöbb kereskedelmi atomerőműve hazai fejlesztésű, nyomottvizes nehézvizes reaktor.

A jelentés szerint: „A meglévő szabályozási hiányosságok kezelése kulcsfontosságú, hogy a magánszektor vezethesse a kitűzött 100 GW nukleáris kapacitás 50%-ának fejlesztését 2047-ig.”

Az NPCIL nemrégiben közölte, hogy India 2031–32-ig további 18 reaktort kíván hozzáadni az energiamixhez, ezzel az ország nukleáris kapacitása 22,4 GW-ra nő.

A Nemzetközi Atomenergia-ügynökség adatai szerint Indiában 21 reaktor üzemel kereskedelmi forgalomban, amelyek 2023-ban az ország áramtermelésének körülbelül 3%-át adták. Hat egység van építés alatt.

---

Roszatom pert indított a leállított Hanhikivi-1 projekt miatt Finnországban

Az orosz állami Roszatom atomenergetikai vállalat pert indított Moszkvában a finn Fortum és Outokumpu cégek ellen, és 227,8 milliárd rubel (2,8 milliárd dollár, 2,4 milliárd euró) kártérítést követel a finnországi Hanhikivi-1 atomerőmű szerződésének felmondása miatt – derül ki bírósági dokumentumokból és a Roszatom közleményéből.

A Roszatom a „mérnöki, beszerzési és kivitelezési (EPC) szerződés jogellenes felmondása”, a részvényesi megállapodás, az üzemanyag-ellátási szerződés megsértése, valamint a kölcsön visszafizetésének megtagadása miatt követel kártérítést.

A Fortum a NucNetnek e-mailben azt írta, hogy „nem kapott hivatalos értesítést orosz perről”.

A Fortum 2025. április 29-i negyedéves jelentésében közölte, hogy a Roszatom finn leányvállalata, a Raos Project, valamint a Roszatom nemzetközi divíziója, a JSC Rusatom Energy International, illetve a Fennovoima (a Hanhikivi projektért felelős finn konzorcium) között a Hanhikivi EPC szerződésével kapcsolatban nemzetközi választottbírósági eljárás zajlik.

2025 februárjában a választottbíróság úgy döntött, hogy nincs joghatósága a Fortummal szembeni követelések ügyében. „Ez a döntés végleges volt, így a Fortum nem része a választottbírósági eljárásnak” – közölte a cég.

A Fortum 2015-ben kisebbségi tulajdonos lett a Fennovoima projektben, de a teljes tulajdonrészt 2020-ban leírta.

A Fennovoima konzorcium, amelyben a Roszatom a Raos-on keresztül 34%-os kisebbségi részesedéssel rendelkezett, 2022 májusában felmondta a Hanhikivi-1 létesítésére vonatkozó szerződést az ukrajnai háború miatti késedelmek és megnövekedett kockázatok miatt.

A projekt technológiája az orosz AES-2006 típusú nyomottvizes reaktor lett volna.

2021 áprilisában a Fennovoima közölte, hogy a projekt teljes beruházási költsége 6,5–7 milliárd euróról 7–7,5 milliárd euróra nőtt.

2022 augusztusában a Roszatom és a Fennovoima kölcsönösen milliárdos kártérítési igényt nyújtott be egymás ellen a projekt leállítása miatt.

A Fennovoima nemzetközi választottbírósági eljárást indított 1,7 milliárd euró előleg visszafizetéséért. A Roszatom 3 milliárd eurós ellenkeresetet nyújtott be. Ezek az ügyek jelenleg is nemzetközi bíróságok előtt vannak.

---

Dél-koreai delegáció Csehországba utazik nukleáris szerződés aláírására

Egy dél-koreai delegáció 2025. május 6-án Csehországba utazik, hogy részt vegyen egy több milliárd dolláros szerződés aláírásán, amely két új atomerőmű építéséről szól a Dukovany telephelyen – közölte a dél-koreai kereskedelmi, ipari és energetikai minisztérium.

A delegáció, amelyben kormányzati és parlamenti tisztviselők is vannak, kétnapos prágai látogatásra indul, hogy részt vegyen a szerdára tervezett aláírási ceremónián.

A küldöttség találkozik Petr Fiala cseh miniszterelnökkel és Milos Vystrcil szenátusi elnökkel is, hogy megvitassák a Dukovany projektet.

Fiala múlt héten bejelentette, hogy Prága május 7-én írja alá a Dukovany szerződést a Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP) céggel.

A cseh versenyhivatal nemrég engedélyezte a szerződés aláírását a KHNP-vel, miután elutasította a francia EDF fellebbezését.

A versenyhivatal április 24-i döntése megerősítette a korábbi ítéletet, amelyet az EDF megtámadott, miután 2024 júliusában elvesztette a tenderpályázatot a KHNP-vel szemben.

Ez lehetővé teszi, hogy a két dél-koreai APR1400 reaktor egység szerződését aláírják Dukovanyban, Dél-Csehországban. A szerződés az ország történetének legnagyobb energetikai beruházása, értéke legalább 400 milliárd korona (16 milliárd euró, 18 milliárd dollár).

A szerződést eredetileg márciusban írták volna alá, de a vesztes pályázók (EDF, Westinghouse) fellebbezései, dél-koreai politikai bizonytalanságok és a cseh cégek lokalizációs igényei miatt csúszott.

A KHNP januárban rendezte a szellemi tulajdonjogi vitát a Westinghouse-zal, amely korábban azt állította, hogy a KHNP az ő technológiáját használja az APR1400 reaktorokban.

A szerződés aláírása Dél-Korea első külföldi atomerőmű-építési projektje lesz 2009 óta, amikor a KHNP négy APR1400 reaktort épített az Egyesült Arab Emírségekben, Barakahban.

Csehországban hat kereskedelmi reaktor működik: négy orosz VVER-440-es Dukovanyban, két nagyobb VVER-1000-es Temelínben. Az IAEA szerint ezek az egységek a cseh áramtermelés mintegy 36,7%-át adják.

---

Az USA-nak „minél előbb” új reaktort kell építenie – mondta a DOE jelöltje a szenátusi bizottság előtt

Az USA-nak minél előbb új atomerőművet kell építenie, és elő kell mozdítania a fejlett reaktorok fejlesztését, engedélyezését és telepítését – hangzott el a szenátusi energiaügyi bizottság előtt.

Ted Garrish, aki a DOE nukleáris energiaügyi helyettes államtitkári posztjára jelöltként jelent meg, elmondta: az országnak új reaktort kell telepítenie, legyen az nagy, kis moduláris vagy mikroreaktor.

Az USA-ban jelenleg nincs épülő kereskedelmi atomerőmű, az utolsó kettő, a Vogtle-3 és Vogtle-4 2023-ban, illetve 2024-ben indult el Georgiában.

„A nukleáris energia kivételes lehetőség a növekvő villamosenergia-igény megbízható, megfizethető és biztonságos kielégítésére” – mondta Garrish, aki tapasztalt atomenergetikai vezető. Szerinte az USA-nak nemzetbiztonsági okokból is fejlesztenie kell a hazai urándúsító ipart.

Vizsgálni kell a nemzetközi piacot és a kormányközi megállapodások lehetőségét az amerikai nukleáris fejlesztők és ellátási láncok számára, valamint meg kell oldani a kiégett fűtőelemek elhelyezésének problémáját.

1987-ben a Kongresszus a nevadai Yucca Mountain-t jelölte ki a kiégett fűtőelemek végleges tárolóhelyének, de 2009-ben az Obama-adminisztráció leállította a projektet.

Az USA-ban az 1950-es évek óta mintegy 83 000 tonna radioaktív hulladék, köztük kiégett fűtőelem halmozódott fel, amelyet jelenleg acél- és betonkonténerekben tárolnak az erőművek telephelyein.

Garrish korábban a DOE nemzetközi ügyekért felelős helyettes államtitkára volt (2018–2021), jelenleg az Egyesült Haladó Atomenergia Szövetség igazgatótanácsának elnöke.

---

Egyéb hírek

Szlovénia közös munkát sürget az USA-val a nukleáris energiában:
Az USA és Horvátország tisztviselői együttműködésről tárgyaltak Közép- és Délkelet-Európa energiaellátásának diverzifikálása érdekében, különös tekintettel a kis moduláris reaktorokra (SMR). Horvátország és Szlovénia közösen tulajdonolja a szlovéniai Krško atomerőművet, amely egyetlen 696 MW-os nyomottvizes reaktorával Horvátország áramfogyasztásának 16%-át, Szlovéniáénak 20%-át adja. Szlovénia fontolgatja egy második blokk építését, de tavaly elhalasztotta az erről szóló népszavazást.

Malawi engedélyezi a Kayelekera uránbánya újraindítását:
A Malawi Atomenergia Hatóság kiadta a sugárbiztonsági engedélyt a Lotus (Africa) Limited számára, így újraindulhat a Kayelekera uránbánya, amely több mint egy évtizede, 2014 óta állt a zuhanó uránárak és biztonsági problémák miatt. A bánya 85%-át az ausztrál Lotus Resources helyi leányvállalata birtokolja. A Lotus szerint a bánya újraindítása teljesen finanszírozott, kb. 43 millió dollár (37 millió euró) tőkével.

Venezuela és Irán nukleáris együttműködést tervez:
Venezuela és Irán a nukleáris tudomány és technológia terén való együttműködésről tárgyalt. Az iráni állami média szerint Mohammad Eslami, az Iráni Atomenergia Szervezet vezetője és Alberto Quintero, Venezuela tudományos miniszterhelyettese egyetemi és kutatási programok elindításáról egyeztetett. Venezuelában nincs kereskedelmi atomerőmű, de 2010-ben Oroszországgal írt alá megállapodást új atomerőművek lehetőségéről. Iránnak egy működő atomerőműve van Bushehr-1-nél, egy másik ugyanott épül, mindkettőt Oroszország szállította.

@ b6dcdddf:dfee5ee7

You can now fund projects on Geyser using Credit Cards, Apple Pay, Bank Transfers, and more.

The best part: 🧾 You pay in fiat and ⚡️ the creator receives Bitcoin.

You heard it right! Let's dive in 👇

First, how does it work? For contributors, it's easy! Once the project creator has verified their identity, anyone can contribute with fiat methods. Simply go through the usual contribution flow and select 'Pay with Fiat'. The first contribution is KYC-free.

Why does this matter? 1. Many Bitcoiners don't want to spend their Bitcoin: 👉 Number go up (NgU) 👉 Capital gains taxes With fiat contributions, there's no more excuse to contribute towards Bitcoin builders and creators! 2. Non-bitcoin holders want to support projects too. If someone loves your mission but only has a debit card, they used to be stuck. Now? They can back your Bitcoin project with familiar fiat tools. Now, they can do it all through Geyser!

So, why swap fiat into Bitcoin? Because Bitcoin is borderless. Fiat payouts are limited to certain countries, banks, and red tape. By auto-swapping fiat to Bitcoin, we ensure: 🌍 Instant payouts to creators all around the world ⚡️ No delays or restrictions 💥 Every contribution is also a silent Bitcoin buy

How to enable Fiat contributions If you’re a creator, it’s easy: - Go to your Dashboard → Wallet - Click “Enable Fiat Contributions” - Complete a quick ID verification (required by our payment provider) ✅ That’s it — your project is now open to global fiat supporters.

Supporting Bitcoin adoption At Geyser, our mission is to empower Bitcoin creators and builders. Adding fiat options amplifies our mission. It brings more people into the ecosystem while staying true to what we believe: ⚒️ Build on Bitcoin 🌱 Fund impactful initiatives 🌎 Enable global participation

**Support projects with fiat now! ** We've compiled a list of projects that currently have fiat contributions enabled. If you've been on the fence to support them because you didn't want to spend your Bitcoin, now's the time to do your first contribution!

Education - Citadel Dispatch: https://geyser.fund/project/citadel - @FREEMadeiraOrg: https://geyser.fund/project/freemadeira - @MyfirstBitcoin_: https://geyser.fund/project/miprimerbitcoin

Circular Economies - @BitcoinEkasi: https://geyser.fund/project/bitcoinekasi - Madagascar Bitcoin: https://geyser.fund/project/madagasbit - @BitcoinChatt : https://geyser.fund/project/bitcoinchatt - Uganda Gayaza BTC Market: https://geyser.fund/project/gayazabtcmarket

Activism - Education Bitcoin Channel: https://geyser.fund/project/streamingsats

Sports - The Sats Fighter Journey: https://geyser.fund/project/thesatsfighterjourney

Culture - Bitcoin Tarot Cards: https://geyser.fund/project/bitcointarotcard

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/973003

@ 2e8970de:63345c7a

https://www.epi.org/blog/wage-growth-since-1979-has-not-been-stagnant-but-it-has-definitely-been-suppressed/

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/972959

@ 40bdcc08:ad00fd2c

Introduction

Bitcoin’s OP_RETURN opcode, a mechanism for embedding small data in transactions, has ignited a significant debate within the Bitcoin community. Originally designed to support limited metadata while preserving Bitcoin’s role as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system, OP_RETURN is now at the center of proposals that could redefine Bitcoin’s identity. The immutable nature of Bitcoin’s timechain makes it an attractive platform for data storage, creating tension with those who prioritize its monetary function. This discussion, particularly around Bitcoin Core pull request #32406 (GitHub PR #32406), highlights a critical juncture for Bitcoin’s future.

What is OP_RETURN?

Introduced in 2014, OP_RETURN allows users to attach up to 80 bytes of data to a Bitcoin transaction. Unlike other transaction outputs, OP_RETURN outputs are provably unspendable, meaning they don’t burden the Unspent Transaction Output (UTXO) set—a critical database for Bitcoin nodes. This feature was a compromise to provide a standardized, less harmful way to include metadata, addressing earlier practices that embedded data in ways that bloated the UTXO set. The 80-byte limit and restriction to one OP_RETURN output per transaction are part of Bitcoin Core’s standardness rules, which guide transaction relay and mining but are not enforced by the network’s consensus rules (Bitcoin Stack Exchange).

Standardness vs. Consensus Rules

Standardness rules are Bitcoin Core’s default policies for relaying and mining transactions. They differ from consensus rules, which define what transactions are valid across the entire network. For OP_RETURN: - Consensus Rules: Allow OP_RETURN outputs with data up to the maximum script size (approximately 10,000 bytes) and multiple outputs per transaction (Bitcoin Stack Exchange). - Standardness Rules: Limit OP_RETURN data to 80 bytes and one output per transaction to discourage excessive data storage and maintain network efficiency.

Node operators can adjust these policies using settings like -datacarrier (enables/disables OP_RETURN relay) and -datacarriersize (sets the maximum data size, defaulting to 83 bytes to account for the OP_RETURN opcode and pushdata byte). These settings allow flexibility but reflect Bitcoin Core’s default stance on limiting data usage.

The Proposal: Pull Request #32406

Bitcoin Core pull request #32406, proposed by developer instagibbs, seeks to relax these standardness restrictions (GitHub PR #32406). Key changes include: - Removing Default Size Limits: The default -datacarriersize would be uncapped, allowing larger OP_RETURN data without a predefined limit. - Allowing Multiple Outputs: The restriction to one OP_RETURN output per transaction would be lifted, with the total data size across all outputs subject to a configurable limit. - Deprecating Configuration Options: The -datacarrier and -datacarriersize settings are marked as deprecated, signaling potential removal in future releases, which could limit node operators’ ability to enforce custom restrictions.

This proposal does not alter consensus rules, meaning miners and nodes can already accept transactions with larger or multiple OP_RETURN outputs. Instead, it changes Bitcoin Core’s default relay policy to align with existing practices, such as miners accepting non-standard transactions via services like Marathon Digital’s Slipstream (CoinDesk).

Node Operator Flexibility

Currently, node operators can customize OP_RETURN handling: - Default Settings: Relay transactions with one OP_RETURN output up to 80 bytes. - Custom Settings: Operators can disable OP_RETURN relay (-datacarrier=0) or adjust the size limit (e.g., -datacarriersize=100). These options remain in #32406 but are deprecated, suggesting that future Bitcoin Core versions might not support such customization, potentially standardizing the uncapped policy.

Arguments in Favor of Relaxing Limits

Supporters of pull request #32406 and similar proposals argue that the current restrictions are outdated and ineffective. Their key points include: - Ineffective Limits: Developers bypass the 80-byte limit using methods like Inscriptions, which store data in other transaction parts, often at higher cost and inefficiency (BitcoinDev Mailing List). Relaxing OP_RETURN could channel data into a more efficient format. - Preventing UTXO Bloat: By encouraging OP_RETURN use, which doesn’t affect the UTXO set, the proposal could reduce reliance on harmful alternatives like unspendable Taproot outputs used by projects like Citrea’s Clementine bridge. - Supporting Innovation: Projects like Citrea require more data (e.g., 144 bytes) for security proofs, and relaxed limits could enable new Layer 2 solutions (CryptoSlate). - Code Simplification: Developers like Peter Todd argue that these limits complicate Bitcoin Core’s codebase unnecessarily (CoinGeek). - Aligning with Practice: Miners already process non-standard transactions, and uncapping defaults could improve fee estimation and reduce reliance on out-of-band services, as noted by ismaelsadeeq in the pull request discussion.

In the GitHub discussion, developers like Sjors and TheCharlatan expressed support (Concept ACK), citing these efficiency and innovation benefits.

Arguments Against Relaxing Limits

Opponents, including prominent developers and community members, raise significant concerns about the implications of these changes: - Deviation from Bitcoin’s Purpose: Critics like Luke Dashjr, who called the proposal “utter insanity,” argue that Bitcoin’s base layer should prioritize peer-to-peer cash, not data storage (CoinDesk). Jason Hughes warned it could turn Bitcoin into a “worthless altcoin” (BeInCrypto). - Blockchain Bloat: Additional data increases the storage and processing burden on full nodes, potentially making node operation cost-prohibitive and threatening decentralization (CryptoSlate). - Network Congestion: Unrestricted data could lead to “spam” transactions, raising fees and hindering Bitcoin’s use for financial transactions. - Risk of Illicit Content: The timechain’s immutability means data, including potentially illegal or objectionable content, is permanently stored on every node. The 80-byte limit acts as a practical barrier, and relaxing it could exacerbate this issue. - Preserving Consensus: Developers like John Carvalho view the limits as a hard-won community agreement, not to be changed lightly.

In the pull request discussion, nsvrn and moth-oss expressed concerns about spam and centralization, advocating for gradual changes. Concept NACKs from developers like wizkid057 and Luke Dashjr reflect strong opposition.

Community Feedback

The GitHub discussion for pull request #32406 shows a divided community: - Support (Concept ACK): Sjors, polespinasa, ismaelsadeeq, miketwenty1, TheCharlatan, Psifour. - Opposition (Concept NACK): wizkid057, BitcoinMechanic, Retropex, nsvrn, moth-oss, Luke Dashjr. - Other: Peter Todd provided a stale ACK, indicating partial or outdated support.

Additional discussions on the BitcoinDev mailing list and related pull requests (e.g., #32359 by Peter Todd) highlight similar arguments, with #32359 proposing a more aggressive removal of all OP_RETURN limits and configuration options (GitHub PR #32359).

| Feedback Type | Developers | Key Points | |---------------|------------|------------| | Concept ACK | Sjors, ismaelsadeeq, others | Improves efficiency, supports innovation, aligns with mining practices. | | Concept NACK | Luke Dashjr, wizkid057, others | Risks bloat, spam, centralization, and deviation from Bitcoin’s purpose. | | Stale ACK | Peter Todd | Acknowledges proposal but with reservations or outdated support. |

Workarounds and Their Implications

The existence of workarounds, such as Inscriptions, which exploit SegWit discounts to embed data, is a key argument for relaxing OP_RETURN limits. These methods are costlier and less efficient, often costing more than OP_RETURN for data under 143 bytes (BitcoinDev Mailing List). Supporters argue that formalizing larger OP_RETURN data could streamline these use cases. Critics, however, see workarounds as a reason to strengthen, not weaken, restrictions, emphasizing the need to address underlying incentives rather than accommodating bypasses.

Ecosystem Pressures

External factors influence the debate: - Miners: Services like Marathon Digital’s Slipstream process non-standard transactions for a fee, showing that market incentives already bypass standardness rules. - Layer 2 Projects: Citrea’s Clementine bridge, requiring more data for security proofs, exemplifies the demand for relaxed limits to support innovative applications. - Community Dynamics: The debate echoes past controversies, like the Ordinals debate, where data storage via inscriptions raised similar concerns about Bitcoin’s purpose (CoinDesk).

Bitcoin’s Identity at Stake

The OP_RETURN debate is not merely technical but philosophical, questioning whether Bitcoin should remain a focused monetary system or evolve into a broader data platform. Supporters see relaxed limits as a pragmatic step toward efficiency and innovation, while opponents view them as a risk to Bitcoin’s decentralization, accessibility, and core mission. The community’s decision will have lasting implications, affecting node operators, miners, developers, and users.

Conclusion

As Bitcoin navigates this crossroads, the community must balance the potential benefits of relaxed OP_RETURN limits—such as improved efficiency and support for new applications—against the risks of blockchain bloat, network congestion, and deviation from its monetary roots. The ongoing discussion, accessible via pull request #32406 on GitHub (GitHub PR #32406). Readers are encouraged to explore the debate and contribute to ensuring that any changes align with Bitcoin’s long-term goals as a decentralized, secure, and reliable system.