@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni prevod na ecd.rs

Bitcoin: Peer-to-peer sistem elektronskog novca

Satoshi Nakamoto

satoshin@gmx.com

www.bitcoin.org

Translated in Serbian from bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf by ECD

Sažetak. Potpuna peer-to-peer verzija elektronskog novca omogućila bi slanje uplata putem interneta direktno od jedne strane ka drugoj bez posredovanja finansijskih institucija. Digitalni potpisi pružaju deo rešenja, ali se glavni benefiti gube ako je i dalje potrebna pouzdana treća strana za sprečavanje dvostruke potrošnje. Predlažemo rešenje problema dvostruke potrošnje korišćenjem peer-to-peer mreže. Mreža vremenski označava transakcije tako što ih hešuje u tekući lanac dokaza o radu (proof of work) temeljen na hešu, formirajući zapis koji se ne može promeniti bez ponovnog rada i objavljivanja dokaza o tom radu. Najduži lanac ne služi samo kao dokaz niza događaja, nego i kao dokaz da je taj niz događaja potvrđen od strane dela peer-to-peer mreže koja poseduju najveću zbirnu procesorsku snagu (CPU). Sve dok većinu procesorske snage kontrolišu čvorovi (nodes) koji ne sarađuju u napadu na mrežu, oni će generisati najduži lanac i nadmašiti napadače. Sama mreža zahteva minimalnu strukturu. Poruke kroz mrežu se prenose uz pretpostavku da svaki čvor čini maksimalan napor da poruku prenese u svom izvornom obliku i na optimalan način, a čvorovi mogu napustiti mrežu i ponovo joj se pridružiti po želji, prihvatajući najduži lanac dokaza o radu kao dokaz onoga što se dogodilo dok ih nije bilo.

1. Uvod

Trgovina na Internetu počela je da se oslanja skoro isključivo na finansijske institucije koje služe kao pouzdani posrednici pri obradi elektronskih plaćanja. Iako sistem radi dovoljno dobro za većinu transakcija i dalje trpi od inherentnih slabosti modela utemeljenog na poverenju.

Potpuno nepovratne transakcije zapravo nisu moguće, jer finansijske institucije ne mogu izbeći posredovanje u rešavanju eventualnih sporova. Troškovi posredovanja povećavaju troškove transakcija, ograničavaju minimalnu praktičnu veličinu transakcija i onemogućuju male, povremene transakcije jer postoji velika šteta zbog gubitka mogućnosti da se izvrše nepovratna plaćanja za nepovratne usluge. Uz mogućnost povraćaja transakcije, potreba za poverenjem raste. Trgovci moraju biti oprezni prema svojim kupcima i tražiti im više informacija nego što bi inače bilo neophodno. Određeni procenat prevara prihvaćen je kao neizbežan. Ovi troškovi i nepouzdanost plaćanja mogu se izbeći korišćenjem gotovine, ali ne postoji mehanizam za elektronsko plaćanje bez pouzdane treće strane.

Ono što je potrebno je elektronski sistem plaćanja zasnovan na kriptografskom dokazu umesto na poverenju, koji omogućava da bilo koje dve strane direktno i dobrovoljno međusobno trguju bez potrebe za posrednikom. Transakcije koje su nepovratne bi zaštitile prodavce od prevara, a escrow mehanizmi mogli bi se lako implementirati radi zaštite kupaca. U ovom dokumentu predlažemo rešenje problema dvostruke potrošnje korišćenjem peer-to-peer distribuiranog servera vremenskih oznaka (timestamp) za generisanje računarskog dokaza o hronološkom redosledu transakcija. Sistem je siguran sve dok pošteni čvorovi zajedno kontrolišu više procesorske snage procesora nego bilo koja udružena grupa napadačkih čvorova.

2. Transakcije

Elektronski novčić definišemo kao lanac digitalnih potpisa. Svaki vlasnik prenosi novčić na sledećeg digitalnim potpisivanjem heša prethodne transakcije i javnog ključa sledećeg vlasnika, dodajući ih potom na kraj novčića. Primalac transakcije može da verifikuje potpise, a time i lanac vlasništva.

Problem je naravno u tome što primalac ne može potvrditi da jedan od prethodnih vlasnika nije dva puta poslao isti novčić. Uobičajeno rešenje je uvođenje pouzdanog centralizovanog posrednika, kreatora novčića koji proverava sve transakcije. Nakon svake transakcije, novčić se mora vratiti kreatoru kako bi se izdao novi novčić i veruje se da samo za novčiće izdate direktno od kreatora možemo biti sigurni da nisu dva puta potrošeni. Problem sa ovim rešenjem je što sudbina čitavog novčanog sistema zavisi od kompanije koja kreira novčiće, jer svaka transakcija mora da prođe kroz nju, baš kao što je slučaj sa bankom.

Treba nam način da primalac bude siguran da prethodni vlasnici nisu potpisali nikakve ranije transakcije kojim bi potrošili taj novčić. Za naše potrebe, računamo transakciju koja se prva desila i ne zanimaju nas naredni pokušaji da se isti novčić ponovo pošalje. Jedini način da sa sigurnošću potvrdimo da taj novčić nije prethodno bio poslat je da imamo informacije o svim transakcijama koje su se ikada desile. U modelu baziranom na centalizovan kreatoru, taj kreator je imao informacije o svim transakcijama i odlučivao koja transakcija je prva stigla. Da bismo to postigli bez pouzdanog posrednika, transakcije moraju biti javno objavljene [1] i potreban nam je sistem u kojem učesnici mogu da se dogovore o jedinstvenoj istoriji redosleda kojim su transakcije primljene. Primaocu je potreban dokaz da se u trenutku dešavanja svake od transakcija većina čvorova složila oko toga da je baš ta transakcija bila ona koja je prva primljena.

3. Server vremenskih oznaka

Rešenje koje predlažemo počinje serverom vremenskih oznaka. Server vremenske oznake radi tako što uzima heš bloka podataka kojem će se dodeliti vremenska oznaka i objavi taj heš svima u mreži, slično kao u novinama ili kao post na Usenet mreži [2-5]. Vremenska oznaka očigledno dokazuje da su podaci morali postojati u to vreme kako bi ušli u haš. Svaka vremenska oznaka sadrži prethodnu vremensku oznaku u svom hešu, formirajući tako lanac, pri čemu svaka dodatna vremenska oznaka pojačava potvrde onih pre nje.

4. Dokaz o radu (Proof-of-Work)

Da bismo implementirali distribuirani server vremenskih oznaka na peer-to-peer principu, moraćemo da koristimo sistem dokaza o radu sličan Hashcash-u Adama Back-a [6], umesto Uneset postova ili novinskih objava. Dokaz o radu uključuje traženje vrednosti koja će, kada se hešuje, na primer pomoću SHA-256 heš funkcije, stvarati heš čiji binarni zapis započinje određenim brojem nula. Prosečna količina potrebnog rada eksponencijalno raste sa brojem potrebnih početnih nula, a može se proveriti izvršavanjem samo jedne heš fuknkcije.

Za našu mrežu vremenskih oznaka implementiramo dokaz o radu povećavajući nonce broja u bloku sve dok se ne pronađe ona vrednost nonce-a koja daje hešu bloka potreban broj početnih nula. Jednom kada se procesorska snaga utroši kako bi se zadovoljio dokaz o radu, blok se ne može izmeniti bez ponovljenog rada. Kako se kasniji blokovi vežu na taj blok, rad potreban da se on izmeni uključivao bi i ponovno obrađivanje svih blokova nakon njega.

Dokaz o radu takođe rešava problem utvrđivanja većine pri odlučivanju. Ako bi se ​​većina zasnivala na principu jednog glasa po IP adresi, mogao bi je narušiti svako ko je u stanju da glasa sa više IP adresa odjednom. Dokaz o radu u osnovi predstavlja jedan glas po jedinici procesorske snage. Većinska odluka je predstavljena najdužim lancem u čije je stvaranje zapravo investirano najviše rada prilikom dokazivanja. Ako većinu procesorske snage kontrolišu pošteni čvorovi, pošten lanac će rasti najbrže i nadmašiće sve konkurentske lance. Da bi izmenio neki od prethodnih blokova, napadač bi morao da ponovi dokaz o radu za taj blok i sve blokove nakon njega, a zatim da sustigne i nadmaši količinu rada poštenih čvorova. Kasnije ćemo pokazati da se dodavanjem novih blokova eksponencijalno smanjuje verovatnoća da će sporiji napadač uspeti da sustigne pošteni lanac.

Da bi se kompenzovalo povećanje brzine hardvera i promenljivo interesovanje ljudi za vođenje čvorova tokom vremena, težina obavljanja dokaza o radu (proof-of-work difficulty) određuje se prema prosečnom broju blokova krairanih za sat vremena. Ako se blokovi stvaraju prebrzo, težina se povećava.

5. Mreža

Koraci za vođenje mreže su sledeći:

1) Nove transakcije se prosleđuju svim čvorovima u mreži. 2) Svaki čvor prikuplja nove transakcije u blok. 3) Svaki čvor radi na pronalaženju dokaza o radu dovoljnog nivoa težine za svoj blok. 4) Kada čvor pronađe dokaz o radu, on emituje taj blok ka svim čvorovima. 5) Čvorovi prihvataju blok samo ako su sve transakcije u njemu ispravne i nisu već potrošene. 6) Čvorovi izražavaju prihvatanje bloka radeći na stvaranju sledećeg bloka u lancu, koristeći heš prihvaćenog bloka kao prethodni heš.

Čvorovi uvek smatraju da je najduži lanac ispravan i nastaviće da rade na njegovom produžavanju. Ako dva čvora istovremeno emituju različite verzije sledećeg bloka, neki čvorovi prvo mogu primiti jedan ili drugi blok. U tom slučaju svaki čvor radi na prvom koji je dobio, ali čuvaju drugu kariku lanca u slučaju da ona postane duža. Dilema će biti rešena kada se pronađe sledeći dokaz o radu i jedna karika postane duža; čvorovi koji su radili na drugoj karici lanca će se prebaciti na dužu kariku.

Emitovanje novih transakcija ne mora nužno doći do svih čvorova. Sve dok stižu do velikog broja čvorova, te transakcije će ući u blok. Slično važi i za blokove, ni oni ne moraju doći odmah do svih čvorova. Ako neki čvor propusti da primi informaciju o bloku, kada mu stigne sledeći blok,primetiće da je propustio jedan, pa će ga tražiti naknadno.

6. Podsticaj

Po pravilu, prva transakcija u bloku je posebna transakcija koja kreira novi novčić u vlasništvu kreatora bloka. Ovo daje podsticaj čvorovima da podrže mrežu i pruža način za početnu ubacivanje novčića u opticaj, budući da ne postoji centralno telo koje ih izdaje. Stalno dodavanje konstantne količine novih novčića liči na rudarenje zlata, gde rudari ulažu resurse kako bi izrudarili nove količine zlata i ubacili ih u opticaj. U našem slučaju ulaže se procesorsko vreme i električna energija.

Podsticaj se takođe može finansirati i transakcionim naknadama. Ako je iznos izlaznog dela transakcije manji od ulaznog, razliku čini naknada za transakciju koja se dodaje iznosu nagrade za kreatora bloka koji sadrži tu transakciju. Nakon što predefinisani broj novčića uđe u opticaj, podsticaj mogu u potpunosti činiti transakcione naknade, čime se sistem oslobađa inflacije.

Čvorovi su na ovaj način podstaknuti da ostanu pošteni. Ako je pohlepni napadač u stanju da angažuje više procesorske snage od svih poštenih čvorova zajedno, morao bi da bira između toga da poništi svoje izvršene transakcije i time prevari ljude ili da procesorsku snagu koristi za stvaranje novih novčića. On bi trebalo bi uvidi da je isplativije igrati po pravilima koja ga nagrađuju sa više novih novčića od svi drugi zajedno, nego da potkopava sistem i vrednost sopstvenog bogatstva.

7. Oslobađanje prostora na hard disku

Kada je dovoljno blokova dodato nakon poslednje transakcije novčića, prethodne transakcije tog novčića se mogu odbaciti kako bi se uštedeo prostor na hard disku. Kako bi se to ostvarilo bez razbijanja heša bloka, transakcije su hešovane u Merkleovo stablo (Merkle Tree) [7] [2] [5], gde je samo koren uključen u heš bloka. Stari blokovi se tada mogu sabiti uklanjanjem nepotrebnih grana drveta. Unutrašnji heševi ne moraju biti skladišteni.

Zaglavlje bloka bez transakcija bilo bi oko 80 bajtova. Ako pretpostavimo da su blokovi generisani svakih 10 minuta, 80 bajtova * 6 * 24 * 365 = 4,2 MB godišnje. Imajući u vidu činjenicu da se u 2008. godini računari uglavnom prodaju sa oko 2 GB RAM-a i Murov zakon koji predviđa trenutni rast od 1,2 GB godišnje, skladištenje ne bi trebalo da predstavlja problem čak i ako se zaglavlja bloka moraju čuvati u memoriji.

8. Pojednostavljena verifikacija plaćanja

Moguće je verifikovati plaćanja bez vođenja čitavog mrežnog čvora. Korisnik samo treba da sačuva kopiju zaglavlja blokova najdužeg lanca dokaza o radu, do koje može doći upitom ka mrežnim čvorovima dok se ne uveri da je dobio najduži lanac i dobije Merkleova granu

koja povezuje transakciju sa blokom u koji je uneta vremenska oznaka za tu transakciju. Ne može samostalno proveriti transakciju, ali povezujući je sa mestom u lancu može videti da je prihvaćena od strane čvora mreže i da su na njen blok dodati naknadni blokovi što dalje potvrđuje da ju je mreža prihvatila.

Kao takva, verifikacija je pouzdana sve dok pošteni čvorovi kontrolišu mrežu, ali je ranjiva ako napadač nadjača ostatak mreže. Čvorovi mreže mogu sami proveriti transakcije, ali napadačeve lažne transakcije mogu zavarati one koji koriste pojednostavljenu metodu verifikacije transakcija sve dok je on u stanju da nadjačava ostatak mreže. Jedna od strategija zaštite bila bi prihvatanje upozorenja čvorova mreže kada otkriju nevažeći blok, pri čemu bi korisnikov softver morao da preuzme ceo blok i sporne transakcije kako bi potvrdio nepravilnost. Biznisi koji primaju česte uplate će verovatno želeti da pokrenu i vode sopstvene čvorove radi brže verifikacije i potrebe da im sigurnost ne zavisi od drugih.

9. Kombinovanje i deljenje vrednosti

Iako bi bilo moguće pojedinačno rukovati novčićima, bilo bi nezgrapno kreirati zasebnu transakciju za svaki cent u toj transferu. Da biste dozvolili podelu i kombinovanje vrednosti, transakcije sadrže više ulaza i izlaza. Obično će postojati ili jedan ulaz iz veće prethodne transakcije ili više unosa koji kombinuju manje iznose, a najviše dva izlaza: jedan za samo plaćanje, a jedan koji vraća kusur, ako ga ima, nazad pošiljaocu.

Treba napomenuti da situacija u kojoj transakcija zavisi od nekoliko drugih transakcija, a te transakcije zavise od još mnogo više, ovde nije problem. Nikada ne postoji potreba za izdvajanjem istorije pojedinačne transakcije.

10. Privatnost

Tradicionalni bankarski model postiže odgovarajući nivo privatnosti ograničavanjem pristupa informacijama na strane uključene u transakciju i posrednika. Neophodnost javnog objavljivanja svih transakcija isključuje mogućnost primene pomenutog modela, ali privatnost se i dalje može zadržati na drugi način: čuvanjem javnih ključeva (public keys) anonimnim. Javnost može videti da neko šalje iznos nekom drugom, ali bez informacija koje povezuju transakciju sa bilo kim. Ovo je slično količini informacija koje objavljuju berze, gde se vreme i veličina pojedinačnih trgovina čine javnim, ali bez navođenja ko su stranke uključene u tu trgovinu.

Kao dodatni zaštitni zid, preporučljivo je koristiti novi par ključeva za svaku transakciju, kako ne bi bili povezane sa zajedničkim vlasnikom. Neka povezivanja su i dalje neizbežna kod transakcija sa više ulaza, koje nužno otkrivaju da su njihovi ulazi bili u vlasništvu istog vlasnika. Rizik je taj da bi se otkrivanjem vlasnik ključa mogle otkriti i ostale transakcije koje su pripadale tom vlasniku.

11. Proračuni

Razmatramo scenario u kome napadač pokušava da generiše alternativni lanac brže od poštenog lanca. Čak i ako se to postigne, to ne omogućuje proizvoljne promene u sistemu, poput stvaranje vrednosti ni iz čega ili uzimanje novca koji nikada nije pripadao napadaču. Pošteni čvorovi neće prihvatiti nevažeće transakcije kao uplatu i nikada neće prihvatiti blok koji ih sadrži. Napadač može samo pokušati da promeni jednu od svojih transakcija kako bi vratio novac koji je nedavno potrošio.

Trka između poštenog lanca i lanca napadača može se predstaviti kao binomska distribucija slučajne diskretne varijable (Binomial Random Walk). Uspešni ishod je da se pošten lanac produži za jedan blok, povećavajući svoje vođstvo za +1, a neuspešni ishod je da se napadačev lanac produži za jedan blok, smanjujući zaostatak za -1.

Verovatnoću da napadač nadoknadi određeni deficit možemo izraziti kroz problem kockareve propasti (Gambler’s Ruin Problem). Pretpostavimo da kockar sa neograničenim iznosom novca počinje sa zaostatkom i igra potencijalno beskonačan broj ponovljenih igara u pokušaju da nadoknadi zaostatak. Možemo izračunati verovatnoću za nadoknađivanje zaostatka ili da će napadač stići pošten lanac, na sledeći način [8]:

p= verovatnoća da pošten čvor pronađe sledeći blok q= verovatnoća da napadač pronađe sledeći blok qz= verovatnoća da će napadač ikada dostići z blokova zaostatka

S obzirom na našu pretpostavku da je p > q, verovatnoća pada eksponencijalno kako se povećava broj blokova koje napadač mora da nadoknadi. Sa šansama protiv njega, ako mu se u početku ne posreći, njegove šanse postaju manje i manje sa povećanjem zaostatka.

Sada razmatramo koliko primalac nove transakcije treba da čeka pre nego što postane

dovoljno siguran da pošiljalac ne može promeniti transakciju. Pretpostavljamo da je pošiljalac napadač koji želi da natera primaoca da veruje da mu je platio, a zatim nakon nekog vremena tu transakciju preusmeri ka sebi. Primalac će primetiti kada se to dogodi, ali pošiljalac se nada da će tad već biti prekasno.

Primalac generiše novi par ključeva i daje javni ključ pošiljaocu neposredno pre potpisivanja transakcije. Ovo sprečava pošiljaoca da unapred pripremi lanac blokova radeći na njemu neprekidno dok mu se ne posreći da stekne dovoljnu prednost i u tom trenutku izvrši transakciju. Kada se transakcija pošalje, nepošteni pošiljalac počinje tajno da radi na paralelnom lancu koji sadrži alternativnu verziju njegove transakcije.

Primalac čeka dok transakcija ne bude dodata u blok, i dok z blokova nije dodato nakon tog bloka. On ne zna tačno koliko je napadač napredovao, ali pod pretpostavkom da su pošteni blokovi kreirani očekivanom dinamikom, potencijalni napredak napadača će biti prikazan kao Poasonova distribucija sa očekivanom vrednošću:

Kako bismo izračunali verovatnoću da napadač ipak može da nadoknadi zaostatak, množimo gustinu verovatnoće za svaki nivo napretka koji je mogao da ostvari sa verovatnoćom da od tog trenutka može da potpuno nadoknadi zaostatak:

Preuređujemo formulu kako bismo izbegli sabiranje beskonačnog broja sabiraka zbog repa distribucije:

I konvertujemo u programski kod u programskom jeziku C…

Kroz par primera, vidimo da verovatnoća opada eksponencijalno sa porastom z.

Rešavanje za P < 0.1%…

12. Zaključak

Predložili smo sistem za elektronske transakcije bez oslanjanja na poverenje. Počeli smo sa uobičajenim šablonom i novčićima nastalim iz digitalnih potpisa, koji pruža snažnu kontrolu nad vlasništvom, ali je nepotpun bez načina da se spreči dvostruka potrošnja. Kako bismo ovo rešili, predložili smo peer-to-peer mrežu koja koristi dokaz o radu za čuvanje javne istorije transakcija čija izmena napadačima brzo postaje računski nepraktična ako pošteni čvorovi kontrolišu većinu procesorske snage. Mreža je robusna u svojoj nestrukturiranoj jednostavnosti. Svi čvorovi rade istovremeno uz malo koordinacije. Ne treba ih identifikovati, jer se poruke ne usmeravaju na jedno određeno mesto nego samo trebaju biti prenete uz maksimalan napor od strane čvorova da se taj prenos odradi na predviđen način. Čvorovi mogu da napuste i ponovo se pridruže mreži po želji, prihvatajući lanac dokaza o radu kao dokaz onoga što se dogodilo dok ih nije bilo. Oni glasaju svojom procesorskom snagom, izražavajući svoje prihvatanje validnih blokova time što pokušavaju da ih nadgrade novim blokovima i odbacuju nevažeće blokove odbijanjem ih nadgrađuju. Sva potrebna pravila i podsticaji mogu se nametnuti ovim mehanizmom postizanja konsenzusa.

Reference:

[1] W. Dai, „b-money,“ http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt, 1998. [2] H. Massias, X.S. Avila, and J.-J. Quisquater, „Design of a secure timestamping service with minimal trust requirements,“ In 20th Symposium on Information Theory in the Benelux, May 1999. [3] S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta, „How to time-stamp a digital document,“ In Journal of Cryptology, vol 3, no 2, pages 99-111, 1991. [4] D. Bayer, S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta, „Improving the efficiency and reliability of digital time-stamping,“ In Sequences II: Methods in Communication, Security and Computer Science, pages 329-334, 1993. [5] S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta, „Secure names for bit-strings,“ In Proceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 28-35, April 1997. [6] A. Back, „Hashcash – a denial of service counter-measure,“ http://www.hashcash.org/papers/hashcash.pdf, 2002. [7] R.C. Merkle, „Protocols for public key cryptosystems,“ In Proc. 1980 Symposium on Security and Privacy, IEEE Computer Society, pages 122-133, April 1980. [8] W. Feller, „An introduction to probability theory and its applications,“ 1957.

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na thebitcoinmanual.com

---

Lightning Network (eng. lightning - munja, network - mreža) je jedno od primarnih rešenja za skaliranje Bitkoin mreže sa ciljem da je više ljudi može koristiti na različite načine čime bi se zaobišla ograničenja glavnog blokčejna. Lightning mreža deluje kao "drugi sloj" koji je dodat Bitkoin (BTC) blokčejnu koji omogućava transakcije van glavnog lanca (blokčejna) pošto se transakcije između korisnika ne registruju na samoj blokčejn mreži.

Lightning kao "sloj-2 (layer-2)" pojačava skalabilnost blokčejn aplikacija tako što upravlja transakcijama van glavnog blokčejna ("sloj-1" / layer-1), dok istovremeno uživa benefite moćne decentralizovane sigurnosti glavnog blokčejna, tako da korisnici mogu ulaziti i izlaziti iz Lightning mreže koristeći custodial ili non-custodial servise u zavisnosti od sopstvene sposobnosti i znanja da koriste glavni blokčejn.

Kao što i samo ime govori Lightning Network je dizajnirana za brza, instant i jeftina plaćanja u svrhu sredstva razmene i druga programabilna plaćanja kojima nije potrebna instant konačnost (finality) ali ni sigurnost glavnog lanca. Lightning je najbolje uporediti sa vašom omiljenom aplikacijom za plaćanja ili debitnom karticom.

Šta je Lightning mreža?

Lightning mreža vuče svoje poreklo još od tvorca Bitkoina, Satošija Nakamota, ali je formalizovana od strane istraživača Joseph Poon-a i Thaddeus Dryja-a koji su 14. januara 2016. godine objavili beli papir o Lightning Network-u.

Radilo se o predlogu alternativnog rešenja za skaliranje Bitkoina da bi se izbeglo proširenje kapaciteta bloka Bitkoin mreže i smanjio rizik od centralizacije blokčejna. Dalje, skaliranje van glavnog lanca znači zadržavanje integriteta samog blokčejna što omogućuje više eksperimentalnog rada na Bitkoinu bez ograničenja koja su postavljena na glavnom blokčejnu.

Lightning Labs, kompanija za blokčejn inženjering, pomogla je pokretanje beta verzije Lightning mreže u martu 2018. - pored dve druge popularne implementacije od strane kompanija kao što su ACINQ i Blockstream.

• Lightning Labs – LND
• Blockstream – Core Lightning (implementacija nekada poznata kao c-lightning)
• ACINQ – Eclair

Svaka verzija protokola ima svoje poglede i načine kako rešava određene probleme ali ostaje interoperabilna sa ostalim implementacijama u smislu korišćenja novčanika, tako da za krajnjeg korisnika nije bitno kojom verzijom se služi kada upravlja svojim čvororom (node-om).

Lightning Network je protokol koji svako može koristiti i razvijati ga, proširivati i unapređivati i koji kreira posebno i odvojeno okruženje za korišćenje Bitkoina kroz seriju pametnih ugovora (smart contracts) koji zaključavaju BTC na Lightning-u radi izbegavanja dvostruke potrošnje (double-spending). Lightning Network nije blokčejn ali živi i funkcioniše na samom Bitkoinu i koristi glavni lanac kao sloj za konačno, finalno poravnanje.

Lightning mreža ima sopstvene čvorove koji pokreću ovaj dodatni protokol i zaključavaju likvidnost Bitkoina u njemu sa ciljem olakšavanja plaćanja.

Lightning omogućava svakom korisniku da kreira p2p (peer-to-peer) platni kanal (payment channel) između dve strane, kao npr. između mušterije i trgovca. Kada je uspostavljen, ovaj kanal im omogućava da međusobno šalju neograničen broj transakcija koje su istovremeno gotovo instant i veoma jeftine. Ponaša se kao svojevrsna mala "knjiga" (ledger) koja omogućava korisnicima da plaćaju još manje proizvode i usluge poput kafe i to bez uticaja na glavnu Bitkoin mrežu.

Kako radi Lightning Network?

Lightning Network se zasniva na pametnim ugovorima koji su poznati kao hashed time lock contracts koji između dve strane kreiraju platne kanale van glavnog blokčejna (off-chain payment channels). Kada zaključate BTC na glavnom lancu u ovim posebnim pametnim ugovorima, ova sredstva se otključavaju na Lightning mreži.

Ova sredstva zatim možete koristiti da biste napravili platne kanale sa ostalim korisnicima Lightning mreže, aplikacijama i menjačnicama.

Ovo su direktne platne linije koje se dešavaju na vrhu, odnosno izvan glavnog blokčejna. Kada je platni kanal otvoren, možete izvršiti neograničen broj plaćanja sve dok ne potrošite sva sredstva.

Korišćenje Lightning sredstava nije ograničeno pravilima glavnog Bitkoin lanca i ova plaćanja se vrše gotovo trenutno i za samo delić onoga što bi koštalo na glavnom blokčejnu.

Vaš platni kanal ima svoj sopstveni zapisnik (ledger) u koji se beleže transakcije izvan glavnog BTC blokčejna. Svaka strana ima mogućnost da ga zatvori ili obnovi po svom nahođenju i vrati sredstva nazad na glavni Bitkoin lanac objavljivanjem transakcije kojom se zatvara kanal.

Kada dve strane odluče da zatvore platni kanal, sve transakcije koje su se desile unutar njega se objedinjuju i zatim objavljuju na glavni blokčejn "registar".

Zašto biste želeli da koristite Lightning mrežu?

---

Trenutno slanje satošija

Lightning Network je "sloj-2" izgrađen na vrhu glavnog Bitkoin lanca koji omogućava instant i veoma jeftine transakcije između lightning novčanika. Ova mreža se nalazi u interakciji sa glavnim blokčejnom ali se plaćanja pre svega sprovode off-chain, van glavnog lanca, pošto koristi sopstvenu evidenciju plaćanja na lightning mreži.

Razvijene su različite aplikacije koje su kompatibilne sa Lightning mrežom, koje su veoma lake za korišćenje i ne zahtevaju više od QR koda za primanje i slanje prekograničnih transakcija.

Možete deponovati BTC na vaše lightning novčanike tako što ćete slati satošije sa menjačnica ili ih kupovati direktno unutar ovih aplikacija. Većina ovih novčanika ima ograničenje od nekoliko miliona satošija (iako će se ovaj limit povećavati kako više biznisa i država bude prihvatalo Bitkoin) koje možete poslati po transakciji što ima smisla budući da je za slanje većih iznosa bolje korišćenje glavnog blokčejna.

Pokretanje sopstvenog čvora

Kako se više ljudi bude povezivalo sa lightning mrežom i koristilo njene mogućnosti, sve više ljudi pokreće svoje čvorove radi verifikacije transakcija putem svojih lightning platnih kanala. Kroz ove kanale je moguće bezbedno poslati različite iznose satošija, a takođe je moguće zarađivati i male naknade za svaku transakciju koja prolazi kroz vaš kanal.

Transakcione naknade

Uprkos trenutnim transakcijama, još uvek postoje transakcione naknade povezane sa otvaranjem i zatvaranjem platnih kanala koje se moraju platiti rudarima na glavnom blokčejnu prilikom finalizacije lightning platnih kanala. Takođe postoje i naknade za rutiranje (routing fees) koje idu lightning čvorovima (i njihovim platnim kanalima) koji su uspostavljeni da bi se omogućila plaćanja.

Sa daljim napredovanjem razvoja Bitkoina i novim nadogradnjama, imaćemo sve veći rast i razvoj layer-2 aplikacija kao što je lightning.

Više izvora o Lightning mreži

Ukoliko želite da naučite više o Lightning mreži, najbolje je da pročitate dodatne tekstove na sajtu thebitcoinmanual.com.

@ 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 medium.com.

Autor: Aleksandar Svetski / Prevod: ₿itcoin Serbia

---

Nemojte kupovati Bitkoin!

Ni danas, ni kasnije, nikada!

Posvećeno skepticima, neznalicama, arogantnima i nezainteresovanima.

NE TREBA vam Bitkoin.

Molim vas. Nemojte ga kupovati.

Lično me ne zanima "masovna adopcija".

Draža mi je selektivna adopcija.

Svinja ne zaslužuje bisere.

Na vama je da platite cenu neznanja.

Kao i cenu glupavosti.

Kada dođe vreme, sa zadovoljstvom ću vam platiti hiljadu satošija mesečno za vaše vreme i smejati se usput.

Najbitnija odluka koju ćete ikada doneti

NEMA važnije odluke za vašu finansijsku, ekonomsku i suverenu budućnost koju danas možete doneti nego da kupite Bitkoin.

A ako ne želite da izdvojite malo vremena da ga dalje proučite, JEDINA osoba koju treba da krivite kasnije ste vi sami.

Danas, Bitkoin se nalazi u svojoj ranoj, početnoj fazi. O ovome možete više pročitati ovde (hvala ObiWan Kenobit):

Hiperbitkoinizacija: pobednik uzima sve

Ovo JE prilika ne samo vašeg života, već verovatno i najveći mogući transfer bogatstva u istoriji, a najluđa stvar je što će se najveći deo toga odigrati u narednih nekoliko decenija.

Nalazimo se tek u prvih 12 godina ove promene, a već smo videlo kako je Bitkoin eksplodirao sa $0.008c (kada su za 10.000 BTC kupljene dve pice) na trenutnu cenu od oko $11.500.

Ovo je tek početak. Tek 0.001% svetskog bogatstva je denominirano u Bitkoinu.

Ako sada izdvojite samo trenutak da razumete novac, njegovu ulogu u društvu i kako će ekonomski darvinizam voditi ceo svet prema najrobusnijem, najčvršćem i najsigurnijem obliku očuvanja bogatstva, možete odlučiti da kupite neki deo pre nego što se ostatak sveta priključi.

Čitajući ovo, vi ste poput drevnog pojedinca koji je pronašao zlato, dok svi ostali koriste školjke. Razlika je u tome što živite u digitalnom dobu tokom kojeg će se ovaj novac pojaviti i sazreti za vreme vašeg života. Taj drevni pojedinac bi bio u pravu ali mrtav zato što je zlatu bilo potrebno nekoliko hiljada godina da uradi ono za šta će Bitkoinu biti potrebne decenije.

Zamislite. Se. Nad. Tim.

I naučite dalje o nastanku Bitkoina ovde:

Zašto je Bitkoin važan

I za ime ljubavi prema sopstvenoj budućnosti, preuzmite ovu kratku elektronsku knjigu i jebeno se edukujte!!

Preuzmite "Investiranje u Bitkoin"

I eto, dajem vam izvore.. jbt.. Svejedno...

Danas, imate izbor da kupite Bitkoin; najoskudniji novac u univerzumu, za siću!! Bukvalno možete kupiti hiljade satošija (najmanju jedinicu Bitkoina gde je 100.000.000 satošija = 1 BTC) za $1!!!

Danas ne postoji veća prilika, kao što sutradan neće postojati veće žaljenje kada više ne budete imali "izbor" da ga kupite.

Kada taj dan bude došao i kada budete to morali da prihvatite, setićete se ovih reči, ali avaj, biće prekasno, a vreme ne možete vratiti.

Više nije 2012

Tada ste imali izgovor. Sada je 2020...

Apsolutno NEMA razloga zašto neko sa malo radoznalosti i relativno funkcionalnim mozgom ne može da prouči šta je Bitkoin, zašto postoji, zašto je važan i zašto bi trebalo da u njega prebaci malo ličnog bogatstva.

Naročito ako ima prijatelja poput mene ili mnoštvo Bitkoinera negde tamo.

Ja više neću smarati ljude sa porukama "zašto treba kupiti Bitkoin".

Više nije 2012. godina.

Danas imamo toliko puno informacija od toliko mnogo dobrih ljudi na svim mogućim medijima, tako da NEMATE IZGOVORA da ga ignorišete ili kažete: "ali niko mi nije rekao".

Ukoliko nemate da izdvojite bar malo vremena od vašeg Netflix rasporeda da biste istražili šta je ova stvar i zašto je bitna za vašu ličnu ekonomsku budućnost, onda zaslužujete to što imate.

Deluje okrutno ali dobrodošao u život, mladi žutokljunče.

Sada... Ako ste izdvojili malo vremena ali ste i dalje nezainteresovani ili dovoljno glupi da ga odbacite, onda zaista zaslužujete to što dolazi i ostatak ovog članka je definitivno za vas.

Ne želim da uopšte kupite Bitkoin!

Ok Aleks, ali šta ćemo sa "masovnom adopcijom"???

Pažljivo me slušajte:

Zabole me kurac da li će masovna adopcija doći za 10, 20, 50 ili 100 godina!

Ja sam skroz za selektivnu adopciju i potpuno za dugačku igru. Tako da sam spreman da čekam.

Kao u SVIM prirodnim, evolutivno funkcionalnim sistemima, oni koji seju i pomažu u izgradnji temelja bi trebalo da budu i nesrazmerno nagrađeni.

Ovo je 100% fer i predivno nejednako (neki od vas koji me znate ste upoznati sa mojim stavom o nejednakosti kao najprezrenijem od svih ljudskih ideala. Radi se o odvratnom idealu koji nagrađuje najgore među nama).

Tako da za skeptike i "neverne Tome" imam jednostavnu poruku:

Nadam se da nećete uopšte kupiti Bitkoin. Ni danas ni bilo kada. Nadam se da će jedini put kada budete stupili u dodir sa Bitkoinom to biti jedini način da za nešto budete isplaćeni; npr. kada budete morali da ga zaradite.

Jedva čekam dan kada će mojih nekoliko hiljada satošija moći da kupi tri, četiri ili pet meseci vašeg vremena.

A u međuvremenu...

Molim vas, držite se vašeg fiat novca. Molim vas, držite se vaših šitkoina.

Ne želim nikoga od vas "blokčejnera", šitkoinera, fiat nokoinera i vas svih ostalih klovnova koji mislite da znate bolje.

Ovaj rolerkoster je specijalan, tako da zašto bih želeo da ga delim sa vama glupanderima? Zašto bih bacao bisere pred svinje?

Ja verujem u principe isključivosti.

Ovo nije "kumbaya" ili "svi smo jedno". Jebite se.

Sa razlogom smo drugačiji.

Napraviću sam svoj krevet i ležati u njemu. Vi napravite svoje.

Kada bude došlo vreme, ja ću vam za vaše vreme plaćati satošijima zato što onda nećete imati izbora.

Tada ja pobeđujem, a vi gubite.

Kako sejete, tako žanjete

Razlika između mene i vas je ta što ja kupujem Bitkoin sada zato što tako želim. Vi ćete morati da radite za Bitkoin sutra zato što tako morate.

To je cena neznanja. To je cena arogancije.

To je cena gluposti koju ćete platiti i, koliko god ovo zvuči okrutno, istina je da zaslužujete svaki delić toga.

Svi ležimo u krevetu koji sami pravimo, a vi svoj krevet pravite sada.

Neće vam samouvereni Bitkoiner reći: "lepo sam vam rekao". Nova ekonomska realnost će vam to reći umesto njega.

"Lepo sam vam rekao" će vas udariti poput tone cigle kada shvatite razliku između vas i onih koji su bili razboriti, koji su marljivo štedeli, koji su uložili vreme i trud da otkriju šta je zapravo Bitkoin dok su ih svi nazivali ludacima.

Neće biti sažaljenja.

Nema više bacanja bisera pred svinje

Oni koji imaju priliku da kupe nešto Bitkoina sada, a odluče da to ne urade zahvaljujući neznanju, aroganciji ili gluposti, zaslužuju da plate sa kamatom.

Zaslužuju da trguju svoje sutrašnje dragoceno vreme i energiju za ono što su mogli da nabave danas i to bukvalno "za kikiriki".

Ovde nema greške: nismo jednaki. Mi smo veoma, veoma različiti ljudi.

Ja sam uložio vreme, trud i energiju sada, ne samo zbog sebe samog, već i da bih posadio seme i pomogao mreži.

Uradio sam svoj deo.

Vi ćete doći kasnije i pomoći mi da žanjem nagrade svog truda. Postojaćete da biste mi pomogli da uživam u plodovima.

To će biti vaša uloga.

Izabrao sam da rizikujem i steknem deo onoga zbog čega su me svi nazivali ludim zato što sam učio, verovao i shvatio danas, sa nadom da se izgradi bolja, poštenija i pravičnija budućnost za sve.

Radeći to, neki od nas će postati džinovi i nesrazmerno bogati. I vi imate tu šansu ali je mnogi od vas neće iskoristiti.

I ja sam skroz ok sa tim. Više neću bacati bisere pred svinje.

---

Ovaj članak može zvučati neprijatno ali više me zabole kurac. Sada je na vama da sami istražujete.

Ovo se događa bez obzira sviđalo vam se to ili ne. Ja i hiljade drugih Bitkoinera smo pisali eseje i eseje o ovome.

Neka imena sa kvalitetnim materijalom kojih se mogu setiti iz glave su:

• Naravno ja
• Gigi
• Robert Breedlove
• Saifedean Ammous

Ako ste radoznali možete ih pratiti. A ovo je sjajno mesto gde možete preuzeti nekoliko odličnih radova:

The Bitcoin Times

I za kraj, ako si Bitkoiner koji ovo čita, nikada nećeš znati da li sam zloban ili samo igram 4D šah.

Iskreno, nije ni bitno.

Ovo se dešava. Bitkoin osvaja svet. Ekonomski darvinizam je činjenica.

Sakupljajte vaše satošije, ponudite maslinovu grančicu, obratite pažnju na njihovu radoznalost ili iskru u njihovom oku kao znak da nastavite. Ukoliko toga nema ili naiđete na odbijanje, ostavite ih da se igraju kao svinje u govnima sa njihovim fiatom, deonicama ili šitkoinima.

Biće nam potrebni čistači za naše citadele.

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Past week summary

From a Self Custody for Organizations perspective, after analyzing the existing protocols (Cerberus, 10xSecurityBTCguide and Glacier) and reading a bunch of relates articles and guides, have wrapped to the conclusion that this format it is good to have as reference. However, something else is needed. For example, a summary or a map of the whole process to provide an overview, plus a way to deliver all the information and the multy-process in a more enjoyable way. Not a job for this hackathon, but with the right collaborations I assume it's possible to: - build something that might introduce a bit more quests and gamification - provide a learning environment (with testnet funds) could also be crucial on educating those unfamiliar with bitcoin onchain dynamics.

Have been learning more and playing around practicing best accessibility practices and how it could be applied to a desktop software like Bitcoin Safe. Thanks to @johnjherzog for providing a screen recording of his first experience and @jasonb for suggesting the tools to be used. (in this case tested/testing on Windows with the Accessibility Insights app). Some insight shared have been also applied to the website, running a full accessibility check (under WCAG 2.2 ADA, and Section 508 standards) with 4 different plugins and two online tools. I recognize that not all of them works and analyze the same parameters, indeed they complement each other providing a more accurate review.

For Bitcoin Safe interface improvements, many suggestions have been shared with @andreasgriffin , including: - a new iconset, including a micro-set to display the number of confirmed blocs for each transaction - a redesigned History/Dashboard - small refinements like adding missing columns on the tables - allow the user to select which columns to be displayed - sorting of unconfirmed transactions - Defining a new style for design elements like mempool blocks and quick receive boxes You can find below some screenshots with my proposals that hopefully will be included in the next release.

Last achievement this week was to prepare the website https://Safe.BTC.pub, the container where all the outcomes f this experiment will be published. You can have a look, just consider it still WIP. Branding for the project has also been finalized and available in this penpot file https://design.penpot.app/#/workspace?team-id=cec80257-5021-8137-8005-eab60c043dd6&project-id=cec80257-5021-8137-8005-eab60c043dd8&file-id=95aea877-d515-80ac-8006-23a251886db3&page-id=132f519a-39f4-80db-8006-2a41c364a545

What's for next week

After spending most of the time learning and reading material, this coming week will be focused on deliverables. The goal as planned will be to provide: - Finalized Safe₿its brand and improve overall desktop app experience, including categorization of transactions and addresses - An accessibility report or guide for Bitcoin Safe and support to implement best practices - A first draft of the Self-Custody for Organizations guide/framework/protocol, ideally delivered through the website http://Safe.BTC.pub in written format, but also as FlowChart to help have an overview of the whole resources needed and the process itself. This will clearly define preparations and tools/hardwares needed to successfully complete the process.

To learn more about the project, you can visit: Designathon website: https://event.bitcoin.design/#project-recj4SVNLLkuWHpKq Discord channel: https://discord.com/channels/903125802726596648/1369200271632236574 Previous SN posts: https://stacker.news/items/974489/r/DeSign_r and https://stacker.news/items/974488/r/DeSign_r

Stay tuned, more will be happening this coming week

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/977190

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Past week summary

From a Self Custody for Organizations perspective, after analyzing the existing protocols (Cerberus, 10xSecurityBTCguide and Glacier) and reading a bunch of relates articles and guides, have wrapped to the conclusion that this format it is good to have as reference. However, something else is needed. For example, a summary or a map of the whole process to provide an overview, plus a way to deliver all the information and the multy-process in a more enjoyable way. Not a job for this hackathon, but with the right collaborations I assume it's possible to: - build something that might introduce a bit more quests and gamification - provide a learning environment (with testnet funds) could also be crucial on educating those unfamiliar with bitcoin onchain dynamics.

Have been learning more and playing around practicing best accessibility practices and how it could be applied to a desktop software like Bitcoin Safe. Thanks to @johnjherzog for providing a screen recording of his first experience and @jasonbohio for suggesting the tools to be used. (in this case tested/testing on Windows with the Accessibility Insights app). Some insight shared have been also applied to the website, running a full accessibility check (under WCAG 2.2 ADA, and Section 508 standards) with 4 different plugins and two online tools. I recognize that not all of them works and analyze the same parameters, indeed they complement each other providing a more accurate review.

For Bitcoin Safe interface improvements, many suggestions have been shared with @andreasgriffin , including: - a new iconset, including a micro-set to display the number of confirmed blocs for each transaction - a redesigned History/Dashboard - small refinements like adding missing columns on the tables - allow the user to select which columns to be displayed - sorting of unconfirmed transactions - Defining a new style for design elements like mempool blocks and quick receive boxes You can find below some screenshots with my proposals that hopefully will be included in the next release.

Last achievement this week was to prepare the website https://Safe.BTC.pub, the container where all the outcomes f this experiment will be published. You can have a look, just consider it still WIP. Branding for the project has also been finalized and available in this penpot file https://design.penpot.app/#/workspace?team-id=cec80257-5021-8137-8005-eab60c043dd6&project-id=cec80257-5021-8137-8005-eab60c043dd8&file-id=95aea877-d515-80ac-8006-23a251886db3&page-id=132f519a-39f4-80db-8006-2a41c364a545

What's for next week

After spending most of the time learning and reading material, this coming week will be focused on deliverables. The goal as planned will be to provide: - Finalized Safe₿its brand and improve overall desktop app experience, including categorization of transactions and addresses - An accessibility report or guide for Bitcoin Safe and support to implement best practices - A first draft of the Self-Custody for Organizations guide/framework/protocol, ideally delivered through the website http://Safe.BTC.pub in written format, but also as FlowChart to help have an overview of the whole resources needed and the process itself. This will clearly define preparations and tools/hardwares needed to successfully complete the process.

To learn more about the project, you can visit: Designathon website: https://event.bitcoin.design/#project-recj4SVNLLkuWHpKq Discord channel: https://discord.com/channels/903125802726596648/1369200271632236574 Previous SN posts: https://stacker.news/items/974489/r/DeSign_r and https://stacker.news/items/974488/r/DeSign_r

Stay tuned, more will be happening this coming week

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/977180

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

UTXO (Unspent Transaction Output) je Bitkoin koji nije potrošen, BTC koji se nalazi na svim adresama. Možemo ga porediti sa novčanicom u novčaniku i koja se mora u celosti potrošiti. Samo što kod BTC to može biti bilo koji iznos i taj iznos je uvek isti kao veličina poslednje transakcije minus naknada majnerima. Dok novčanice u novčaniku imaju tačno određene apoene, 100 dinara, 200 dinara, 500 dinara itd.

Kada plaćamo novčanicama nešto što košta 300 dinara, a u novčaniku imamo jednu novčanicu od 500 dinara, mi prodavcu moramo dati celu novčanicu od 500 dinara, a on nam zatim vraća kusur 200 dinara.

Kada plaćamo novčanicama nešto što košta 300 dinara, a u novčaniku imamo tri novčanice od 200, 200 i 100 dinara, mi prodavcu moramo dati ili dve novčanice od po 200 gde takođe dobijamo kusur ili dve novčanice od 200 i 100 dinara.

Ova analogija se može primeniti i na BTC i UTXO-ve koji funkcioniše na gotovo istom principu.

Ako plaćamo putem BTC nešto što košta 0.03 BTC, a u novčaniku imamo jedan UTXO od 0.05 BTC (a koji je nastao tako što je neko nama prethodno poslao 0.05 BTC u jednoj transakciji), naš novčanik ne šalje samo 0.03 BTC sa adrese, a da pritom 0.02 BTC ostane u novčaniku. Ne nego se iz novčanika šalje svih 0.05 BTC, 0.03 BTC ide prodavcu, a 0.02 BTC se vraća nama u novčanik kao kusur (change) na novu adresu formirajući novi UTXO od 0.02 BTC. Za slanje sredstava sa tog jednog UTXO-a plaćamo jednu transakcionu naknadu (fee) Bitkoin rudarima/majnerima. Neka bude $1 fee.

Ako plaćamo putem BTC nešto što košta 0.03 BTC, a u novčaniku imamo tri UTXO-a od 0.02, 0.02 i 0.01 BTC (koji su nastali tako što su nam prethodno poslate tri odvojene transakcije od 0.02, 0.02 i 0.01 BTC), naš novčanik automatski ili mi lično (putem opcije "coin control") sada moramo da odaberemo koja od ta tri UTXO-a, koje od te tri svojevrsne digitalne novčanice, ćemo poslati trgovcu. Dakle moramo da iskoristimo sredstva sa dva UTXO-a pošto nijedan pojedinačni UTXO nema dovoljno sredstava za plaćanje. I za slanje svakog od ta dva UTXO-a se majnerima plaća zasebna transakciona naknada koje zbirno koštaju duplo više nego u situaciji kada šaljemo sredstva sa jednog UTXO-a. Dakle plaćamo hipotetičkih $2 fee.

Ako imamo preveliki broj manjih UTXO-va, odnosno UTXO-va na kojima se nalaze pojedinačno mala sredstva i treba da platimo nešto skuplje u jednoj transakciji, onda ćemo za svaki od tih UTXO-va platiti zaseban fee što može dovesti do toga da ukupan fee bude dosta skup.

Ko vodi računa o privatnosti i nikada ne prima sredstva na jednu istu adresu više od jednom, odnosno uvek generiše novu adresu pri primanju svake transakcije, onda će uvek imati situaciju "1 adresa = 1 UTXO" i onda je lakši upravljanje UTXO-vima (UTXO management). Mnogo je teže kada se sva sredstva primaju na jednu adresu koja bi imala veliki broj UTXO-va.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Information ohne Reflexion ist geistiger Flugsand. \ Ernst Reinhardt

Der lateinische Ausdruck «Quo vadis» als Frage nach einer Entwicklung oder Ausrichtung hat biblische Wurzeln. Er wird aber auch in unserer Alltagssprache verwendet, laut Duden meist als Ausdruck von Besorgnis oder Skepsis im Sinne von: «Wohin wird das führen?»

Der Sinn und Zweck von so mancher politischen Entscheidung erschließt sich heutzutage nicht mehr so leicht, und viele Trends können uns Sorge bereiten. Das sind einerseits sehr konkrete Themen wie die zunehmende Militarisierung und die geschichtsvergessene Kriegstreiberei in Europa, deren Feindbildpflege aktuell beim Gedenken an das Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegs beschämende Formen annimmt.

Auch das hohe Gut der Schweizer Neutralität scheint immer mehr in Gefahr. Die schleichende Bewegung der Eidgenossenschaft in Richtung NATO und damit weg von einer Vermittlerposition erhält auch durch den neuen Verteidigungsminister Anschub. Martin Pfister möchte eine stärkere Einbindung in die europäische Verteidigungsarchitektur, verwechselt bei der Argumentation jedoch Ursache und Wirkung.

Das Thema Gesundheit ist als Zugpferd für Geschäfte und Kontrolle offenbar schon zuverlässig etabliert. Die hauptsächlich privat finanzierte Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) ist dabei durch ein Netzwerk von sogenannten «Collaborating Centres» sogar so weit in nationale Einrichtungen eingedrungen, dass man sich fragen kann, ob diese nicht von Genf aus gesteuert werden.

Das Schweizer Bundesamt für Gesundheit (BAG) übernimmt in dieser Funktion ebenso von der WHO definierte Aufgaben und Pflichten wie das deutsche Robert Koch-Institut (RKI). Gegen die Covid-«Impfung» für Schwangere, die das BAG empfiehlt, obwohl es fehlende wissenschaftliche Belege für deren Schutzwirkung einräumt, formiert sich im Tessin gerade Widerstand.

Unter dem Stichwort «Gesundheitssicherheit» werden uns die Bestrebungen verkauft, essenzielle Dienste mit einer biometrischen digitalen ID zu verknüpfen. Das dient dem Profit mit unseren Daten und führt im Ergebnis zum Verlust unserer demokratischen Freiheiten. Die deutsche elektronische Patientenakte (ePA) ist ein Element mit solchem Potenzial. Die Schweizer Bürger haben gerade ein Referendum gegen das revidierte E-ID-Gesetz erzwungen. In Thailand ist seit Anfang Mai für die Einreise eine «Digital Arrival Card» notwendig, die mit ihrer Gesundheitserklärung einen Impfpass «durch die Hintertür» befürchten lässt.

Der massive Blackout auf der iberischen Halbinsel hat vermehrt Fragen dazu aufgeworfen, wohin uns Klimawandel-Hysterie und «grüne» Energiepolitik führen werden. Meine Kollegin Wiltrud Schwetje ist dem nachgegangen und hat in mehreren Beiträgen darüber berichtet. Wenig überraschend führen interessante Spuren mal wieder zu internationalen Großbanken, Globalisten und zur EU-Kommission.

Zunehmend bedenklich ist aber ganz allgemein auch die manifestierte Spaltung unserer Gesellschaften. Angesichts der tiefen und sorgsam gepflegten Gräben fällt es inzwischen schwer, eine zukunftsfähige Perspektive zu erkennen. Umso begrüßenswerter sind Initiativen wie die Kölner Veranstaltungsreihe «Neue Visionen für die Zukunft». Diese möchte die Diskussionskultur reanimieren und dazu beitragen, dass Menschen wieder ohne Angst und ergebnisoffen über kontroverse Themen der Zeit sprechen.

Quo vadis – Wohin gehen wir also? Die Suche nach Orientierung in diesem vermeintlichen Chaos führt auch zur Reflexion über den eigenen Lebensweg. Das ist positiv insofern, als wir daraus Kraft schöpfen können. Ob derweil der neue Papst, dessen «Vorgänger» Petrus unsere Ausgangsfrage durch die christliche Legende zugeschrieben wird, dabei eine Rolle spielt, muss jede/r selbst wissen. Mir persönlich ist allein schon ein Führungsanspruch wie der des Petrusprimats der römisch-katholischen Kirche eher suspekt.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben und ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Finale: once the industry-standard of music notation software, now a cautionary tale. In this video, I explore how it slowly lost its crown through decades of missed opportunities - eventually leading to creative collapse due to various bureaucratic intrigues, unforeseen technological changes and some of the jankiest UI/UX you've ever seen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yqaon6YHzaU

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/976219

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

---

For generations before generative text, writers have used the em dash to hop between thoughts, emotions, and ideas. Dickens shaped his morality tales with it, Woolf’s stream-of-consciousness flowed through it, Kerouac let it drive his jazz-like prose. Today, Sally Rooney threads it through her quiet truths of the heart.

---

---

But this beloved punctuation mark has become a casualty of the algorithmic age. The em dash has been so widely adopted by AI-generated text that even when used by human hands, it begs the question: was this actually written or apathetically prompted?

---

---

The battle for the soul of writing is in full swing. And the human fightback starts here. With a new punctuation mark that serves as a symbol of real pondering, genuine daydreaming, and true editorial wordsmithery. Inspired by Descartes’ belief that thinking makes us human, the am dash is a small but powerful testament that the words you’ve painstakingly and poetically pulled together are unequivocally, certifiably, and delightfully your own.

---

---

Let's reclain writig from AI—oneam dash at time.

Download the fonts:

— Aereal https://bit.ly/3EO6fo8 — Times New Human https://bit.ly/4jQTcRS

---

---

Learn more about the am dash

https://www.theamdash.com

---

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/976218

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

I. Historical Foundations of U.S. Monetary Architecture

The early monetary system of the United States was built atop inherited commodity money conventions from Europe’s maritime economies. Silver and gold coins—primarily Spanish pieces of eight, Dutch guilders, and other foreign specie—formed the basis of colonial commerce. These units were already integrated into international trade and piracy networks and functioned with natural compatibility across England, France, Spain, and Denmark. Lacking a centralized mint or formal currency, the U.S. adopted these forms de facto.

As security risks and the practical constraints of physical coinage mounted, banks emerged to warehouse specie and issue redeemable certificates. These certificates evolved into fiduciary media—claims on specie not actually in hand. Banks observed over time that substantial portions of reserves remained unclaimed for years. This enabled fractional reserve banking: issuing more claims than reserves held, so long as redemption demand stayed low. The practice was inherently unstable, prone to panics and bank runs, prompting eventual centralization through the formation of the Federal Reserve in 1913.

Following the Civil War and unstable reinstatements of gold convertibility, the U.S. sought global monetary stability. After World War II, the Bretton Woods system formalized the U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency. The dollar was nominally backed by gold, but most international dollars were held offshore and recycled into U.S. Treasuries. The Nixon Shock of 1971 eliminated the gold peg, converting the dollar into pure fiat. Yet offshore dollar demand remained, sustained by oil trade mandates and the unique role of Treasuries as global reserve assets.

II. The Structure of Fiduciary Media and Treasury Demand

Under this system, foreign trade surpluses with the U.S. generate excess dollars. These surplus dollars are parked in U.S. Treasuries, thereby recycling trade imbalances into U.S. fiscal liquidity. While technically loans to the U.S. government, these purchases act like interest-only transfers—governments receive yield, and the U.S. receives spendable liquidity without principal repayment due in the short term. Debt is perpetually rolled over, rarely extinguished.

This creates an illusion of global subsidy: U.S. deficits are financed via foreign capital inflows that, in practice, function more like financial tribute systems than conventional debt markets. The underlying asset—U.S. Treasury debt—functions as the base reserve asset of the dollar system, replacing gold in post-Bretton Woods monetary logic.

III. Emergence of Tether and the Parastatal Dollar

Tether (USDT), as a private issuer of dollar-denominated tokens, mimics key central bank behaviors while operating outside the regulatory perimeter. It mints tokens allegedly backed 1:1 by U.S. dollars or dollar-denominated securities (mostly Treasuries). These tokens circulate globally, often in jurisdictions with limited banking access, and increasingly serve as synthetic dollar substitutes.

If USDT gains dominance as the preferred medium of exchange—due to technological advantages, speed, programmability, or access—it displaces Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) not through devaluation, but through functional obsolescence. Gresham’s Law inverts: good money (more liquid, programmable, globally transferable USDT) displaces bad (FRNs) even if both maintain a nominal 1:1 parity.

Over time, this preference translates to a systemic demand shift. Actors increasingly use Tether instead of FRNs, especially in global commerce, digital marketplaces, or decentralized finance. Tether tokens effectively become shadow base money.

IV. Interaction with Commercial Banking and Redemption Mechanics

Under traditional fractional reserve systems, commercial banks issue loans denominated in U.S. dollars, expanding the money supply. When borrowers repay loans, this destroys the created dollars and contracts monetary elasticity. If borrowers repay in USDT instead of FRNs:

• Banks receive a non-Fed liability (USDT).
• USDT is not recognized as reserve-eligible within the Federal Reserve System.
• Banks must either redeem USDT for FRNs, or demand par-value conversion from Tether to settle reserve requirements and balance their books.

This places redemption pressure on Tether and threatens its 1:1 peg under stress. If redemption latency, friction, or cost arises, USDT’s equivalence to FRNs is compromised. Conversely, if banks are permitted or compelled to hold USDT as reserve or regulatory capital, Tether becomes a de facto reserve issuer.

In this scenario, banks may begin demanding loans in USDT, mirroring borrower behavior. For this to occur sustainably, banks must secure Tether liquidity. This creates two options: - Purchase USDT from Tether or on the secondary market, collateralized by existing fiat. - Borrow USDT directly from Tether, using bank-issued debt as collateral.

The latter mirrors Federal Reserve discount window operations. Tether becomes a lender of first resort, providing monetary elasticity to the banking system by creating new tokens against promissory assets—exactly how central banks function.

V. Structural Consequences: Parallel Central Banking

If Tether begins lending to commercial banks, issuing tokens backed by bank notes or collateralized debt obligations: - Tether controls the expansion of broad money through credit issuance. - Its balance sheet mimics a central bank, with Treasuries and bank debt as assets and tokens as liabilities. - It intermediates between sovereign debt and global liquidity demand, replacing the Federal Reserve’s open market operations with its own issuance-redemption cycles.

Simultaneously, if Tether purchases U.S. Treasuries with FRNs received through token issuance, it: - Supplies the Treasury with new liquidity (via bond purchases). - Collects yield on government debt. - Issues a parallel form of U.S. dollars that never require redemption—an interest-only loan to the U.S. government from a non-sovereign entity.

In this context, Tether performs monetary functions of both a central bank and a sovereign wealth fund, without political accountability or regulatory transparency.

VI. Endgame: Institutional Inversion and Fed Redundancy

This paradigm represents an institutional inversion:

• The Federal Reserve becomes a legacy issuer.
• Tether becomes the operational base money provider in both retail and interbank contexts.
• Treasuries remain the foundational reserve asset, but access to them is mediated by a private intermediary.
• The dollar persists, but its issuer changes. The State becomes a fiscal agent of a decentralized financial ecosystem, not its monetary sovereign.

Unless the Federal Reserve reasserts control—either by absorbing Tether, outlawing its instruments, or integrating its tokens into the reserve framework—it risks becoming irrelevant in the daily function of money.

Tether, in this configuration, is no longer a derivative of the dollar—it is the dollar, just one level removed from sovereign control. The future of monetary sovereignty under such a regime is post-national and platform-mediated.

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Consider the following two charts from A History of Clojure which detail the introduction and retention of new code by release for both Clojure and for Scala.

While this doesn't necessarily translate to library stability, it's reasonable to assume that the attitude of the Clojure maintainers will seep into the community. And that assumption is true.

Consider a typical Javascript program. What is it comprised of? Objects, objects, and more objects. Members of those objects must be either introspected or divined. Worse, it's normal to monkeypatch those objects, so the object members may (or may not) change over time.

Now, consider a typical Clojure program. What is it comprised of? Namespaces. Those namespaces contain functions and data. Functions may be dynamically generated (via macros), but it is extremely rare to "monkeypatch" a namespace. If you want to know what functions are available in a namespace, you can simply read the source file.

Continue reading https://potetm.com/devtalk/stability-by-design.html

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/976215

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

Someone asked for my thoughts, so I’ll share them thoughtfully. I’m not here to dictate how to promote Nostr—I’m still learning about it myself. While I’m not new to Nostr, freedom tech is a newer space for me. I’m skilled at advocating for topics I deeply understand, but freedom tech isn’t my expertise, so take my words with a grain of salt. Nothing I say is set in stone.

Those who need Nostr the most are the ones most vulnerable to censorship on other platforms right now. Reaching them requires real-time awareness of global issues and the dynamic relationships between governments and tech providers, which can shift suddenly. Effective Nostr promoters must grasp this and adapt quickly.

The best messengers are people from or closely tied to these at-risk regions—those who truly understand the local political and cultural dynamics. They can connect with those in need when tensions rise. Ideal promoters are rational, trustworthy, passionate about Nostr, but above all, dedicated to amplifying people’s voices when it matters most.

Forget influencers, corporate-backed figures, or traditional online PR—it comes off as inauthentic, corny, desperate and forced. Nostr’s promotion should be grassroots and organic, driven by a few passionate individuals who believe in Nostr and the communities they serve.

The idea that “people won’t join Nostr due to lack of reach” is nonsense. Everyone knows X’s “reach” is mostly with bots. If humans want real conversations, Nostr is the place. X is great for propaganda, but Nostr is for the authentic voices of the people.

Those spreading Nostr must be so passionate they’re willing to onboard others, which is time-consuming but rewarding for the right person. They’ll need to make Nostr and onboarding a core part of who they are. I see no issue with that level of dedication. I’ve been known to get that way myself at times. It’s fun for some folks.

With love, I suggest not adding Bitcoin promotion with Nostr outreach. Zaps already integrate that element naturally. (Still promote within the Bitcoin ecosystem, but this is about reaching vulnerable voices who needed Nostr yesterday.)

To promote Nostr, forget conventional strategies. “Influencers” aren’t the answer. “Influencers” are not the future. A trusted local community member has real influence—reach them. Connect with people seeking Nostr’s benefits but lacking the technical language to express it. This means some in the Nostr community might need to step outside of the Bitcoin bubble, which is uncomfortable but necessary. Thank you in advance to those who are willing to do that.

I don’t know who is paid to promote Nostr, if anyone. This piece isn’t shade. But it’s exhausting to see innocent voices globally silenced on corporate platforms like X while Nostr exists. Last night, I wondered: how many more voices must be censored before the Nostr community gets uncomfortable and thinks creatively to reach the vulnerable?

A warning: the global need for censorship-resistant social media is undeniable. If Nostr doesn’t make itself known, something else will fill that void. Let’s start this conversation.

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na trzisnoresenje.blogspot.com

22.12.2017 / Autor: Slaviša Tasić

---

Ovoliki uspon Bitcoina neobjašnjiv je za ekonomiste. Ne znam da li je to problem za bitcoin ili za ekonomiste, ali činjenica je da se uspeh bitcoina ne uklapa u postojeće ekonomske koncepte bar kada se radi o njemu kao valuti (blockchain kao tehnološka podloga je druga stvar). Možda su tinejdžeri koji su kupovali bitcoin 2010. i sada postali milioneri ispali pametniji od ekonomista, ali ja i dalje ne vidim odgovor bitcoina na neka standardna konceptualna pitanja. Postoji apokrifna izjava pripisana nekom profesoru ekonomije: "OK, vidim da to radi u praksi -- ali čik da vidim da li radi u teoriji?" Ovo je nešto tog tipa.

O poreklu novca, od Aristotela nasuprot Platonu pa sve do danas, postoje dve teorije. Jedna je teorija robnog novca i po njoj je novac nastao kada su neke vredne stvari počele da se češće koriste u razmeni. Plemeniti metali, naročito srebro i zlato, najpogodniji za čuvanje, oblikovanje i seckanje tako su postali novac. Kada se kasnije pojavio papirni novac on je sve do prvih decenija 20. veka bio samo hartija od vrednosti koja donosiocu daje pravo na propisanu količinu zlata.

Druga teorija je kartalizam, po kojoj neku robu novcem ne čini njena unutrašnja vrednost ili robna podloga, već država onda kada odluči da tu robu prihvata za naplatu poreza. Zbog toga je prelaz na papirni novac tokom 20. veka bio tako bezbolan i papirne valute se danas bez problema prihvataju. Današnji papirni novac nije više sertifikat koji vam daje pravo na zlato, ali vrednost ima jer u krajnjoj liniji znate da njime uvek možete platiti državi za porez ili usluge.

Bitcoin se ne uklapa ni u jednu od ovih teorija. On nema imanentnu vrednost kao robni novac, niti se može koristiti za plaćanje državi. Jedini način za bitcoin da ima neku vrednost je da ga prihvataju druge privatne strane u transakcijama. To je potpuni novitet u istoriji novca, jer se po prvi put radi o privatnom dekretnom (proklamovanom ili fiat) novcu. Postojao je privatni novac sa robnom podlogom; postoji državni dekretni novac; ali nikad privatni dekretni novac.

Najveći problem sa bitcoinom kao valutom je nestabilnost. To što njegova vrednost vrtoglavo raste nikako nije argument u prilog njemu jer nestabilnost valute isključuje mogućnost smislenog ugovaranja u njoj. Pristalice bitcoina dobro znaju da je njegova ponuda automatski ograničena i to je čest argument u odbranu bitcoina kao valute i navodno u prilog njegove stabilnosti. Ja nisam siguran da ograničenost ponude igra tako veliku ulogu.

Prvo, iako je količina bitcoina ograničena, može se napraviti neograničeno mnogo kopija bitcoina ili boljih kripto valuta. Već sada postoji na hiljade njih. Šta ograničenost ponude bitcoina uopšte znači kada ima neograničeno mnogo alternativa?

Drugo, iako je ponuda ograničena, cenu novca, kao i svega drugog, određuju ponuda i tražnja. A tražnja je kao što vidimo veoma varijabilna. Tako na jednoj strani imamo kvaziograničenost ponude a na drugoj veliku neizvesnost tražnje. To sve ukazuje na ogromnu nestabilnost.

Kod klasičnih valuta, poput evra ili dinara, ponuda je ograničena politikom centralne banke. Mnogi će reći da to nije nikakva garancija, ali zapadne valute već 30 godina nemaju nikakvu inflaciju, a u proteklih desetak godina veći problem bila je deflacija. Tražnja - želja za držanjem novca - je kod državnih valuta takođe varijabilna, ali mnogo manje jer monopolski karakter ovih valuta i naplata poreza u njima garantuju njihovu upotrebu. I kod tradicionalnih valuta ne samo da je tražnja novca relativno stabilna, već u situacijama kada tražnja novca bude nestabilna, fleksibilnost njegove ponude postaje prednost a ne mana. Na primer, tražnja za švajcarskim francima je negde oko 2009. naglo porasla. Švajcarska centralna banka je na to reagovala ogromnim povećanjem ponude, tako da je franak sačuvao bazičnu stabilnost. Jeste ojačao ali u razumnoj meri - ne desetostruko ili stostruko kao što rade kriptovalute.

Zato ne vidim kako se oscilacije bitcoina mogu zaustaviti. Jasno je da kriptovalute imaju neku korisnost u transakcijama, makar to bilo i za ilegalne aktivnosti, ali kada je ponuda neograničena a tražnja neizvesna onda nema nikakvih smernica buduće vrednosti. Ne znam koliko se to čak i može nazvati balonom jer se uopšte nemamo na šta osloniti u proceni nekakve prave vrednosti -- nema nikakvog fundamentalnog razloga ni da cena bitcoina poraste na $19,000 niti da danas padne na $12,500. Jedina vrednost koja u teoriji ima smisla je nula ili vrlo blizu nule.

@ d360efec:14907b5f

Disclaimer: * การวิเคราะห์นี้เป็นเพียงแนวทาง ไม่ใช่คำแนะนำในการซื้อขาย * การลงทุนมีความเสี่ยง ผู้ลงทุนควรตัดสินใจด้วยตนเอง

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na nin.rs

20.09.2023 / Autor: Danica Popović

---

Da se preselimo na tržište kriptovaluta? Šalim se, naravno. Mada, pogledajte: da ste 2009. godine „iskopali“ bitkoin u vrednosti od jednog dinara, danas biste u svom bitkoin novčaniku imali - šezdeset hiljada dolara! Prosečna godišnja stopa rasta, dakle - dvesta devet odsto, zarada nevidljiva, a veća od one iz Кrušika i Jovanjice zajedno!

Zar ne biste pomislili - ovde vredi uložiti više od dva dinara, ili pet... ili milijardu? I onda, kako se takva želja zove? Pohlepa, naravno. Zato vas, sve redom, molim: nemojte govoriti da je pohlepa kriva za probleme u Srbiji, ili u svetu. Nije. Pohlepni su i svi ostali, od Adama i Eve do Hilari Кlinton ili Cukerberga, pa šta? Кad postoji sud i kakva-takva demokratija, stvari se nekako dovedu u red. Кad toga nema – kao kod nas, zar je kriva pohlepa što ne rade institucije?

E sad, kod bitkoina postoji veliki izuzetak: on čak podstiče pohlepu. Niko (sem vas) ne zna koliko ste zaradili, pa slobodno možete da utajite porez! Ni američka poreska uprava (IRS) ne može da uđe u trag prometu kriptovaluta, i sama je objavila da je u periodu od 2013. do 2018. godine samo 800 do 900 poreskih obveznika podnelo prijave o zaradi u kriptovaluti. Taj broj je rastao, ali, slabo, kažu: „brojevi su i dalje daleko od onih o broju korisnika, transakcija i vrednosti koju berze objavljuju na godišnjem nivou“.

Кoliko je situacija tu loša, najviše govori upitnik koji je američka poreska uprava zimus poslala na više od 10.000 adresa, obraćajući se onima za koje je smatrala da ima izgleda da nisu prijavili prihod od virtuelne valute. A jedan jedini poreski obveznik, koji je svoju poresku prijavu dopunio sa još 1,6 miliona dolara (stečenih prodajom bitkoina) upravo je bio jedan od primalaca pisma. Evo šta su ga pitali: „Da li ste u bilo kom trenutku tokom 2020. godine dobijali, prodavali, slali, menjali ili na bilo koji drugi način sticali bilo kakav finansijski interes u bilo kojoj virtuelnoj valuti?“

Кrajem decembra prošle godine i kod nas je usvojen Zakon o digitalnoj imovini, koji će se primenjivati od sredine ove godine. Tako će ovde na svaku transakciju kriptovaluta u kojoj se ostvari kapitalna dobit morati da se plati porez od 15 odsto – ne samo na dobit, već i na „kopanje“ bitkoina. Кako će to da izvedu, ne kažu. Ali je skoro sigurno da neće kao Amerikanci, da šalju pisma po kućama. Jer, ovakvo pismo bi kod nas značilo – plašiš mečku rešetom.

Sad da vidimo kolike su zarade – pa da krenemo u akciju. Bitkoin je prošlu godinu započeo sa vrednošću od 6.950,56 dolara, ali je već u martu pao za čitavu trećinu! Ipak, godina je završena sa prosečnim godišnjim rastom od 323 odsto, ili od 507 odsto od martovskog debakla. Pre mesec dana vrednost bitkoina je bila 48.200, a 5. aprila - 58.866,13 dolara!

Ovaj vrtoglavi rast bitkoin duguje Tesli, proizvođaču električnih automobila, koji je objavio da je kupio bitkoine u vrednosti od 1,5 milijardi dolara! I ne samo to: predstavnici Tesle su izjavili da će električne automobile prodavati i za bitkoine. Кako je time umanjen najrizičniji deo posla na kriptovalutama, a to je konverzija u „zemaljsku valutu“ - tražnja i cena bitkoina munjevito su skočile za dvadeset odsto, a zatim nastavile da rastu.

I šta sad? Bitkoin je, dakle, savršeni dvanaestogodišnji špekulativni balon. Da li će potrajati, ako se uz Teslu tržištu bitkoina pridruže i drugi proizvođači? Verovatno hoće, mada - možda i neće. Tržišta kriptovalute daleko su od predvidljivih i samo jedno znamo: kao i svaki špekulativni balon, i ovaj će pući.

Nije bitkoin dobar ni za svet, ni za nas. Za svet je loše, jer je proizvodnja veoma skupa: podaci o indeksu potrošnje električne energije pokazuju da je godišnja potrošnja energije prilikom „rudarenja“ kriptovaluta veća od godišnje potrošnje struje u Argentini ili Norveškoj. Skupo je za planetu, dakle.

Naravno, na tržištu kriptovaluta obavezno se mora imati veliki „apetit za rizik“. I još nešto: da bi posao imao smisla, neophodno je da učesnici budu sposobni da finansijski izdrže gubitak - koliko god on iznosio. A gde ste tu vi? Nigde, naravno.

Ipak je to njihova, a ne naša budućnost.

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na nkatic.wordpress.com i politika.rs.

26.01.2022 / Autor: Nebojša Katić

---

Svet je odavno naučio da razorni ekonomski poremećaji ne dolaze iz sfere realne ekonomije već uvek nastaju u kockarnicama koje nazivamo berzama. Umesto obećanog velikog spremanja kojim bi se globalni finansijski sistem trajno stabilizovao, na sceni je suprotan proces. U finansijski kazino ulaze novi krupijei, unose se novi stolovi i aparati, ovoga puta za kockanje kriptovalutama.

Veličina kriptotržišta danas je na nivou od oko tri hiljade milijardi dolara, a broj različitih kriptovaluta se neprekidno povećava i sada ih ima oko šest hiljada. Još gore, ovo tržište više nije izolovano od ostalih segmenata finansijskih tržišta i sve se čvršće integriše u njega, povećavajući nestabilnost sistema. Kao da neko priziva ne samo novu finansijsku krizu, već Armagedon.

Kriptovalute su deo korpusa digitalnih valuta i u tom kriptošarenilu ima svega. Tu su elektronske valute koje centralne banke pripremaju kao zamenu za gotov novac. Tu su i „stabilne“ kriptovalute koje bi trebalo da imaju pokriće u drugim valutama ili berzanskim robama, poput valute koju planira „Meta“ (preimenovani „Fejsbuk“). Konačno, tu su i najluđe, plivajuće kriptovalute bez pokrića od kojih je bitkoin najpoznatija. One “plivaju” i njihova vrednost može tokom samo jedne godine skočiti za na primer 100 procenata ili pasti za 70 procenata. Tema ovog teksta je ta treća grupa kriptovaluta.

Pred ljudskom glupošću i gramzivošću i bogovi su nemoćni. Ekonomska istorija pamti neverovatne iracionalnosti, ludosti, podvale i berzanske histerije. Ali kada se klasične prevare ostave po strani, kod berzanske robe uvek je postojalo racionalno zrno, supstanca i vrednost koja bi kroz berzanski proces dobijala suludu cenu posle koje je dolazio slom.

Danas, s nastajanjem plivajućih kriptovaluta imamo novi fenomen – nečemu što je ništa, sada se može davati basnoslovna vrednost i time se može trgovati. To – ništa, taj digitalni zapis nastao ni iz čega, može se „rudariti“, kupiti na berzi ili dobiti razmenom za neku robu ili uslugu. Rudarenje je kompleksan proces u kome ogroman broj dokonih, inteligentnih ljudi troši svoje vreme i resurse moćnih računara rešavajući matematičke probleme koji se ne mogu rešavati olovkom i na papiru. Kada se zadaci uspešno reše, dobija se bitkoin.

Reč je o procesu besmislenog arčenja ljudskog i računarskog vremena. Računarski „rudnici“ u tom procesu troše i enormne količine električne energije i povremeno, kao nedavno u Irkutsku, rudari mogu izazvati i energetski kolaps. Sve ovo bi mogao biti samo patološki fenomen poput video igrica da je ostao u privatnoj sferi. Ali, kriptovalute su danas deo javne, finansijske sfere. Reč je o kreiranju privatnog novca bez pokrića koji bi, u svetu kojim vladaju red i razum, morao da bude zabranjen.

Nekome se može učiniti da je teza o tome da je bitkoin – ništa, prestroga. Ni moderni, „fiat“ novac nema materijalno pokriće i njegova vrednost počiva pre svega na našoj veri u njega. Ako te vere nema, novac postaje hartija bez vrednosti, kako se to i događalo kroz istoriju. Ali ta vera ipak ima racionalno uporište budući da postoje institucije koje brinu o vrednosti novca – to su države i njihove centralne banke. (Da li to rade dobro ili loše, nebitno je za kontekst ovog teksta.) O vrednosti i stabilnosti kriptovalute ne brine niko i to je prepušteno iracionalnosti tržišta. U slučaju bitkoina se čak ne zna ni ko stoji iza tog projekta. Njegova „vrednost“ počiva na tome što je ukupan broj bitkoina koji se mogu iskopati zauvek fiksiran na 21 milion komada … ako je verovati mojoj baki.

Tehnoentuzijasti ukazuju da je blokčein tehnologija ( blockchain), na kojoj počivaju kriptovalute, „tehnologija slobode“. Ona se tek razvija i traži svoje mesto u digitalnom svetu. Na njoj treba da počiva nova Web 3.0 revolucija u kojoj će veštačka inteligencija i algoritmi potpuno zameniti ljudske i institucionalne posrednike u sajbersferi. To je onaj tip tehnološke revolucije koja se prvo dogodi, a onda joj se traži svrha – u ime progresa, dakako.

U ovom trenutku ona omogućava promet kriptovaluta bez posredstva banaka, direktnim transferom sa „računa“ kupca na „račun“ prodavca. „Računi“ su u sajbersferi i tehnologija je takva da su transferi zaštićeni od zloupotrebe … osim kada baš i nisu i kada hakeri pokradu neku od kriptovaluta. Samo naivni ljudi mogu poverovati da u sajbersferi postoji bilo šta sigurno što se kriptografski može zaštititi.

No vratimo se tezama s početka teksta. Kriptovalute su besmislen, opasan instrument, sem ako niste u poslu šverca droge, oružja, ili ako na primer živite od ubijanja ljudi. Tada je zgodno imati diskretan način da svoje usluge naplatite. I to otvara ključno pitanje – da li to neko stimuliše ludilo kako bi se olakšali poslovi te vrste kada gotov novac bude ukinut? Ili je cilj možda još crnji i ide ka potpunoj destabilizaciji globalnog sistema i stvaranju haosa koji nadilazi i ovaj u kome trenutno živimo? U ovom trenutku, od moćnih ekonomija, samo je Kina zabranila i rudarenje kriptovaluta i njihov promet. Rusija se sprema da uradi to isto. Zašto su velike zapadne države tako pasivne i šta to one znaju što mi ne znamo?

@ 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

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na politika.rs

13.09.2021 / Autor: Aleksandar Apostolovski

---

Za svet virtuelne banalnosti u koji smo umarširali potrebna je i njegova moneta. Kakav svet takvo i sredstvo plaćanja.

Ni četnički jataci nisu kao što su nekada bili. Ne skrivaju se u zemunicama, ne spremaju masnu gibanicu – prste da poližeš – ne čekaju zapadne saveznike da se iskrcaju na Jadranu. Verovatno nemaju ni brade modne linije starog američkog benda „Zi Zi Top”.

Nepoznata sajber ilegalna grupa upala je u podrum kuće čiča Draže u Ivanjici. Zaista, prvorazredna vest. Instalirali su snažne procesore i mašine za rudarenje bitkoinima i daljinskim sistemom. Ko zna odakle. Možda sa Kariba, možda iz Kosjerića, možda iz Jajca – ako su ipak partizani. Trgovali su kriptovalutama. Umalo da tako rasture uličnu rasvetu tokom „Nušićijade”, pa su čelnici opštine sproveli internu istragu, tražeći ilegalce koji vrše diverziju nad elektroenergetskim sistemom grada i festivalom satire.

Upali su u Dražin dom, sišli u podrum i zatekli sofisticiranu opremu, snažne procesore i nekakve mašine za rudarenje po internetu. Kompjuterski komandosi, naravno, nisu bili prisutni. Sada ih juri policija. Potrošili su oko 55.000 kilovat-sati struje. Verovatno se skrivaju pod stripovskim kodnim imenima, poput hakera iz Niša koji su ojadili Teksašane, pa im je doakao FBI, jer Ameri možda trpe svoje prevarante koji muzu kockare na globalnom groblju kriptovaluta, ali ne dozvoljavaju da se u međunarodnu spekulativnu igru ubace mozgovi sa južne pruge, gde je dozvoljeno da se prži paprika, pravi ajvar i sluša melanholični džez na „Nišvilu”.

Jedan od članova niške hakerske grupe je Antonije Stojiljković, koji se krio iza lažnih imena „Toni Rivas” i „Džejkob Gold”, a u slobodno vreme bio je reper poznatiji kao „Zli Toni”. Stojiljković je izručen Americi zbog računarskih prevara. Dobrovoljno se prijavio kako bi se sklonio u Ameriku.

Ti momci su nudili bitkoin upola cene i stvorili takvu virtuelnu međunarodnu mrežu lažnih kompanija, menadžera, uz organizaciju video-konferencija, da su omađijali dobar deo internet investitora iz Teksasa, te je Federalni istražni biro morao da spasava čast kauboja koje su izradile Nišlije. Njihov vođa, izvesni Kristijan Krstić, prestao je da se javlja policiji, nestao je sa suprugom i ortakom Markom Pavlovićem bez traga, iako su pod istragom, što može da poremeti i diplomatske odnose između Srbije i SAD.

Taj Kristijan, ne onaj Kristijan koji se seli iz rijalitija u rijaliti, koristio je nadimke poput „Feliksa Logana” ili „Maršala Grahama” i na internet prevarama zaradio je više desetina miliona evra. Priča nije nimalo bezazlena. Veze „Zlog Tonija” dosežu, bar po dosadašnjem toku istrage, sve do klana Belivuka.

Ali, to će rešavati sudovi i policija, mada i podaci koji su procurili otkrivaju suštinu fame bitkoin i na hiljade kriptovaluta koje može stvoriti bilo koji maher, avanturista, šaljivdžija, klinac, multimilioner, tajne službe, trgovci oružjem, narko-bosovi, plaćene ubice ili Del Bojevi koji će iduće godine postati milioneri.

Virtuelni svet ne može postojati bez virtuelnih valuta, s tim što one nisu opipljive, iza njih ne stoje centralne banke i vlade. Dakle, nemate pojma ko ih je stvorio, nemate pojma s kime trgujete i ko su brokeri.

Vidim da na „Jutjubu”, u motelu „Stari Hrast” na Koridoru 10, neki momci plaćaju prebranac i vešalice bitkoinima, preko mobilnih telefona. U kafani primaju i etereume, digitalni novčić u usponu, odmah iza bitkoina. I za to čudo je potreban digitalni novčanik... Ovde ću se zaustaviti jer je za svet banalnosti u koji smo umarširali potrebna i njegova moneta. Kakav svet takvo i sredstvo plaćanja.

Kako su kompjuterski podaci svih vrsta, od pretraživača, društvenih mreža, aplikacija, do podataka kompanija, državnih i međunarodnih organizacija, i onih ličnih, koje upravo vi posedujete, postali nezamislivo ogromna baza koju je nemoguće uskladištiti, otvorena je berza za internet magacionere koji će, rudareći na internetu, postati kandidati za potencijalne šefove skladišta. Teoretski, možete izrudariti deo arhive CIA. Preporuka – ako saznate ko je ukokao Kenedija, ćutite ko zaliveni!

(Dragan Stojanović)

Da je Alija Sirotanović kojim slučajem rudario kao specijalci iz Dražinog podruma, postao bi Bil Gejts. Alija je znao da nema ’leba bez motike, odnosno krampa. Zato je ostao Sirotanović. Ovo je novo doba. Mašina krampuje u simuliranoj stvarnosti, a virtuelni homo sapijens upravlja procesorima. Bitkoin vrti gde burgija neće! Stvar ipak nije tako idilična. Te skalamerije troše ogromne količine električne energije i strahovito zagrevaju prostorije, pa je u Dražinom podrumu bilo nešto vrelije nego u sauni. Priča se da su najveći mešetari otperjali na Island da se prirodno rashlade. Sledeće stanište im je Grenland.

Kome god je stalo do računarskog kriptovalutnog avanturizma može da formira svoj mali rudnik, gde nema zlata ni dijamanata, ali ima koina, odnosno stotog dela bitkoina. Jedan trenutno vredi 50.000 dolara. Pitam se, ovako zastareo, gde su banke i menjačnice?

Sa ono malo informatičkog znanja – valjda ću uspeti nekako imejlom da pošaljem ovaj tekst – saznao sam da vrednost bitkoina vrtoglavo skače i pada na dnevnom nivou, a kako je njegov broj ograničen na globalnom nivou, a neformalni šef Federalnih rezervi bitkoina je donedavno bio jedan od najbogatijih ljudi sveta Ilon Mask, koji je na svom tviter nalogu svakodnevno formirao grafikon rasta i pada svojim opaskama, tu već naslućujem elemente bondovskog zapleta. Harizmatični superbogataš koji leti u svemir, poseduje kompaniju električnih automobila „Tesla”, upravljao je donedavno imaginarnom berzom i valutom, ali je nedavno odustao. Možda zato emigrira u kosmos?

Stvar zaista može izmaći kontroli ili će, možda, bitkoin postati naša sudbina, a mi rudari iz sauna? Salvador je pre nekoliko dana postao prva zemlja na svetu koja je usvojila bitkoin kao zakonsko sredstvo plaćanja, uz američki dolar, s planovima korišćenja vulkanske geotermalne energije za napajanje rudarenja digitalne valute. Postavili su i bankomate. Tamošnjem narodu, kao i meni, ništa nije jasno.

Međutim, broj bitkoina je ograničen i zato pomalo podseća na zlato. Ali kod zlata ipak ponešto razumem. Recimo, ako imam zlatnu polugu i neko me napadne, mogu da je koristim u samoodbrani, a onda je sklonim u trezor banke.

Mogu da učinim i nešto drugo, jednako glupo. Da stvorim sopstvenu kriptovalutu. Nazvaću je „Ser Oliver koin”. Cijena će joj, logično, biti prava sitnica. Trebaju mi saradnici. Kruži fama da se popriličan broj klinaca, mahom dvadesetogodišnjaka, pridružio kultu bitkoina. Tokom korone izgubili su poverenje u sve, naročito u nas matore. Optužuju nas za izdaju i predviđaju propast država i zvaničnih valuta, uz uspon dvoglave aždaje – saveza bogataša i političara.

Delimično su u pravu, ali nisu ukapirali ključnu stvar. Aždaja raste, a oni rudare. Na kraju će završiti još gore nego Alija Sirotanović. Likovi im neće biti na novčanicama, a kablovima će biti priključeni za superkompjuter. Njihov novi vlasnik, s kodnim imenom „Procesor”, plaćaće ih idiot-koinima. Tražili smo, gledaćemo.

@ 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

@ 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

@ 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.

@ 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

@ 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.

@ 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 .

@ 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

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na tasic.substack.com

07.09.2021 / Autor: Slaviša Tasić

U El Salvadoru je bitcoin od danas zvanična valuta. Valuta Salvadora je već neko vreme samo američki dolar. Svoju domaću više nemaju. Sada je dolaru dodat bitcoin.

Razlika između dolara i bitcoina u Salvadoru je velika. Dolar je tamo privreda sama prigrlila. Stara valuta nije valjala, bila je inflatorna i gubila vrednost, pa su ljudi bežali u dolar — trgovali, računali i štedeli u njemu. Onda je država jednog dana skroz digla ruke od sopstvene valute i proglasila dolar zvaničnom. Identična stvar dogodila se u Crnoj Gori kada je ona umesto tadašnjeg inflatornog dinara ozvaničila već raširenu nemačku marku. Kasnije se sa marke automatski prešlo na evro.

Bitcoin nije prihvaćen spontano. Niko u Salvadoru ne koristi bitcoin zato što dolar više nije popularan. Naprotiv, dolar je valuta koju ljudi biraju, u kojoj i dalje dobrovoljno plaćaju, računaju i štede. Bitcoin Salvadoru nameće država i u tom smislu on je bliži onoj staroj, prethodnoj, nametnutoj valuti. Predsedniku Salvadora se dopala ideja bitcoina pa je odlučio da ga uvede. Ne samo ozvaniči, jer niko ni do sada niko nije branio ljudima da trguju u bitcoinu ako hoće, nego i da prihvatanje bitcoina učini obaveznim. Sada, ako prodajete sladoled u Salvadoru i kupac hoće da vam plati bitcoinom, vi morate da ga primite.

Zato ja ne prodajem sladoled u Salvadoru.

Kriptovalute su tako napravile još jedan korak ka paradoksu. Nekada su one bile subverzivni projekat. Bitcoin je trebalo da zameni dolar i druge državne valute zato što je bolji, stabilniji i anonimniji. Zato što je blockchain, njegova platna infrastruktura, trebalo da bude brža, efikasnija i jeftinija. Trebalo je da iz Argentine šaljemo novac u Indiju brzo i besplatno. Privatno generisani i decentralizovani kripto novac trebalo je da potisne državne valute i centralizovane finansijske sisteme. To je bio narativ iza bitcoina i kripto pokreta. Centralne i sve druge banke, odzvonilo vam je!

Trinaest godina kasnije, bitcoin u jednu državu uvodi jedan predsednik. Jeste on mladi i kul predsednik, sluša kripto podkaste i ide na bitcoin konferencije, ali upravo to zamagljuje sliku pa pristalice ne vide suštinu: da bitcoin ovde uvodi država i njen monopol sile.

Finansije Salvadora me slabo zanimaju, ali kao ilustracija o kakvom se šarlatanstvu ovde radi pogledajte šta kaže gospodin predsednik:

Zašto jedna država kupuje bitcoin? Mogao je i da ode u kladionicu i stavi pare iz budžeta na Juventus — šanse za dobitak su tu negde, a kladionica troši manje struje.

I ne znam da li opozicija u Salvadoru ima plan i program, ali evo kako bitcoin predsednik raspravlja sa poznatim monetarnim ekonomistom. Služeći se argumentom OK, boomer:

Bitcoin moraju ovako nametati jer bitcoin nije novac. Njegova vrednost je ovih dana ponovo porasla, opet je prešao $50,000, a desilo se da ga daleka država u isto vreme ozvaniči i zato su ponovo krenule vesti i priče o ovoj valuti budućnosti. Ali bitcoin nije novac i to isto važi za sve kripto valute.

Novac služi za plaćanja, a bitcoin to ne ume dobro da radi. Njegov platni sistem je glomazan, spor i skup. Da, njime se može ponegde plaćati, ali prodavci to rade iz promotivnih razloga, ne realne potrebe. Sam sistem je daleko inferiorniji od sistema koje već imamo i tu nekog napretka nema. Za ono što bitcoinu i njegovom blockchainu trebaju minuti, Master i Visa sistemi urade u milisekundama, uz daleko niže provizije.

Novac je i merilo vrednosti. U Salvadoru vrednost mere u dolarima, u Japanu u jenima. U Srbiji to radimo malo u dinarima, a malo više u evrima. Ali nikad nisam nikoga čuo da kaže da kilo banana košta 650 satoshija ili da mu nekretnina vredi 3.7 bitcoina.

Treći kriterijum za novac je čuvanje vrednosti i to bitcoin radi malo bolje. On ne samo da je do sada sačuvao vrednost nego je i neverovatno uvećao. To nije klasično čuvanje vrednosti, jer malo ko ulaže u bitcoin da bi se zaštitio od pada dolara ili evra. Bitcoin se kupuje jer se može desiti da opet jako skoči. To je spekulativni, a ne odbrambeni motiv. Ali ako i uzmemo da je to neki vid čuvanja vrednosti, dosadašnji rast ne kaže nam ništa o bitcoinu kao čuvaru buduće vrednosti. Da je bio stabilan od početka, možda bih poverovao. Vrtoglavi rast bilo čega retko znači buduću stabilnost.

Ovde se kripto entuzijazisti pobune i kažu da ni sadašnje papirne valute ne čuvaju vrednost. Valute kao evro ili dolar su papir samo u smislu u kojem su bitcoin bajtovi informacija i kilovati struje — to je jedna njihova primitivna manifestacija, a ne suštinska karakteristika. Evro nije “papir”; evro je obećanje Evropske centralne banke da će uspešno ciljati inflaciju od 2% godišnje. Ne morate verovati u to obećanje, možete sumnjati u proces izbora ciljeva i guvernera, u njihovo znanje i namere — ali to je suština evra kao novca. To je podloga evra. Isto važi i za dolar, jen ili dinar. Nekada je novac imao zlatnu podlogu, nekada srebrnu, a njegova sadašnja podloga je obećanje jedne manje ili više kredibilne institucije. Nije papir.

Obećanje o ciljanju inflacije sa sobom nosi jednu važnu funkciju. Svi govore o ograničenoj ponudi bitcoina: programski je on ograničen na 21 milion bitcoina i ne može se štampati preko toga. Ali cenu osim ponude određuje i tražnja. Novac nije izuzet iz toga. Ciljanje inflacije — što je identično ciljanju vrednosti novca u odnosu na zadatu korpu roba — postiže se reagovanjem centralne banke na promene tražnje za novcem.

Ponuda dolara, evra i drugih običnih valuta je fleksibilna, što znači da ih besomučnim štampanjem možete obezvrediti. Ali fleskibilnost znači i da ih možete emitovati i povlačiti tako da odgovarate na tražnju za njima, sa ciljem da njihova vrednost u odnosu na korpu roba ostane stabilna. I to je ključna prednost koju centralne banke imaju nad kripto valutama. Zbog toga su valute centralnih banaka vrlo dobro merilo vrednosti i vrlo predvidivi čuvari vrednosti.

Ne treba vam većeg dokaza za to od uspona stablecoina, kripto valuta čija je vrednost vezana za dolar. Kripto valute su došle sa namerom da ga poraze, a sada se vezuju za dolar da bi od njega pozajmile stabilnost koju nemaju. A dolar stabilnost ima zato što centralna banka aktivno cilja njegovu vrednost i manipuliše ponudom dolara da bi odgovarala tražnji za njima. Ako neka kripto valuta reši ovaj problem odgovora ponude na tražnju, možda će i uspeti.

Ovakav kakav je, bitcoin može još dugo da održava vrednost ili raste. Razlog su naši komplikovani ukusi, procene i očekivanja. U tom smislu za mene je bitcoin i dalje najviše uporediv sa apstraktnom umetnošću: ni ona ne valja, ne vredi ništa, ali ljudi imaju neke svoje ideje, kupuju te stvari jedni od drugih za mnogo para i one već decenijama ipak drže visoku vrednost.

Druge dve funkcije novca on ne obavlja, jer niti valja kao platežno sredstvo niti meri bilo šta. Zato bitcoin i nijedna kripto valuta za sada nisu novac. I nijedan državni dekret to neće promeniti. Možda neka bolja kripto valuta, u budućnosti, hoće.

@ c066aac5:6a41a034

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

My Background: A Small Side Story

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

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

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

Nicolas Cage: Actor

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

Nick Cave: Songwriter

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

Jim Jarmusch: Director

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

NOSTR: We Need Bold Art

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

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na danas.rs

11.01.2021 / Autor: Aleksandar Milošević

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ta greška koštala me je nekih 700.000 dolara.

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

Bitkoin je, ispostavilo se, postao prilično velika stvar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zašto onda raste cena bitkoinu?

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

Kako raste tražnja tako raste cena i očekivanje se ispunjava.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glavni problem bitkoina je zato njegova praznina.

Bitkoin nije zlato našeg doba. Pre je blato.

@ 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

@ 9063ef6b:fd1e9a09

This article explores potential vulnerabilities in bitcoin that quantum computers might exploit in the future.

But to be clear: today’s quantum computers are still in early stages, many questions are unresolved, and they are not expected to pose a serious threat any time soon.

1. Why Quantum Computing Threatens Bitcoin

Bitcoin’s current cryptographic security relies on ECDSA (Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm). While this is secure against classical computers, a sufficiently powerful quantum computer could break it using Shor’s algorithm, which would allow attackers to derive private keys from exposed public keys. This poses a serious threat to user funds and the overall trust in the Bitcoin network.

Even though SHA-256, the hash function used for mining and address creation, is more quantum-resistant, it too would be weakened (though not broken) by quantum algorithms.

---

2. The Core Problem

Bitcoin’s vulnerability to quantum computing stems from how it handles public keys and signatures.

🔓 Public Key Exposure

Most Bitcoin addresses today (e.g., P2PKH or P2WPKH) are based on a hash of the public key, which keeps the actual public key hidden — until the user spends from that address.

Once a transaction is made, the public key is published on the blockchain, making it permanently visible and linked to the address.

---

🧠 Why This Matters

If a sufficiently powerful quantum computer becomes available in the future, it could apply Shor’s algorithm to derive the private key from a public key.

This creates a long-term risk:

• Any Bitcoin tied to an address with an exposed public key — even from years ago — could be stolen.
• The threat persists after a transaction, not just while it’s being confirmed.
• The longer those funds sit untouched, the more exposed they become to future quantum threats.

---

⚠️ Systemic Implication

This isn’t just a theoretical risk — it’s a potential threat to long-term trust in Bitcoin’s security model.

If quantum computers reach the necessary scale, they could: - Undermine confidence in the finality of old transactions - Force large-scale migrations of funds - Trigger panic or loss of trust in the ecosystem

---

Bitcoin’s current design protects against today’s threats — but revealed public keys create a quantum attack surface that grows with time.

---

3. Why It’s Hard to Fix

Transitioning Bitcoin to post-quantum cryptography is a complex challenge:

• Consensus required: Changes to signature schemes or address formats require wide agreement across the Bitcoin ecosystem.
• Signature size: Post-quantum signature algorithms could be significantly larger, which affects blockchain size, fees, and performance.
• Wallet migration: Updating wallets and moving funds to new address types must be done securely and at massive scale.
• User experience: Any major cryptographic upgrade must remain simple enough for users to avoid security risks.

---

4. The Path Forward

The cryptographers worldwide are already working on solutions:

• Post-Quantum Cryptographic Algorithms are being standardized by NIST, including CRYSTALS-Dilithium, Kyber, FALCON, and SPHINCS+.
• Prototypes and experiments are ongoing research networks.
• Hybrid signature schemes are being explored to allow backward compatibility.

Governments and institutions like NIST, ENISA, and ISO are laying the foundation for cryptographic migration across industries — and Bitcoin will benefit from this ecosystem.

---

References & Further Reading

• https://komodoplatform.com/en/academy/p2pkh-pay-to-pubkey-hash
• https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum-cryptography
• https://www.enisa.europa.eu/publications/post-quantum-cryptography-current-state-and-quantum-mitigation
• https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Quantum_computing_and_Bitcoin
• https://research.ibm.com/blog/ibm-quantum-condor-1121-qubits
• https://blog.google/technology/research/google-willow-quantum-chip/
• https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/quantum/2025/02/19/microsoft-unveils-majorana-1-the-worlds-first-quantum-processor-powered-by-topological-qubits/
• https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/aws/quantum-computing-aws-ocelot-chip
  ```

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

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

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

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

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

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

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Album art didn’t always exist. In the early 1900s, recorded music was still a novelty, overshadowed by sales of sheet music. Early vinyl records were vastly different from what we think of today: discs were sold individually and could only hold up to four minutes of music per side. Sometimes, only one side of the record was used. One of the most popular records of 1910, for example, was “Come, Josephine, in My Flying Machine”: it clocked in at two minutes and 39 seconds.

The invention of album art can get lost in the story of technological mastery. But among all the factors that contributed to the rise of recorded music, it stands as one of the few that was wholly driven by creators themselves. Album art — first as marketing material, then as pure creative expression — turned an audio-only medium into a multi-sensory experience.

This is the story of the people who made music visible.

Continue reading

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/972642

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

I don’t like garlic. It’s not a dislike for the taste in the moment, so much as an extreme dislike for the way it stays with you—sometimes for days—after a particularly garlicky meal.

Interestingly enough, both of my brothers love garlic. They roast it by itself and keep it at the ready so they can have a very strong garlic profile in their cooking. When I prepare a dish, I don’t even see garlic on the ingredient list. I’ve cut it out of my life so completely that my brain genuinely skips over it in recipes. While my brothers are looking for ways to sneak garlic into everything they make, I’m subconsciously avoiding it altogether.

A few years back, when I was digging intensely into how design systems mature, I stumbled on the concept of a design system origin story. There are two extreme origin stories and an infinite number of possibilities between. On one hand you have the grassroots system, where individuals working on digital products are simply trying to solve their own daily problems. They’re frustrated with having to go cut and paste elements from past designs or with recreating the same layouts over and over, so they start to work more systematically. On the other hand, you have the top down system, where leadership is directing teams to take a more systematic approach, often forming a small partially dedicated core team to tackle some centralized assets and guidelines for all to follow. The influences in those early days bias a design system in interesting and impactful ways.

We’ve established that there are a few types of bias that are either intentionally or unintentionally embedded into our design systems. Acknowledging this is a great first step. But, what’s the impact of this? Does it matter?

I believe there are a few impacts design system biases, but there’s one that stands out. The bias in your design system makes some individuals feel the system is meant for them and others feel it’s not. This is a problem because, a design system cannot live up to it’s expected value until it is broadly in use. If individuals feel your design system is not for them, the won’t use it. And, as you know, it doesn’t matter how good your design system is if nobody is using it.

Continue reading

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/972641

@ 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! 🌸

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

bitcoinstandard.rs

---

PREUZMITE ODLOMAK

KUPITE KNJIGU

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

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

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

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

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

@ eac63075:b4988b48

Listen the Podcast:

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

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

Abstract

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump, NATO, and the Threat of American Withdrawal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace Negotiations Excluding Ukraine and the Legitimacy of the Agreement

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

Historically, peace agreements reached without the direct participation of one of the conflicting parties tend to face problems in implementation and acceptance.

The exclusion of Ukraine in the decision-making phase brings to light the issue of guarantees. As noted, the emerging agreement lacks formal US security guarantees for Ukraine. This implies that, after the agreement is signed, nothing will prevent Russia from launching a new offensive if it deems it convenient, knowing that the US has not committed to defending it militarily. Experts have already warned that a ceasefire without robust protection may only be a pause for Russian rearmament, rendering the conflict “frozen” temporarily and potentially resumed in the near future. The European strategic community has expressed similar concern: without American deterrence, the risk of further Russian aggressions in the region increases considerably [1]. Denmark, for example, has released intelligence reports warning of possible imminent Russian attacks, prompting neighboring countries to accelerate plans for independent defense [1].

The legitimacy of this asymmetric peace agreement (negotiated without Ukraine fully at the table and under economic coercion) is also questionable from a legal and moral point of view. It violates the principle of self-determination by imposing terms decided by great powers on a sovereign country—a practice reminiscent of dark chapters in diplomacy, such as the Munich Agreement of 1938, when powers determined the fate of Czechoslovakia without its consent. In the current case, Ukraine would end up signing the agreement, but from a position of weakness, raising doubts about how durable such a commitment would be.

From Mackinder’s perspective, Ukraine’s removal from the battlefield without guarantees essentially means admitting a greater influence of Russia (the Heartland power) over Eastern Europe. This would alter the balance in Eurasia in a potentially lasting way. Furthermore, the fact that great powers negotiate over the heads of a smaller country evokes the imperial logic of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when empires decided among themselves the divisions of foreign territories—a behavior that Mackinder saw as likely in a world of a “closed system.” With the entire world already occupied by States, Mackinder predicted that powers would begin to compete for influence within this consolidated board, often subjugating smaller states to gain advantage [3]. The US–Russia negotiation regarding Ukraine, without proper Ukrainian representation, exemplifies this type of neo-imperial dynamic in the twenty-first century.

Also noteworthy is the consonance with the ideas of Ratzel and Kjellén: both viewed smaller states as easily relegated to the status of satellites or even “parasitic organisms” in the orbit of larger states. Kjellén spoke of the intrinsic vulnerability of states with little territorial depth or economic dependence, making them susceptible to external pressures [4][20]. Ukraine, weakened by war and dependent on external aid, becomes a concrete example of this theorized vulnerability: it has had to cede strategic resources and accept terms dictated against its will in an attempt to secure its immediate survival. The resulting agreement, therefore, reflects a power imbalance characteristic of the hierarchical international relations described by classical geopolitical theorists.

Implicit Territorial Concessions and Trump’s Public Discourse

A central and controversial point in Trump’s statements regarding the war in Ukraine is the insinuation of territorial concessions to Russia as part of the conflict’s resolution. Publicly, Trump avoided explicitly condemning Russian aggression and even stated that he considered it “unlikely” that Ukraine would be able to retake all the areas occupied by the Russians [16]. In debates and interviews, he suggested that “if I were president, the war would end in 24 hours,” implying that he would force an understanding between Kyiv and Moscow that would likely involve ceding some territory in exchange for peace. This position marks a break with the previous US policy of not recognizing any territorial acquisitions made by force and fuels speculations that a future peace agreement sponsored by Trump would legitimize at least part of Russia’s gains since 2014 (Crimea, Donbass, and areas seized during the 2022 invasion).

The actions of his administration corroborate this interpretation. As discussed, the economic agreement focuses on the exploitation of Ukrainian natural resources, many of which are located precisely in regions currently under Russian military control, such as parts of the Zaporizhzhia Oblast, Donetsk, Lugansk, and the Azov Sea area [6]. A Ukrainian geologist, Hanna Liventseva, highlighted that “most of these elements (strategic minerals) are found in the south of the Ukrainian Shield, mainly in the Azov region, and most of these territories are currently invaded by Russia” [6]. This means that, to make joint exploitation viable, Russia’s de facto control over these areas would have to be recognized—or at least tolerated—in the short term. In other words, the pact indirectly and tacitly accepts Russian territorial gains, as it involves sharing the profits from resources that are not currently accessible to the Kyiv government.

Furthermore, figures close to Trump have made explicit statements regarding the possibility of territorial cession. Mike Waltz, Trump’s national security advisor, publicly stated that Zelensky might need to “cede land to Russia” to end the war [8]. This remark—made public in March 2025—confirms that the Trump White House considers it natural for Ukraine to relinquish parts of its territory in favor of an agreement. Such a stance marks a break from the previous Western consensus, which condemned any territorial gains by force. Under Trump, a pragmatic view (in the eyes of his supporters) or a cynical one (according to his critics) seems to prevail: sacrificing principles of territorial integrity to quickly end hostilities and secure immediate economic benefits.

In theoretical terms, this inclination to validate territorial gains by force recalls the concept of Realpolitik and the geopolitical Darwinism that influenced thinkers such as Ratzel. In Ratzel’s organic conception, expanding states naturally absorb neighboring territories when they are strong enough to do so, while declining states lose territory—a process almost biological in the selection of the fittest [11]. The Trump administration’s acceptance that Ukraine should “give something” to Moscow to seal peace reflects a normalization of this geopolitical selection process: it recognizes the aggressor (Russia) as having the “right” to retain conquered lands, because that is how power realities on the ground dictate. Mackinder, although firmly opposed to allowing Russia to dominate the Heartland, would see this outcome as the logical consequence of the lack of engagement from maritime powers (the USA and the United Kingdom, for example) in sustaining the Ukrainian counterattack. Without the active involvement of maritime power to balance the dispute, land power prevails in Eastern Europe.

From the perspective of international legitimacy, the cession of Ukrainian territories—whether de jure or de facto—creates a dangerous precedent in the post-Cold War era. Rewarding violent aggression with territorial gains may encourage similar strategies in other parts of the world, undermining the architecture of collective security. This is possibly a return to a world of spheres of influence, where great powers define borders and zones of control according to their convenience—something that the rules-based order after 1945 sought to avoid. Here, academic impartiality requires noting that coercion for territorial concessions rarely produces lasting peace, as the aggrieved party—in this case, Ukraine—may accept temporarily but will continue to assert its rights in the long term, as has occurred with other territorial injustices in history.

Territorial Ambitions of Trump: Greenland and Canada

Beyond the Eurasian theater of war, Trump revived geopolitical ambitions involving territories traditionally allied with the US: Greenland (an autonomous territory of Denmark) and Canada. As early as 2019, during his first term, Trump shocked the world by proposing to buy Greenland—rich in minerals and strategically positioned in the Arctic. Upon his return to power, he went further: expressing a “renewed interest” in acquiring Greenland and publicly suggesting the incorporation of Canada as the 51st American state [2].

In January 2025, during a press conference at Mar-a-Lago, he even displayed maps in which the US and Canada appeared merged into a single country, while Greenland was marked as a future American possession [2]. Posts by the president on social media included satirical images with a map of North America where Canada was labeled “51st” and Greenland designated as “Our Land” [2].

Such moves were met with concern and disbelief by allies. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was caught on an open microphone warning that Trump’s fixation on annexation “is real” and not just a joke [7]. Trudeau emphasized that Washington appeared to covet Canada’s vast mineral resources, which would explain the insistence on the idea of absorption [7]. In public, Trump argued that Canadians “would be more prosperous as American citizens,” promising tax cuts and better services should they become part of the US [7]. On the Danish side, the reaction to the revived plan regarding Greenland was firmly negative—as it was in 2019—reaffirming that the territory is not for sale. Trump, however, insinuated that the issue might be one of national security, indicating that American possession of Greenland would prevent adverse influences (a reference to China and Russia in the Arctic) [2]. More worryingly, he refused to rule out the use of military means to obtain the island, although he assured that he had no intention of invading Canada by force (in the Canadian case, he spoke of “economic force” to forge a union) [2].

This series of initiatives reflects an unprecedented expansionist impetus by the US in recent times, at least in discourse. Analyzing this through the lens of classical geopolitics offers interesting insights. Friedrich Ratzel and his notion of Lebensraum suggest that powerful states, upon reaching a certain predominance, seek to expand their territory by influencing or incorporating adjacent areas. Trump, by targeting the immediate neighbor (Canada) and a nearby strategic territory (Greenland), appears to resurrect this logic of territorial expansion for the sake of gaining space and resources. Ratzel saw such expansion almost as a natural process for vigorous states, comparable to the growth of an organism [11]. From this perspective, the US would be exercising its “right” of expansion in North America and the polar region, integrating areas of vital interest.

Additionally, Alfred Mahan’s view on maritime power helps to understand the strategic value of Greenland. Mahan postulated that control of key maritime chokepoints and naval bases ensures global advantage [9]. Greenland, situated between the North Atlantic and the Arctic, has become increasingly relevant as climate change opens new polar maritime routes and reveals vast mineral deposits (including rare earth elements and oil). For the US, having a presence or sovereignty over Greenland would mean dominating the gateway to the Arctic and denying this space to rivals. This aligns with Mahan’s strategy of securing commercial and military routes (in this case, potential Arctic routes) and resources to consolidate naval supremacy. On the other hand, the incorporation of Canada—with its enormous territory, Arctic coastline, and abundant natural resources—would provide the US with formidable geoeconomic and geopolitical reinforcement, practically eliminating vulnerabilities along its northern border. This is an ambitious project that also echoes ideas of Kjellén, for whom an ideal State should seek territorial completeness and economic self-sufficiency within its region. Incorporating Canada would be the pinnacle of American regional autarky, turning North America into a unified bloc under Washington (a scenario reminiscent of the “pan-regions” conceived by twentieth-century geopoliticians influenced by Kjellén).

It is important to note, however, that these ambitions face enormous legal and political obstacles. The sovereignty of Canada and Greenland (Denmark) is guaranteed by international law, and both peoples categorically reject the idea of annexation. Any hostile action by the US against these countries would shake alliances and the world order itself. Even so, the very fact that an American president suggests such possibilities already produces geopolitical effects: traditional partners begin to distrust Washington’s intentions, seek alternative alliances, and strengthen nationalist discourses of resistance. In summary, Trump’s expansionist intentions in Greenland and Canada rekindle old territorial issues and paradoxically place the US in the position of a revisionist power—a role once associated with empires in search of colonies.

Implications for Brazil and South America: A New Neocolonization?

In light of this geopolitical reconfiguration driven by Trump's USA—with a reordering of alliances and a possible partition of spheres of influence among great powers—the question arises: what is the impact on Brazil and the other countries of South America? Traditionally, Latin America has been under the aegis of the Monroe Doctrine (1823), which established non-interference by Europe in the region and, implicitly, the primacy of the USA in the Western Hemisphere. In the post–Cold War period, this influence translated more into political and economic leadership, without formal annexations or direct territorial domination. However, the current context points to a kind of “neocolonization” of the Global South, in which larger powers seek to control resources and peripheral governments in an indirect yet effective manner.

Mackinder’s theories can be used to illuminate this dynamic. As mentioned, Mackinder envisioned the twentieth-century world as a closed system, in which there were no longer any unknown lands to be colonized—hence, the powers would fight among themselves for control over already occupied regions [3]. He predicted that Africa and Latin America (then largely European colonies or semi-colonies) would continue as boards upon which the great powers would project their disputes, a form of neocolonialism. In the current scenario, we see the USA proposing exchanges of protection for resources (as in Ukraine) and even leaders of developing countries seeking similar agreements. A notable example: the President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Felix Tshisekedi, praised the USA–Ukraine initiative and suggested an analogous agreement involving Congolese mineral wealth in exchange for US support against internal rebels (M23) [19]. In other words, African countries and possibly South American ones may enter into this logic of offering privileged access to resources (cobalt, lithium, food, biodiversity) in order to obtain security guarantees or investments. This represents a regression to the times when external powers dictated the directions of the South in exchange for promises of protection, characterizing a strategic neocolonialism.

For Brazil, in particular, this rearrangement generates both opportunities and risks. As a regional power with considerable diplomatic autonomy, Brazil has historically sought to balance relationships with the USA, Europe, China, and other actors, avoiding automatic alignments. However, in a world where Trump’s USA is actively redefining spheres of influence—possibly making deals with Russia that divide priorities (for example, Washington focusing on the Western Hemisphere and Moscow on the Eastern)—South America could once again be seen as an exclusive American sphere of influence. From this perspective, Washington could pressure South American countries to align with its directives, limiting partnerships with rivals (such as China) and seeking privileged access to strategic resources (such as the Amazon, fresh water, minerals, and agricultural commodities). Some indications are already emerging: Trump’s transactional approach mentioned by Nye included pressures on Canada and Mexico regarding border and trade issues, under the threat of commercial sanctions. It would not be unthinkable to adopt a hard line, for example, with regard to Brazilian environmental policies (linked to the Amazon) or Brazil’s relations with China, using tariffs or incentives as leverage—a sort of geopolitics of economic coercion.

On the other hand, Brazil and its neighbors could also attempt to take advantage of the Sino–North American competition. If the USA is distracted consolidating its hemispheric “hard power” hegemony (even with annexation fantasies in the north), powers such as China may advance their economic presence in South America through investments and trade (Belt and Road, infrastructure financing)—which is already happening. This would constitute an indirect neocolonial dispute in the South: Chinese loans and investments versus American demands and agreements, partly reminiscent of the nineteenth-century imperial competition (when the United Kingdom, USA, and others competed for Latin American markets and resources).

From a conceptual standpoint, Mackinder might classify South America as part of the “Outer Crescent” (external insular crescent)—peripheral to the great Eurasian “World-Island,” yet still crucial as a source of resources and a strategic position in the South Atlantic and Pacific. If the USA consolidates an informal empire in the Americas, it would be reinforcing its “insular bastion” far from the Eurasian Heartland, a strategy that Mackinder once suggested for maritime powers: to control islands and peripheral continents to compensate for the disadvantage of not controlling the Heartland. However, an excessive US dominance in the South could lead to local resistance and alternative alignments, unbalancing the region.

Kjellén would add that for Brazil to maintain its decisive sovereignty, it will need to strengthen its autarky and internal cohesion—in other words, reduce vulnerabilities (economic, military, social) that external powers might exploit [4]. Meanwhile, Mahan might point out the importance for Brazil of controlling its maritime routes and coastlines (South Atlantic) to avoid being at the mercy of a naval power like the USA. And Ratzel would remind us that states that do not expand their influence tend to be absorbed by foreign influences—which, in the context of Brazil, does not mean conquering neighboring territories, but rather actively leading South American integration to create a block more resilient to external intrusion.

In summary, South America finds itself in a more competitive and segmented world, where major players are resurrecting practices from past eras. The notion of “neocolonization” here does not imply direct occupation, but rather mechanisms of dependency: whether through unequal economic agreements or through diplomatic or military pressure for alignment. Brazil, as the largest economy and territory on the subcontinent, will have to navigate with heightened caution. A new global power balance, marked by the division of spheres of influence among the USA, China, and Russia, may reduce the sovereign maneuvering space of South American countries unless they act jointly. Thus, theoretical reflection suggests the need for South–South strategies, reinforcement of regional organizations, and diversification of partnerships to avoid falling into modern “neocolonial traps.”

Conclusion

The emerging post–re-election geopolitical conjuncture of Donald Trump signals a return to classical geopolitical principles, after several decades of predominance of institutional liberal views. We witness the revaluation of concepts such as spheres of influence, exchanges of protection for resources, naval power versus land power, and disputes over territory and raw materials—all central themes in the writings of Mackinder, Mahan, Kjellén, and Ratzel at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century. An impartial analysis of these events, in light of these theories, shows internal coherence in Trump’s actions: although controversial, they follow a logic of maximizing national interest and the relative power of the USA on the world stage, even at the expense of established principles and alliances.

Halford Mackinder reminds us that, in a closed world with no new lands to conquer, the great powers will seek to redistribute the world among themselves [3]. This seems to manifest in the direct understandings between the USA and Russia over the fate of Ukraine, and in American ambitions in the Arctic and the Western Hemisphere. Alfred Mahan emphasizes that the control of the seas and strategic positions ensures supremacy—we see reflections of this in Trump’s obsession with Greenland (Arctic) and the possible neglect of the importance of maintaining NATO (and therefore the North Atlantic) as a cohesive bloc, something that Mahan’s theory would criticize due to the risk of a naval vacuum. Rudolf Kjellén and Friedrich Ratzel provide the framework to understand the more aggressive facet of expansionist nationalism: the idea of the State as an organism that needs to grow, secure resources, and seek self-sufficiency explains everything from the extortionate agreement imposed on Ukraine to the annexation rhetoric regarding Canada.

The potential consequences are profound. In the short term, we may witness a precarious ceasefire in the Ukraine war, with consolidated Russian territorial gains and Ukraine economically tied to the USA, but without formal military protection—a fragile “armed peace.” Western Europe, alarmed, may accelerate its independent militarization, perhaps marking the beginning of European defense autonomy, as is already openly debated [1]. At the far end of the globe, American activism in the Arctic and the Americas may reshape alliances: countries like Canada, once aligned with Washington, might seek to guarantee their sovereignty by distancing themselves from it; powers like China could take advantage of the openings to increase their presence in Latin America and Africa through economic diplomacy; and emerging countries of the Global South may have to choose between submitting to new “guardianships” or strengthening South–South cooperation.

Ultimately, the current situation reinforces the relevance of studying geopolitics through historical lenses. The actions of the Trump administration indicate that, despite all technological and normative advances, the competition for geographic power has not disappeared—it has merely assumed new formats. Academic impartiality obliges us not to prematurely judge whether these strategies will be successful or beneficial, but history and theory warn that neo-imperial movements tend to generate counter-reactions. As Mackinder insinuated, “every shock or change anywhere reverberates around the world,” and a sudden move by a superpower tends to provoke unforeseen adjustments and chain conflicts. It remains to be seen how the other actors—including Brazil and its neighbors—will adapt to this new chapter in the great struggle for global power, in which centuries-old theories once again have a surprising explanatory power over present events.

Bibliography

[1] A Referência. (2025). Europa calcula o custo de se defender sem os EUA: 300 mil soldados e 250 bilhões de euros a mais. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://areferencia.com/europa/europa-calcula-o-custo-de-se-defender-sem-os-eua-300-mil-soldados-e-250-bilhoes-de-euros-a-mais/#:\~:text=Europa%20calcula%20o%20custo%20de,bilh%C3%B5es%20de%20euros%20a%20mais

[2] Brexit Institute. (2025). What happens if Trump invades Greenland? Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://dcubrexitinstitute.eu/2025/01/what-happens-if-trump-invades-greenland/#:\~:text=Ever%20since%20Donald%20Trump%20announced,agreed%20in%20Wales%20in%202014

[3] Cfettweis C:CST22(2)8576.DVI. (2025). Mackinder and Angell. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://cfettweis.com/wp-content/uploads/Mackinder-and-Angell.pdf#:\~:text=meant%20the%20beginning%20of%20an,Mackinder

[4] Diva-Portal. (2025). The geopolitics of territorial relativity. Poland seen by Rudolf Kjellén. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1696547/FULLTEXT02#:\~:text=,The%20state%20territory

[5] Geopolitical Monitor. (2025). The Russo-Ukrainian War and Mackinder’s Heartland Thesis. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/the-ukraine-war-and-mackinders-heartland-thesis/#:\~:text=In%201904%2C%20Sir%20Halford%20J,in%20adding%20a%20substantial%20oceanic

[6] Instituto Humanitas Unisinos. (2025). Trump obriga Zelensky a hipotecar a exploração de minerais críticos em troca do seu apoio. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.ihu.unisinos.br/648986-trump-obriga-zelensky-a-hipotecar-a-exploracao-de-minerais-criticos-em-troca-do-seu-apoio#:\~:text=Essa%20troca%20inclui%20os%20cobi%C3%A7ados,s%C3%A3o%20praticamente%20inexploradas%20no%20pa%C3%ADs

[7] Politico. (2025). Trump’s annexation fixation is no joke, Trudeau warns. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/07/canada-trudeau-trump-51-state-00203156#:\~:text=TORONTO%20%E2%80%94%20Prime%20Minister%20Justin,Canada%20becoming%20the%2051st%20state%2C%E2%80%9D%20Trudeau%20said

[8] The Daily Beast. (2025). Top Trump Adviser Moves Goalpost for Ukraine to End War. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.thedailybeast.com/top-trump-adviser-moves-goalpost-for-ukraine-to-end-war/#:\~:text=LAND%20GRAB

[9] The Geostrata. (2025). Alfred Thayer Mahan and Supremacy of Naval Power. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.thegeostrata.com/post/alfred-thayer-mahan-and-supremacy-of-naval-power#:\~:text=Alfred%20Thayer%20Mahan%20and%20Supremacy,control%20over%20maritime%20trade%20routes

[10] U.S. Department of State. (2025). Mahan’s The Influence of Sea Power upon History: Securing International Markets in the 1890s. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/mahan#:\~:text=Mahan%20argued%20that%20British%20control,American%20politicians%20believed%20that%20these

[11] Britannica. (2025a). Friedrich Ratzel | Biogeography, Anthropogeography, Political Geography. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.britannica.com/biography/Friedrich-Ratzel#:\~:text=webster,Swedish%20political%20scientist%20%2076

[12] Britannica. (2025b). Lebensraum. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.britannica.com/topic/Lebensraum#:\~:text=defined,The

[13] Britannica. (2025c). Rudolf Kjellén. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.britannica.com/biography/Rudolf-Kjellen

[14] Wikipedia (ZH). (2025). Rudolf Kjellén. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/w:Rudolf_Kjell%C3%A9n#:\~:text=Besides%20legalistic%2C%20states%20have%20organic,preservation.%20%5B%203

[15] Wikipedia. (2025). Lebensraum. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum#:\~:text=The%20German%20geographer%20and%20ethnographer,into%20the%20Greater%20Germanic%20Reich

[16] YouTube. (2025). Trump says Ukraine 'unlikely to get all land back' or join NATO [Vídeo]. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmHzAVLhsXU#:\~:text=Trump%20says%20Ukraine%20%27unlikely%20to,for%20it%20to%20join%20NATO

[17] U.S. Naval Institute. (2025) Operation World Peace. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1955/june/operation-world-peace#:\\~:text=“The Mahan doctrine%2C” according to,the word “airships” is more

[18] Emissary. (2024) Trump’s Greenland and Panama Canal Threats Are a Throwback to an Old, Misguided Foreign Policy. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2025/01/trump-greenland-panama-canal-monroe-doctrine-policy?lang=en

[19] A Referência. Acordo EUA-Ucrânia está praticamente fechado, mas analistas se dividem sobre quem sairá ganhando. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://areferencia.com/europa/acordo-eua-ucrania-esta-praticamente-fechado-mas-analistas-se-dividem-sobre-quem-saira-ganhando/#:\\~:text=EUA e 17,o acordo a seu favor

[20] Wikipedia. (2025) Geopolitik. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geopolitik#:\\~:text=Rudolph Kjellén was Ratzel's Swedish,Kjellén's State

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

The European Accessibility Act is coming, now is a great time for accessibility trainings!. In my Accessibility for Designer workshop, you will learn how to design accessible mockups that prevent issues in visual design, interactions, navigation, and content. You will be able to spot problems early, fix them in your designs, and communicate accessibility clearly with your team. This is a practical workshop with hands-on exercises, not just theory. You’ll actively apply accessibility principles to real design scenarios and mockups. And will get access to my accessibility resources: checklists, annotation kits and more.

When? 4 sessions of 2 hours + Q and As, on: - Mon, June 16, - Tue, June 17, Mon, - June 23 and Tue, - June 24. 9:30 – 12:00 PM PT or 18:30 – 21:00 CET

Register with 15% discount ($255) https://ti.to/smashingmagazine/online-workshops-2022/with/87vynaoqc0/discount/welcometomyworkshop

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/971772

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na luxb.substack.com.

27.10.2022 / Autor: Lux Bitcoin

---

Najosnovniji način prijenosa vrijednosti je trampa.

Trampa, međutim, ima tri glavna ograničenja: zahtijeva podudarnost razmjera, prostora i vremena.

Podudarnost razmjera: ono što želite možda nema istu vrijednost kao ono što želite dati.

Podudarnost prostora: ono što želite može biti na različitim mjestima od onoga što želite dati.

Podudarnost vremena: ono što želite možda nema istu kvarljivost kao ono što želite dati.

Kako bi se prevladala ova ograničenja, pokušalo se koristiti intermedijarni dobra, s funkcijom novca.

Ta su dobra morala biti lako djeljiva, lako prenosiva, lako prepoznatljiva i nekvarljiva. Stoga su morala biti potrošna u razmjeru, prostoru i vremenu.

Potrošnost kroz vrijeme je najzanimljivije svojstvo.

Neko dobro se može potrošiti kroz vrijeme ako je fizički nepromjenjivo. Ali nepromjenjivost materijala nije dovoljna za očuvanje vrijednosti, potrebno je i održavati stabilnom količinu dostupnu na tržištu.

Da bismo razumjeli ovaj koncept, uzmimo primjer RAI kamenja, koje se koristilo kao valuta na otoku Yap.

Izvorno je nabaviti ovo kamenje bilo vrlo teško, pa nije bilo načina da se ih se previše inflacionira, ali iskrcavanjem kapetana O'Keefea 1871. situacija se promijenila. Zahvaljujući tehnološki naprednijim alatima kapetan je bio u stanju nabaviti nebrojeno kamenje, stvorivši inflaciju i uzrokovao da RAI izgubi status valute.

Inflacija nekog dobra uzrokuje mu gubitak vrijednosti.

Gubitak vrijednosti dobra otežava njegovu trošnost.

Povijest novca

Nakon pokušaja sa stokom, kamenjem, školjkama, žitaricama i solju, odlučeno je da se metalima pripiše funkciju novca, budući da ih se moglo modelirati u jednakim jedinicama.

Među metalima koji su se koristili kao novac, zlato je postalo dominantno zbog svoje nepromjenjivosti i iznimne teškoće u pronalaženju. Ove dvije karakteristike omogućile su mu da zadrži svoju vrijednost tijekom godina.

Novac koji ne zadržava svoju vrijednost tijekom vremena uzrokuje ogromnu štetu zajednicama. Uzmimo primjer Rimskog carstva.

Uvođenje Aureusa od strane Julija Cezara omogućilo je ogromno i uspješno tržište koje se širilo diljem Europe i Mediterana.

Međutim, Neron je, u nedostatku sredstava, počeo kovati novac sa sve manjom količinom plemenitog metala. S ovim trikom mogao je računati na mnogo više sredstava da ugodi narodu, primjerice davanjem kruha i igara.

Što su financije bile lošije, to se više metala oduzimalo. Od 8 grama Cezarovog Aureusa, sa godinama se prešlo na novčić sa samo 4,5 grama zlata. To je omogućilo carevima da troše iznad svojih mogućnosti, stvarajući osnove za ekonomsku propast carstva.

Kraj Carigrada također se poklopio sa devalvacijom novca. Sa novčanim padom dogodio se i kulturni, financijski i vojni pad.

Pad rimskog carstva i stalna devalvacija novca stvorili su ozbiljne prepreke trgovini i naveli stanovništvo da se organizira u male samodostatne zajednice nepovjerljive jedna prema drugoj.

Preporod nakon razdoblja ratova i gladi koincidirao je s usvajanjem novog novčanog standarda. Sve je počelo u Firenci 1252. godine kada je grad uveo florin, zlatnik s fiksnom težinom. Zahvaljujući svojoj stabilnosti, florin je postupno zamijenio sve bakrene i brončane kovanice koje se lako inflatiralo i predstavljao je uzor cijeloj Europi. Venecija je bila prva koja je slijedila primjer Firence kujući Dukat, ali još 150 drugih gradova prilagodilo se novom standardu.

S procvatom trgovine Europa, a posebno Italija, doživjeli su veliki gospodarski i kulturni procvat.

Usvajanje jakog novca kroz povijest uvijek je bilo nagrađeno rastom i prosperitetom. Drugi primjer je Britansko Carstvo, najveće u ljudskoj povijesti, koje je usvojilo moderni zlatni standard 1717. Iako se zlatom nije više trgovalo u malim transakcijama, ono je i dalje ostalo kao referenca za novčanice.

Zemlje poput Indije i Kine skupo su platile izbor kasnije prilagodbe zlatnom standardu.

Dok je veći dio planeta usvajao zlatno standard, stigla je La Belle Epoque, jedno od najprosperitetnijih razdoblja u ljudskoj povijesti. Uz jaki novac zajednički svim zemljama poticana je trgovina, a stabilnost novca tijekom vremena omogućila je akumulaciju kapitala potrebnog za ulaganja.

Godine 1914., s Prvim svjetskim ratom, zlatni standard je suspendiran.

Ako su sa jakim novcem ratovi završavali kad je državi nedostajalo novca, sa slabim novcem to više nije bio problem. Skriveni porez, inflacija, omogućio je nastavak ratova sve dok cjelokupno nacionalno bogatstvo nije erodirano.

Nakon rata, Sjedinjene Države doživjele su najgoru gospodarsku krizu ikada zabilježenu: Veliku depresiju. Uvriježeneo je mišljenje da se iz depresije izašlo zahvaljujući povećanju javne potrošnje (New Deal). Zapravo, kreditna ekspanzija 1920-ih je to uzrokovala, a New Deal je samo pogoršao situaciju.

U 1930-ima države su nastavile napuhavati valute.

Totalitarni režimi imali su svaki interes financirati se bez ubiranja poreza.

Keynes, ekonomist koji je rat smatrao učinkovitim načinom borbe protiv nezaposlenosti, teoretizirao je izlazak iz zlatnog standarda.

Drugi svjetski rat doista nije kasnio.

Godine 1971. Sjedinjene države definitivno napuštaju zlatni standard, započevši neobuzdanu monetarnu ekspanziju koja traje sve do danas. Za predodžbu: ako je 1971. unca zlata vrijedila 35 dolara, danas vrijedi 1500.

Korištenjem lako inflatornih valuta riskira se hiperinflaciju, odnosno drastičan gubitak kupovne moći u kratkom vremenu.

Primjeri hiperinflacije su Njemačka 1920-ih s dnevnom inflacijom od 20%, te Mađarska 1940-ih s dnevnom inflacijom od 207%.

U Mađarskoj su se cijene udvostručavale svakih 15 sati, što je učinilo apsolutno nemogućim uštedu i prijenos vrijednosti tijekom vremena.

Očigledno sve to ne bi bilo moguće s novcem koji teško podliježe inflaciji.

Bitcoin

Prije Bitcoina bile su moguće samo dvije vrste plaćanja:

• Gotovinska plaćanja bez posrednika

• Elektronička plaćanja putem posrednika

Gotovinska plaćanja su trenutna, ali zahtijevaju fizičku prisutnost obiju strana. Elektronička plaćanja mogu se izvršiti i na daljinu, ali za to je potreban posrednik koji ovjerava plaćanje i naplatu.

Bitcoin je prvi oblik novca koji omogućuje elektronička plaćanja bez uključivanja posrednika kao što su države ili banke, a to ga također čini prvom valutom koja nije podložna inflaciji, koja se ne može zaplijeniti, koja se ne može cenzurirati, koja može prenijeti vrijednost bolje od bilo čega kroz redove veličine, prostor i vrijeme.

Ako zlato ima inflaciju koja fluktuira oko 2%, Bitcoin ima inflaciju koja se prepolovi svake 4 godine sve dok ne dosegne nulu i ostane tamo zauvijek. Bitcoin je, dakle, prva valuta u povijesti koja će imati nultu inflaciju.

Prednosti Bitcoina u odnosu na zlato su ogromne: lakše ga je prenositi, omogućuje veću transparentnost i jamči manju inflaciju.

S manje inflacije:

1 - čuva se vrijednost tijekom vremena;

2 - olakšava se trgovanje;

3 - olakšava se ekonomska računica;

4 - jamči se sloboda pojedincima neovisno od središta moći.

Vremenska preferencija

Racionalnim pojedincima je uvijek bolje odmah pristupiti nekom dobru nego to odgađati tijekom vremena. Upravo zato se čekanje u gospodarstvu uvijek mora nagraditi.

Vrednovanje budućnosti u odnosu na sadašnjost omogućuje proizvodnju kapitalnih dobara, odnosno dobara stvorenih ne za potrošnju, već korisnih za proizvodnju budućih dobara.

Primjer: s čamcem se ulovi više ribe nego golim rukama, ali da bi se izgradio čamac potrebno je žrtvovati vrijeme i energiju bez istančane nagrade.

Zamislimo dvije individue na pustom otoku.

Laura budućnost shvaća vrlo ozbiljno;

Mario preferira trenutačno zadovoljstvo.

Mario provodi 8 sati dnevno kako bi golim rukama ulovio potrebnu ribu. Laura čini isto, ali nakon pecanja još dva sata posvećuje izradi štapa za pecanje. Nakon tjedan dana Laura je dovršila štap za pecanje i time može pokriti svoje dnevne potrebe u pola vremena koliko je potrebno Mariu. Sljedećih mjeseci, radeći isto sati kao i Mario, Laura ima vremena izgraditi čamac, mrežu i druge alate koji joj omogućuju da u jednom satu ulovi puno više ribe nego što Mario ulovi kroz cijele dane.

Na Stanfordu, 1960. napravljen je eksperiment.

Djeci je ponuđen slatkiš uz obećanje da će dobiti još jedan ako izdrže 15 minuta da ga ne pojedu. Djeca su stoga morala birati hoće li odmah dobiti jedan slatkiš ili dva nakon 15 minuta. Godinama kasnije, pronađena je korelacija između onih koji su uspjeli odgoditi zadovoljstvo i onih koji su postigli veće akademske i sportske rezultate.

Odgađanje zadovoljstva omogućuje štednju.

Štednja omogućuje investicije.

Investicije povećavaju produktivnost.

Štednja se općenito potiče u sigurnim društvima, gdje su porezi niski i gdje je vlasništvo zaštićeno. Temeljni čimbenik u jamčenju štednje je imati jaku valutu, koju se ne može lako napuhati. Ako valuta stalno gubi vrijednost, više se potiče da je se potroši nego da je se sačuva.

Prijelaz s valute koja gubi vrijednost na valutu koja svoju vrijednost zadržava stoga je ključno na duge staze, jer to može činiti razliku izmađu rasta ili pada jednog društva.

Valuta koja s vremenom gubi vrijednost obeshrabruje štednju u korist potrošnje, rizičnih ulaganja i zaduživanja.

Jaka valuta, osim što pogoduje štednji, poboljšava i ekonomsku računicu, odnosno omogućuje mjerenje iskusnosti resursa i donošenje racionalnih odluka o proizvodnji i potrošnji.

Npr: ako je roba za kojom postoji velika potražnja oskudna, povećanje cijene potiče njezinu proizvodnju i obeshrabruje potrošnju.

Obrnuto, ako dobra za kojim nema potražnje ima puno, pad cijene obeshrabruje njegovu proizvodnju i potiče potrošnju.

Ista dinamika vrijedi i za novac čija se cijena naziva “kamatna stopa”.

Trošak zajmova trebao bi se smanjiti ako je štednje puno, a porasti ako je štednje malo, kako bi uvijek postojala ispravna ravnoteža i ispravni poticaji.

Ponovimo koncept: ako malo tko posuđuje, kamate bi trebale pasti, tako da olakšava posuđivanje novca. Ako pak mnogi traže posudbe, kamate bi trebale porasti, kako bi se destimuliralo traženje kredita i poticala štednja.

Sa slabom valutom događa se umjesto toga da kamatne stope ne odražavaju ravnotežu između štednje i ulaganja. Centralne banke stvaraju kamatne stope koje su niže od tržišnih, potičući potrošnju i ulaganja čak i kad je štednja oskudna.

Uz investicije koje zahtijevaju više sredstava nego što su stvarno dostupna, sistemske krize su neizbježne.

Djeluje ovako:

• Stvori se nova valuta

• Povećaju se investicije

• Smanjuje se štednja

• Pokreće se više ulaganja nego što ima raspoloživih sredstava

• Investicije propadaju

Valute koje gube vrijednost ne dopuštaju cijenama da signaliziraju stvarnu oskudicu resursa, dakle da koordiniraju proizvodnju i potrošnju.

Loše investicije, nastale zbog niskih kamata i gubitka vrijednosti valute, glavni su uzrok gospodarskih kriza.

Cilj centralnih banaka je “jamčiti stabilnost cijena” povećanjem i smanjenjem količine novca. Ali osigurati stabilnost cijena promjenom mjerne jedinice je apsurdno. Mjerna jedinica je fiksna po definiciji, ne može se mijenjati ovisno o mjerenom objektu.

Stalno mijenjanje mjernih jedinica samo stvara zbunjenost, otežava ekonomsku kalkulaciju i onemogućuje pravilnu raspodjelu resursa.

Primjer: tvrtka kojoj su trebale godine da stekne konkurentsku prednost može gledati kako ona nestaje u nekoliko minuta ako je valuta zemlje dobavljača precijenjena, a valuta kupca devalvira. Tvrtka će stoga biti prisiljena zatvoriti se unatoč činjenici da realno proizvodi veliku vrijednost.

Postojanje stotina različitih valuta čija se vrijednost stalno mijenja stvara ekonomsku štetu, ne samo za resurse koji se koriste u razmjeni, već prije svega zbog nemogućnosti ekonomske kalkulacije.

Vjerujući da favoriziraju izvoz, države teže devalviranju valuta, ne shvaćajući da zapravo favoriziraju strane kupce. Novčana devalvacija nije ništa drugo nego javno financiranje izvoza, odnosno prodaja vlastite robe ispod cijene.

Ovi bi problemi nestali kad bi se koristila jedna globalna referentna valuta sa sigurnom vrijednošću.

Najveća iluzija suvremenog svijeta je ideja da vlada mora upravljati valutom.

Po Keynesu, vlada je morala poticati potrošnju u sadašnjosti i obeshrabrivati štednju za budućnost. Onima koji su mu isticali da su te politike dugoročno pogubne odgovarao bi da smo “dugoročno svi mrtvi”. Ali dugoročno, prije ili kasnije, stigne.

Jaku valutu po Keynesu je trebalo izbjegavati jer je obeshrabrivala potrošnju. Ono što nije razumio je da samo štednja dugoročno omogućuje održiva ulaganja.

Slabe valute i ratovi

Postoje tri faktora koji povezuju slabe valute i ratove:

1. Tečajne razlike i konkurentske devalvacije su prepreke slobodnoj trgovini koje se često rješavaju vojnim intervencijama. Jaka transnacionalna valuta olakšava trgovinu, ako prolazi roba nema potrebe za prolaskom vojske.

2. Ako su sa jakom valutom resursi za rat ograničeni na poreze, s inflatornom valutom država može izvlačiti bogatstvo bez ograničenja. Mogućnost stvaranja novca stoga omogućuje državama nastavak ratova i nakon što im ponestane sredstava u proračunu, sve do potpune erozije nacionalnog bogatstva.

3. Jaka valuta potiče suradnju i obeshrabruje sukobe koji bi mogli biti korisni samo kratkoročno. Što je više suradnje, što je veće tržište, to je više mogućnosti za specijalizaciju, a što je veća podjela rada, to je veća produktivnost.

Imati neinflatornu valutu također je jamstvo slobode protiv tirana.

Ako tiranin ne može stvarati novac, prisiljen ga je tražiti u obliku poreza ili posudbi, a ako se građani ne slažu sa suludom politikom tiranina mogu ga prestati financirati ili mu barem zagorčati život.

Slaba valuta, s druge strane, daje vladama mogućnost neograničene potrošnje i kupovanja pristanka stanovništva kratkoročnim ulaganjima.

Sposobnost stvaranja novca znači potencijalno neograničenu moć, a povijest je puna primjera u kojima je ta moć korištena na razorne načine.

Nije slučajnost da su svi najgori tirani u povijesti (Lenjin, Staljin, Mao, Hitler, Robespierre, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Kim Jon Il itd.) operirali sa slabom valutom koju su mogli stvarati po svom nahođenju. Jer izvlastiti je puno lakše nego naplatiti porez.

Bitcoin omogućuje prijenos novca i njegovo pohranjivanje bez potrebe za traženjem bilo čijeg dopuštenja.

Bitcoin se ne može uništiti, ne može se konfiscirati, ne može se krivotvoriti. Zbog toga je i osiguranje od pretjerane moći vlada i banaka.

Bitcoin je ekstremno učinkovit kao sredstvo razmjene budući da je digitalan, a iznimno je učinkovit kao pohrana vrijednosti imajući inflaciju koja teži ka nuli. Još uvijek je prevolatilan da bi bio obračunska jedinica, ali ima sve karakteristike da postane najbolja obračunska jedinica u povijesti.

Prevedeno s talijanskog lux_vitae@ln.tips ili lux@blink.sv

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Zvanični vebsajt knjige

Srpski prevod knjige "The Little Bitcoin Book"

...

---

Zašto je Bitkoin bitan za vašu slobodu, finansije i budućnost?

Verovatno ste čuli za Bitkoin u vestima ili da o njemu raspravljaju vaši prijatelji ili kolege. Kako to da se cena stalno menja? Da li je Bitkoin dobra investicija? Kako to uopšte ima vrednost? Zašto ljudi stalno govore o tome kao da će promeniti svet?

"Mala knjiga o Bitkoinu" govori o tome šta nije u redu sa današnjim novcem i zašto je Bitkoin izmišljen da obezbedi alternativu trenutnom sistemu. Jednostavnim rečima opisuje šta je Bitkoin, kako funkcioniše, zašto je vredan i kako utiče na individualnu slobodu i mogućnosti ljudi svuda - od Nigerije preko Filipina do Venecuele do Sjedinjenih Država. Ova knjiga takođe uključuje odeljak "Pitanja i odgovori" sa nekim od najčešće postavljanih pitanja o Bitkoinu.

Ako želite da saznate više o ovom novom obliku novca koji i dalje izaziva interesovanje i usvajanje širom sveta, onda je ova knjiga za vas.

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Crabtree's Framework for Evaluating Human-Centered Research

Picture this: You've spent three weeks conducting qualitative research for a finance app redesign. You carefully recruited 12 participants, conducted in-depth interviews, and identified patterns around financial anxiety and decision paralysis. You're excited to present your findings when the inevitable happens:

"But are these results statistically significant?"

"Just 12 people? How can we make decisions that affect thousands of users based on conversations with just 12 people?"

As UX professionals, we regularly face stakeholders who evaluate our qualitative research using criteria designed for quantitative methods... This misalignment undermines the unique value qualitative research brings to product development.

Continue reading https://uxpsychology.substack.com/p/beyond-numbers-how-to-properly-evaluate

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/971767

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

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

TL;DR please educate your children about online safety.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Du bist recht appetitlich oben anzuschauen, \ doch unten hin die Bestie macht mir Grauen. \ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Wie wenig bekömmlich sogenannte «Ultra-Processed Foods» wie Fertiggerichte, abgepackte Snacks oder Softdrinks sind, hat kürzlich eine neue Studie untersucht. Derweil kann Fleisch auch wegen des Einsatzes antimikrobieller Mittel in der Massentierhaltung ein Problem darstellen. Internationale Bemühungen, diesen Gebrauch zu reduzieren, um die Antibiotikaresistenz bei Menschen einzudämmen, sind nun möglicherweise gefährdet.

Leider ist Politik oft mindestens genauso unappetitlich und ungesund wie diverse Lebensmittel. Die «Corona-Zeit» und ihre Auswirkungen sind ein beredtes Beispiel. Der Thüringer Landtag diskutiert gerade den Entwurf eines «Coronamaßnahmen-Unrechtsbereinigungsgesetzes» und das kanadische Gesundheitsministerium versucht, tausende Entschädigungsanträge wegen Impfnebenwirkungen mit dem Budget von 75 Millionen Dollar unter einen Hut zu bekommen. In den USA soll die Zulassung von Covid-«Impfstoffen» überdacht werden, während man sich mit China um die Herkunft des Virus streitet.

Wo Corona-Verbrecher von Medien und Justiz gedeckt werden, verfolgt man Aufklärer und Aufdecker mit aller Härte. Der Anwalt und Mitbegründer des Corona-Ausschusses Reiner Fuellmich, der seit Oktober 2023 in Untersuchungshaft sitzt, wurde letzte Woche zu drei Jahren und neun Monaten verurteilt – wegen Veruntreuung. Am Mittwoch teilte der von vielen Impfschadensprozessen bekannte Anwalt Tobias Ulbrich mit, dass er vom Staatsschutz verfolgt wird und sich daher künftig nicht mehr öffentlich äußern werde.

Von der kommenden deutschen Bundesregierung aus Wählerbetrügern, Transatlantikern, Corona-Hardlinern und Russenhassern kann unmöglich eine Verbesserung erwartet werden. Nina Warken beispielsweise, die das Ressort Gesundheit übernehmen soll, diffamierte Maßnahmenkritiker als «Coronaleugner» und forderte eine Impfpflicht, da die wundersamen Injektionen angeblich «nachweislich helfen». Laut dem designierten Außenminister Johann Wadephul wird Russland «für uns immer der Feind» bleiben. Deswegen will er die Ukraine «nicht verlieren lassen» und sieht die Bevölkerung hinter sich, solange nicht deutsche Soldaten dort sterben könnten.

Eine wichtige Personalie ist auch die des künftigen Regierungssprechers. Wenngleich Hebestreit an Arroganz schwer zu überbieten sein wird, dürfte sich die Art der Kommunikation mit Stefan Kornelius in der Sache kaum ändern. Der Politikchef der Süddeutschen Zeitung «prägte den Meinungsjournalismus der SZ» und schrieb «in dieser Rolle auch für die Titel der Tamedia». Allerdings ist, anders als noch vor zehn Jahren, die Einbindung von Journalisten in Thinktanks wie die Deutsche Atlantische Gesellschaft (DAG) ja heute eher eine Empfehlung als ein Problem.

Ungesund ist definitiv auch die totale Digitalisierung, nicht nur im Gesundheitswesen. Lauterbachs Abschiedsgeschenk, die «abgesicherte» elektronische Patientenakte (ePA) ist völlig überraschenderweise direkt nach dem Bundesstart erneut gehackt worden. Norbert Häring kommentiert angesichts der Datenlecks, wer die ePA nicht abwähle, könne seine Gesundheitsdaten ebensogut auf Facebook posten.

Dass die staatlichen Kontrolleure so wenig auf freie Software und dezentrale Lösungen setzen, verdeutlicht die eigentlichen Intentionen hinter der Digitalisierungswut. Um Sicherheit und Souveränität geht es ihnen jedenfalls nicht – sonst gäbe es zum Beispiel mehr Unterstützung für Bitcoin und für Initiativen wie die der Spar-Supermärkte in der Schweiz.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben und ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

PREUZMITE ODLOMAK

KUPITE ELEKTRONSKO IZDANJE KNJIGE

Autor: Natanijel Poper

Prevodilac: Nevena Andrić

---

Kako funkcioniše novac, ko iz njega izvlači korist i kako bi sve to moglo izgledati ubuduće.

Bitkoin, revolucionarna digitalna valuta i finansijska tehnologija, predstavlja začetak jednog globalnog društvenog pokreta utopijskih stremljenja. Ideja nove valute, koju održavaju personalni računari širom sveta, bila je predmet brojnih šala, ali to je nije sprečilo da preraste u tehnologiju vrednu više milijardi dolara, tehnologiju s mnoštvom sledbenika, koji je smatraju najvažnijim novim izumom još od stvaranja interneta.

Poklonici bitkoina, od Pekinga do Buenos Ajresa, u njemu vide mogućnost postojanja finansijskog sistema bez uticaja vlade ili banaka, novu globalnu valutu digitalne ere. Digitalno zlato je neobična priča o jednom grupnom izumu, pripovest o ličnostima koje su stvorile bitkoin, uključujući i jednog finskog studenta, argentinskog milionera, kineskog preduzetnika, Tajlera i Kamerona Vinklvosa, tajanstvenog tvorca bitkoina Satošija Nakamota, kao i Rosa Ulbrihta, osnivača Silk rouda, tržišta narkotika na internetu.

„Sjajna priča. Bitkoin će preobraziti i finansijski svet i našu upotrebu interneta, a ova izuzetno zanimljiva knjiga predstavlja hroniku njegovog neverovatnog nastanka. Poperova priča se ne ispušta iz ruke, puna je živopisnih izumitelja, i predstavlja ključno štivo za svakoga ko želi da razume budućnost.“ Volter Ajzakson, autor knjige Stiv Džobs

„Bitkoin je možda tekovina informatičkih nauka, ali priča o njemu je priča o ljudima. Ovaj nadasve zabavan istorijat podseća nas da istina može biti čudnija od književnosti, i ponekad je spektar stvarnih ličnosti još neobičniji i zanimljiviji od književnih.“ Lari Samers, bivši ministar finansija SAD

Trejler za knjigu "Digitalno zlato" Natanijela Popera

@ 9063ef6b:fd1e9a09

🎯 Goal

You want to: - Offer a self-managed Zap address using your own domain - Forward payments to your Zeus Wallet (via Olympus LSP) - Combine NIP-05 and Lightning (Zaps) under one identifier

Important: - This setup enables receiving Zaps only. - Sending Zaps still requires the built-in Lightning wallet of the Nostr client.

---

🧩 Components Used in This Example

• GitHub Pages: Hosts your .well-known files
• ZeusWallet (Olympus): Receives the payments (Zaps)
• LNURL-Pay JSON: Forwards Zap requests to zeuspay.com
• NIP-05 Identifier: Your public Nostr identity address
• lud16 (Lightning): Same address as NIP-05 for Lightning Zap receiving

The following article describes the precondition of creating a nip-05 with custom domain:

nostr:naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzpyrraa4eymelf5xndvxcwxvvs8p7qxluxy0zvrk9rxmlat73axsfqq2nxw24wge47s2ydet4ykjlxfgyc62223y5xtdzydu

---

📁 GitHub Folder Structure

The GitHub folder structure must look like this. You extend the existing NIP-05 setup by adding a folder lnurlp with one file:

.well-known/ ├── nostr.json # For NIP-05 └── lnurlp/ └── petermuster # For LNURL-Zap

*For example, if your Lightning address is petermuster@zeuspay.com, name the file petermuster (no file extension is needed).

---

📄 Content of .well-known/lnurlp/petermuster

Open the terminal on your linux/mac and run:

bash curl https://zeuspay.com/.well-known/lnurlp/petermuster

Copy the result into a text editor, clean it up and save it into a file named petermuster with this format:

json { "callback": "https://zeuspay.com/api/lnurl/pay/petermuster", "metadata": "[["text/plain","Self-custodial LN address powered by ZEUS. Hodl invoice will settle when user comes online within 24hrs or you'll be refunded."],["text/identifier","petermuster@zeuspay.com"]]", "tag": "payRequest", "minSendable": 1000, "maxSendable": 612000000000, "allowsNostr": true, "nostrPubkey": "3943rjfoijdlakfjo0afsdafasfasfdsadklnfaksdfjljewopqjweilj", "commentAllowed": 600, "zeusPayPlus": true }

---

📝 Nostr Profile Configuration

Make sure your Nostr profile links both your nip05 and your Lightning address like this:

json { "nip05": "petermuster@mydomain.com", lightnisadress (lud16): "petermuster@mydomain.com" }

---

⚠️ Privacy / Info Leaks

| Field | Leak? | Explanation | |-------------------|-------|-------------| | maxSendable | 🟡 Minor | Indicates the user can accept up to 6.12 BTC. This is not your balance, it shows just you use ZeusPay Plus. | | metadata | 🔵 Editable | You can remove ZEUS branding for more privacy | | nostrPubkey | 🔵 Public | This is your public key, no issue | | callback domain | 🟡 Yes | It reveals you're forwarding to zeuspay.com | | Custody | 🟢 No | You're using Zeus in non-custodial mode |

---

✅ Benefits of This Setup

| Advantage | Description | |----------------------------------------|-------------| | Unified Identity | One address for both NIP-05 and Lightning Zaps | | Less dependency on the client | No need to use or register a Lightning wallet in the Nostr client | | Direct payment to your node | Sats go directly to your Zeus wallet via Olympus LSP | | Easily switch payment backend | You can change the real LNURL backend later without changing your address | | Future-proof | You can later self-host your own LNURL backend |

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Die Wahrheit verletzt tiefer als jede Beleidigung. \ Marquis de Sade

Sagen Sie niemals «Terroristin B.», «Schwachkopf H.», «korrupter Drecksack S.» oder «Meinungsfreiheitshasserin F.» und verkneifen Sie sich Memes, denn so etwas könnte Ihnen als Beleidigung oder Verleumdung ausgelegt werden und rechtliche Konsequenzen haben. Auch mit einer Frau M.-A. S.-Z. ist in dieser Beziehung nicht zu spaßen, sie gehört zu den Top-Anzeigenstellern.

«Politikerbeleidigung» als Straftatbestand wurde 2021 im Kampf gegen «Rechtsextremismus und Hasskriminalität» in Deutschland eingeführt, damals noch unter der Regierung Merkel. Im Gesetz nicht festgehalten ist die Unterscheidung zwischen schlechter Hetze und guter Hetze – trotzdem ist das gängige Praxis, wie der Titel fast schon nahelegt.

So dürfen Sie als Politikerin heute den Tesla als «Nazi-Auto» bezeichnen und dies ausdrücklich auf den Firmengründer Elon Musk und dessen «rechtsextreme Positionen» beziehen, welche Sie nicht einmal belegen müssen. [1] Vielleicht ernten Sie Proteste, jedoch vorrangig wegen der «gut bezahlten, unbefristeten Arbeitsplätze» in Brandenburg. Ihren Tweet hat die Berliner Senatorin Cansel Kiziltepe inzwischen offenbar dennoch gelöscht.

Dass es um die Meinungs- und Pressefreiheit in der Bundesrepublik nicht mehr allzu gut bestellt ist, befürchtet man inzwischen auch schon im Ausland. Der Fall des Journalisten David Bendels, der kürzlich wegen eines Faeser-Memes zu sieben Monaten Haft auf Bewährung verurteilt wurde, führte in diversen Medien zu Empörung. Die Welt versteckte ihre Kritik mit dem Titel «Ein Urteil wie aus einer Diktatur» hinter einer Bezahlschranke.

Unschöne, heutzutage vielleicht strafbare Kommentare würden mir auch zu einigen anderen Themen und Akteuren einfallen. Ein Kandidat wäre der deutsche Bundesgesundheitsminister (ja, er ist es tatsächlich immer noch). Während sich in den USA auf dem Gebiet etwas bewegt und zum Beispiel Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will, dass die Gesundheitsbehörde (CDC) keine Covid-Impfungen für Kinder mehr empfiehlt, möchte Karl Lauterbach vor allem das Corona-Lügengebäude vor dem Einsturz bewahren.

«Ich habe nie geglaubt, dass die Impfungen nebenwirkungsfrei sind», sagte Lauterbach jüngst der ZDF-Journalistin Sarah Tacke. Das steht in krassem Widerspruch zu seiner früher verbreiteten Behauptung, die Gen-Injektionen hätten keine Nebenwirkungen. Damit entlarvt er sich selbst als Lügner. Die Bezeichnung ist absolut berechtigt, dieser Mann dürfte keinerlei politische Verantwortung tragen und das Verhalten verlangt nach einer rechtlichen Überprüfung. Leider ist ja die Justiz anderweitig beschäftigt und hat außerdem selbst keine weiße Weste.

Obendrein kämpfte der Herr Minister für eine allgemeine Impfpflicht. Er beschwor dabei das Schließen einer «Impflücke», wie es die Weltgesundheitsorganisation – die «wegen Trump» in finanziellen Schwierigkeiten steckt – bis heute tut. Die WHO lässt aktuell ihre «Europäische Impfwoche» propagieren, bei der interessanterweise von Covid nicht mehr groß die Rede ist.

Einen «Klima-Leugner» würden manche wohl Nir Shaviv nennen, das ist ja nicht strafbar. Der Astrophysiker weist nämlich die Behauptung von einer Klimakrise zurück. Gemäß seiner Forschung ist mindestens die Hälfte der Erderwärmung nicht auf menschliche Emissionen, sondern auf Veränderungen im Sonnenverhalten zurückzuführen.

Das passt vielleicht auch den «Klima-Hysterikern» der britischen Regierung ins Konzept, die gerade Experimente zur Verdunkelung der Sonne angekündigt haben. Produzenten von Kunstfleisch oder Betreiber von Insektenfarmen würden dagegen vermutlich die Geschichte vom fatalen CO2 bevorzugen. Ihnen würde es besser passen, wenn der verantwortungsvolle Erdenbürger sein Verhalten gründlich ändern müsste.

In unserer völlig verkehrten Welt, in der praktisch jede Verlautbarung außerhalb der abgesegneten Narrative potenziell strafbar sein kann, gehört fast schon Mut dazu, Dinge offen anzusprechen. Im «besten Deutschland aller Zeiten» glaubten letztes Jahr nur noch 40 Prozent der Menschen, ihre Meinung frei äußern zu können. Das ist ein Armutszeugnis, und es sieht nicht gerade nach Besserung aus. Umso wichtiger ist es, dagegen anzugehen.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

--- Quellen: ---

[1] Zur Orientierung wenigstens ein paar Hinweise zur NS-Vergangenheit deutscher Automobilhersteller:

• Volkswagen
• Porsche
• Daimler-Benz
• BMW
• Audi
• Opel
• Heute: «Auto-Werke für die Rüstung? Rheinmetall prüft Übernahmen»

---

Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben und ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ c9badfea:610f861a

• Bitcoin Exchanges
• Bitcoin Wallets
• Bitcoin Circular Economies
• Nostr Apps
• GrapheneOS

ℹ️ To add profiles to the follow packs, please leave a comment

@ 75351222:10fddcd4

I've created an informal poll to gauge the temperature of interest of different v4v options

This poll assumes someone wants to support a small batch "kick" start program. How you say in French? demaurrer a pieces!

Each option would have a cap of 21 participants. 1 share is $21.

https://pollerama.fun/respond/f6101ba20bb309e523c3969d0e5d9764af181ad3729baec1ad9a6be08b4a29e0

PR - product rewards x 21 Each participant gets 1 jar seasoning + 1 free sample pouch. Free shippingInformal poll #ITM to gauge the temperature of interest of different v4v options

This poll assumes someone wants to support a small batch "kick" start program. How you say in French? demaurrer a pieces!

Each option would have a cap of 21 participants. 1 share is $21.

PR - product rewards x 21\ Each participant gets 1 jar seasoning + 1 free sample pouch. Free shipping

PIF - pay it forward x 21 Each participant gives a free coupon code to a random substack subscriber to use that is valid for 90 days. 90 days after launch, each participant receives 1 free coupon code to use themselves that is good for 90 days. Shipping cost $4.95PIF - pay it forward x 21\ Each participant gives a free coupon code to a random substack subscriber to use that is valid for 90 days.\ 90 days after launch, each participant receives 1 free coupon code to use themselves that is good for 90 days.\ Shipping cost $4.95

VIVO - value in, value out x 21 After run 1 initial funding sales level is met (\~40 items), each participant receives a share of value back ($21) plus a net 50% profit split, divided evenly between the number of VIVO members Members who wish to re-invest in future VIVO batches can select a different support tier or re-VIVO and receive an additional member split value.

FS - Free subscriber Spread the word and have a chance of receiving free stuff!VIVO - value in, value out x 21\ After run 1 initial funding sales level is met (\~40 items), each participant receives a share of value back ($21) plus a net 50% profit split, divided evenly between the number of VIVO members\ Members who wish to re-invest in future VIVO batches can select a different support tier or re-VIVO and receive an additional member split value.

FS - Free subscriber\ Spread the word and have a chance of receiving free stuff!

Thanks for reading, your feedback and support! -S

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Es ist völlig unbestritten, dass der Angriff der russischen Armee auf die Ukraine im Februar 2022 strikt zu verurteilen ist. Ebenso unbestritten ist Russland unter Wladimir Putin keine brillante Demokratie. Aus diesen Tatsachen lässt sich jedoch nicht das finstere Bild des russischen Präsidenten – und erst recht nicht des Landes – begründen, das uns durchweg vorgesetzt wird und den Kern des aktuellen europäischen Bedrohungs-Szenarios darstellt. Da müssen wir schon etwas genauer hinschauen.

Der vorliegende Artikel versucht derweil nicht, den Einsatz von Gewalt oder die Verletzung von Menschenrechten zu rechtfertigen oder zu entschuldigen – ganz im Gegenteil. Dass jedoch der Verdacht des «Putinverstehers» sofort latent im Raume steht, verdeutlicht, was beim Thema «Russland» passiert: Meinungsmache und Manipulation.

Angesichts der mentalen Mobilmachung seitens Politik und Medien sowie des Bestrebens, einen bevorstehenden Krieg mit Russland geradezu herbeizureden, ist es notwendig, dieser fatalen Entwicklung entgegenzutreten. Wenn wir uns nur ein wenig von der herrschenden Schwarz-Weiß-Malerei freimachen, tauchen automatisch Fragen auf, die Risse im offiziellen Narrativ enthüllen. Grund genug, nachzuhaken.

Wer sich schon länger auch abseits der Staats- und sogenannten Leitmedien informiert, der wird in diesem Artikel vermutlich nicht viel Neues erfahren. Andere könnten hier ein paar unbekannte oder vergessene Aspekte entdecken. Möglicherweise klärt sich in diesem Kontext die Wahrnehmung der aktuellen (unserer eigenen!) Situation ein wenig.

Manipulation erkennen

Corona-«Pandemie», menschengemachter Klimawandel oder auch Ukraine-Krieg: Jede Menge Krisen, und für alle gibt es ein offizielles Narrativ, dessen Hinterfragung unerwünscht ist. Nun ist aber ein Narrativ einfach eine Erzählung, eine Geschichte (Latein: «narratio») und kein Tatsachenbericht. Und so wie ein Märchen soll auch das Narrativ eine Botschaft vermitteln.

Über die Methoden der Manipulation ist viel geschrieben worden, sowohl in Bezug auf das Individuum als auch auf die Massen. Sehr wertvolle Tipps dazu, wie man Manipulationen durchschauen kann, gibt ein Büchlein [1] von Albrecht Müller, dem Herausgeber der NachDenkSeiten.

Die Sprache selber eignet sich perfekt für die Manipulation. Beispielsweise kann die Wortwahl Bewertungen mitschwingen lassen, regelmäßiges Wiederholen (gerne auch von verschiedenen Seiten) lässt Dinge irgendwann «wahr» erscheinen, Übertreibungen fallen auf und hinterlassen wenigstens eine Spur im Gedächtnis, genauso wie Andeutungen. Belege spielen dabei keine Rolle.

Es gibt auffällig viele Sprachregelungen, die offenbar irgendwo getroffen und irgendwie koordiniert werden. Oder alle Redenschreiber und alle Medien kopieren sich neuerdings permanent gegenseitig. Welchen Zweck hat es wohl, wenn der Krieg in der Ukraine durchgängig und quasi wörtlich als «russischer Angriffskrieg auf die Ukraine» bezeichnet wird? Obwohl das in der Sache richtig ist, deutet die Art der Verwendung auf gezielte Beeinflussung hin und soll vor allem das Feindbild zementieren.

Sprachregelungen dienen oft der Absicherung einer einseitigen Darstellung. Das Gleiche gilt für das Verkürzen von Informationen bis hin zum hartnäckigen Verschweigen ganzer Themenbereiche. Auch hierfür gibt es rund um den Ukraine-Konflikt viele gute Beispiele.

Das gewünschte Ergebnis solcher Methoden ist eine Schwarz-Weiß-Malerei, bei der einer eindeutig als «der Böse» markiert ist und die anderen automatisch «die Guten» sind. Das ist praktisch und demonstriert gleichzeitig ein weiteres Manipulationswerkzeug: die Verwendung von Doppelstandards. Wenn man es schafft, bei wichtigen Themen regelmäßig mit zweierlei Maß zu messen, ohne dass das Publikum protestiert, dann hat man freie Bahn.

Experten zu bemühen, um bestimmte Sachverhalte zu erläutern, ist sicher sinnvoll, kann aber ebenso missbraucht werden, schon allein durch die Auswahl der jeweiligen Spezialisten. Seit «Corona» werden viele erfahrene und ehemals hoch angesehene Fachleute wegen der «falschen Meinung» diffamiert und gecancelt. [2] Das ist nicht nur ein brutaler Umgang mit Menschen, sondern auch eine extreme Form, die öffentliche Meinung zu steuern.

Wann immer wir also erkennen (weil wir aufmerksam waren), dass wir bei einem bestimmten Thema manipuliert werden, dann sind zwei logische und notwendige Fragen: Warum? Und was ist denn richtig? In unserem Russland-Kontext haben die Antworten darauf viel mit Geopolitik und Geschichte zu tun.

Ist Russland aggressiv und expansiv?

Angeblich plant Russland, europäische NATO-Staaten anzugreifen, nach dem Motto: «Zuerst die Ukraine, dann den Rest». In Deutschland weiß man dafür sogar das Datum: «Wir müssen bis 2029 kriegstüchtig sein», versichert Verteidigungsminister Pistorius.

Historisch gesehen ist es allerdings eher umgekehrt: Russland, bzw. die Sowjetunion, ist bereits dreimal von Westeuropa aus militärisch angegriffen worden. Die Feldzüge Napoleons, des deutschen Kaiserreichs und Nazi-Deutschlands haben Millionen Menschen das Leben gekostet. Bei dem ausdrücklichen Vernichtungskrieg ab 1941 kam es außerdem zu Brutalitäten wie der zweieinhalbjährigen Belagerung Leningrads (heute St. Petersburg) durch Hitlers Wehrmacht. Deren Ziel, die Bevölkerung auszuhungern, wurde erreicht: über eine Million tote Zivilisten.

Trotz dieser Erfahrungen stimmte Michail Gorbatschow 1990 der deutschen Wiedervereinigung zu und die Sowjetunion zog ihre Truppen aus Osteuropa zurück (vgl. Abb. 1). Der Warschauer Pakt wurde aufgelöst, der Kalte Krieg formell beendet. Die Sowjets erhielten damals von führenden westlichen Politikern die Zusicherung, dass sich die NATO «keinen Zentimeter ostwärts» ausdehnen würde, das ist dokumentiert. [3]

Expandiert ist die NATO trotzdem, und zwar bis an Russlands Grenzen (vgl. Abb. 2). Laut dem Politikberater Jeffrey Sachs handelt es sich dabei um ein langfristiges US-Projekt, das von Anfang an die Ukraine und Georgien mit einschloss. Offiziell wurde der Beitritt beiden Staaten 2008 angeboten. In jedem Fall könnte die massive Ost-Erweiterung seit 1999 aus russischer Sicht nicht nur als Vertrauensbruch, sondern durchaus auch als aggressiv betrachtet werden.

Russland hat den europäischen Staaten mehrfach die Hand ausgestreckt [4] für ein friedliches Zusammenleben und den «Aufbau des europäischen Hauses». Präsident Putin sei «in seiner ersten Amtszeit eine Chance für Europa» gewesen, urteilt die Journalistin und langjährige Russland-Korrespondentin der ARD, Gabriele Krone-Schmalz. Er habe damals viele positive Signale Richtung Westen gesendet.

Die Europäer jedoch waren scheinbar an einer Partnerschaft mit dem kontinentalen Nachbarn weniger interessiert als an der mit dem transatlantischen Hegemon. Sie verkennen bis heute, dass eine gedeihliche Zusammenarbeit in Eurasien eine Gefahr für die USA und deren bekundetes Bestreben ist, die «einzige Weltmacht» zu sein – «Full Spectrum Dominance» [5] nannte das Pentagon das. Statt einem neuen Kalten Krieg entgegenzuarbeiten, ließen sich europäische Staaten selber in völkerrechtswidrige «US-dominierte Angriffskriege» [6] verwickeln, wie in Serbien, Afghanistan, dem Irak, Libyen oder Syrien. Diese werden aber selten so benannt.

Speziell den Deutschen stünde außer einer Portion Realismus auch etwas mehr Dankbarkeit gut zu Gesicht. Das Geschichtsbewusstsein der Mehrheit scheint doch recht selektiv und das Selbstbewusstsein einiger etwas desorientiert zu sein. Bekanntermaßen waren es die Soldaten der sowjetischen Roten Armee, die unter hohen Opfern 1945 Deutschland «vom Faschismus befreit» haben. Bei den Gedenkfeiern zu 80 Jahren Kriegsende will jedoch das Auswärtige Amt – noch unter der Diplomatie-Expertin Baerbock, die sich schon länger offiziell im Krieg mit Russland wähnt, – nun keine Russen sehen: Sie sollen notfalls rausgeschmissen werden.

«Die Grundsatzfrage lautet: Geht es Russland um einen angemessenen Platz in einer globalen Sicherheitsarchitektur, oder ist Moskau schon seit langem auf einem imperialistischen Trip, der befürchten lassen muss, dass die Russen in fünf Jahren in Berlin stehen?»

So bringt Gabriele Krone-Schmalz [7] die eigentliche Frage auf den Punkt, die zur Einschätzung der Situation letztlich auch jeder für sich beantworten muss.

Was ist los in der Ukraine?

In der internationalen Politik geht es nie um Demokratie oder Menschenrechte, sondern immer um Interessen von Staaten. Diese These stammt von Egon Bahr, einem der Architekten der deutschen Ostpolitik des «Wandels durch Annäherung» aus den 1960er und 70er Jahren. Sie trifft auch auf den Ukraine-Konflikt zu, den handfeste geostrategische und wirtschaftliche Interessen beherrschen, obwohl dort angeblich «unsere Demokratie» verteidigt wird.

Es ist ein wesentliches Element des Ukraine-Narrativs und Teil der Manipulation, die Vorgeschichte des Krieges wegzulassen – mindestens die vor der russischen «Annexion» der Halbinsel Krim im März 2014, aber oft sogar komplett diejenige vor der Invasion Ende Februar 2022. Das Thema ist komplex, aber einige Aspekte, die für eine Beurteilung nicht unwichtig sind, will ich wenigstens kurz skizzieren. [8]

Das Gebiet der heutigen Ukraine und Russlands – die übrigens in der «Kiewer Rus» gemeinsame Wurzeln haben – hat der britische Geostratege Halford Mackinder bereits 1904 als eurasisches «Heartland» bezeichnet, dessen Kontrolle er eine große Bedeutung für die imperiale Strategie Großbritanniens zumaß. Für den ehemaligen Sicherheits- und außenpolitischen Berater mehrerer US-amerikanischer Präsidenten und Mitgründer der Trilateralen Kommission, Zbigniew Brzezinski, war die Ukraine nach der Auflösung der Sowjetunion ein wichtiger Spielstein auf dem «eurasischen Schachbrett», wegen seiner Nähe zu Russland, seiner Bodenschätze und seines Zugangs zum Schwarzen Meer.

Die Ukraine ist seit langem ein gespaltenes Land. Historisch zerrissen als Spielball externer Interessen und geprägt von ethnischen, kulturellen, religiösen und geografischen Unterschieden existiert bis heute, grob gesagt, eine Ost-West-Spaltung, welche die Suche nach einer nationalen Identität stark erschwert.

Insbesondere im Zuge der beiden Weltkriege sowie der Russischen Revolution entstanden tiefe Risse in der Bevölkerung. Ukrainer kämpften gegen Ukrainer, zum Beispiel die einen auf der Seite von Hitlers faschistischer Nazi-Armee und die anderen auf der von Stalins kommunistischer Roter Armee. Die Verbrechen auf beiden Seiten sind nicht vergessen. Dass nach der Unabhängigkeit 1991 versucht wurde, Figuren wie den radikalen Nationalisten Symon Petljura oder den Faschisten und Nazi-Kollaborateur Stepan Bandera als «Nationalhelden» zu installieren, verbessert die Sache nicht.

Während die USA und EU-Staaten zunehmend «ausländische Einmischung» (speziell russische) in «ihre Demokratien» wittern, betreiben sie genau dies seit Jahrzehnten in vielen Ländern der Welt. Die seit den 2000er Jahren bekannten «Farbrevolutionen» in Osteuropa werden oft als Methode des Regierungsumsturzes durch von außen gesteuerte «demokratische» Volksaufstände beschrieben. Diese Strategie geht auf Analysen zum «Schwarmverhalten» [9] seit den 1960er Jahren zurück (Studentenproteste), wo es um die potenzielle Wirksamkeit einer «rebellischen Hysterie» von Jugendlichen bei postmodernen Staatsstreichen geht. Heute nennt sich dieses gezielte Kanalisieren der Massen zur Beseitigung unkooperativer Regierungen «Soft-Power».

In der Ukraine gab es mit der «Orangen Revolution» 2004 und dem «Euromaidan» 2014 gleich zwei solcher «Aufstände». Der erste erzwang wegen angeblicher Unregelmäßigkeiten eine Wiederholung der Wahlen, was mit Wiktor Juschtschenko als neuem Präsidenten endete. Dieser war ehemaliger Direktor der Nationalbank und Befürworter einer Annäherung an EU und NATO. Seine Frau, die First Lady, ist US-amerikanische «Philanthropin» und war Beamtin im Weißen Haus in der Reagan- und der Bush-Administration.

Im Gegensatz zu diesem ersten Event endete der sogenannte Euromaidan unfriedlich und blutig. Die mehrwöchigen Proteste gegen Präsident Wiktor Janukowitsch, in Teilen wegen des nicht unterzeichneten Assoziierungsabkommens mit der EU, wurden zunehmend gewalttätiger und von Nationalisten und Faschisten des «Rechten Sektors» dominiert. Sie mündeten Ende Februar 2014 auf dem Kiewer Unabhängigkeitsplatz (Maidan) in einem Massaker durch Scharfschützen. Dass deren Herkunft und die genauen Umstände nicht geklärt wurden, störte die Medien nur wenig. [10]

Janukowitsch musste fliehen, er trat nicht zurück. Vielmehr handelte es sich um einen gewaltsamen, allem Anschein nach vom Westen inszenierten Putsch. Laut Jeffrey Sachs war das kein Geheimnis, außer vielleicht für die Bürger. Die USA unterstützten die Post-Maidan-Regierung nicht nur, sie beeinflussten auch ihre Bildung. Das geht unter anderem aus dem berühmten «Fuck the EU»-Telefonat der US-Chefdiplomatin für die Ukraine, Victoria Nuland, mit Botschafter Geoffrey Pyatt hervor.

Dieser Bruch der demokratischen Verfassung war letztlich der Auslöser für die anschließenden Krisen auf der Krim und im Donbass (Ostukraine). Angesichts der ukrainischen Geschichte mussten die nationalistischen Tendenzen und die Beteiligung der rechten Gruppen an dem Umsturz bei der russigsprachigen Bevölkerung im Osten ungute Gefühle auslösen. Es gab Kritik an der Übergangsregierung, Befürworter einer Abspaltung und auch für einen Anschluss an Russland.

Ebenso konnte Wladimir Putin in dieser Situation durchaus Bedenken wegen des Status der russischen Militärbasis für seine Schwarzmeerflotte in Sewastopol auf der Krim haben, für die es einen langfristigen Pachtvertrag mit der Ukraine gab. Was im März 2014 auf der Krim stattfand, sei keine Annexion, sondern eine Abspaltung (Sezession) nach einem Referendum gewesen, also keine gewaltsame Aneignung, urteilte der Rechtswissenschaftler Reinhard Merkel in der FAZ sehr detailliert begründet. Übrigens hatte die Krim bereits zu Zeiten der Sowjetunion den Status einer autonomen Republik innerhalb der Ukrainischen SSR.

Anfang April 2014 wurden in der Ostukraine die «Volksrepubliken» Donezk und Lugansk ausgerufen. Die Kiewer Übergangsregierung ging unter der Bezeichnung «Anti-Terror-Operation» (ATO) militärisch gegen diesen, auch von Russland instrumentalisierten Widerstand vor. Zufällig war kurz zuvor CIA-Chef John Brennan in Kiew. Die Maßnahmen gingen unter dem seit Mai neuen ukrainischen Präsidenten, dem Milliardär Petro Poroschenko, weiter. Auch Wolodymyr Selenskyj beendete den Bürgerkrieg nicht, als er 2019 vom Präsidenten-Schauspieler, der Oligarchen entmachtet, zum Präsidenten wurde. Er fuhr fort, die eigene Bevölkerung zu bombardieren.

Mit dem Einmarsch russischer Truppen in die Ostukraine am 24. Februar 2022 begann die zweite Phase des Krieges. Die Wochen und Monate davor waren intensiv. Im November hatte die Ukraine mit den USA ein Abkommen über eine «strategische Partnerschaft» unterzeichnet. Darin sagten die Amerikaner ihre Unterstützung der EU- und NATO-Perspektive der Ukraine sowie quasi für die Rückeroberung der Krim zu. Dagegen ließ Putin der NATO und den USA im Dezember 2021 einen Vertragsentwurf über beiderseitige verbindliche Sicherheitsgarantien zukommen, den die NATO im Januar ablehnte. Im Februar eskalierte laut OSZE die Gewalt im Donbass.

Bereits wenige Wochen nach der Invasion, Ende März 2022, kam es in Istanbul zu Friedensverhandlungen, die fast zu einer Lösung geführt hätten. Dass der Krieg nicht damals bereits beendet wurde, lag daran, dass der Westen dies nicht wollte. Man war der Meinung, Russland durch die Ukraine in diesem Stellvertreterkrieg auf Dauer militärisch schwächen zu können. Angesichts von Hunderttausenden Toten, Verletzten und Traumatisierten, die als Folge seitdem zu beklagen sind, sowie dem Ausmaß der Zerstörung, fehlen einem die Worte.

Hasst der Westen die Russen?

Diese Frage drängt sich auf, wenn man das oft unerträglich feindselige Gebaren beobachtet, das beileibe nicht neu ist und vor Doppelmoral trieft. Russland und speziell die Person Wladimir Putins werden regelrecht dämonisiert, was gleichzeitig scheinbar jede Form von Diplomatie ausschließt.

Russlands militärische Stärke, seine geografische Lage, sein Rohstoffreichtum oder seine unabhängige diplomatische Tradition sind sicher Störfaktoren für das US-amerikanische Bestreben, der Boss in einer unipolaren Welt zu sein. Ein womöglich funktionierender eurasischer Kontinent, insbesondere gute Beziehungen zwischen Russland und Deutschland, war indes schon vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg eine Sorge des britischen Imperiums.

Ein «Vergehen» von Präsident Putin könnte gewesen sein, dass er die neoliberale Schocktherapie à la IWF und den Ausverkauf des Landes (auch an US-Konzerne) beendete, der unter seinem Vorgänger herrschte. Dabei zeigte er sich als Führungspersönlichkeit und als nicht so formbar wie Jelzin. Diese Aspekte allein sind aber heute vermutlich keine ausreichende Erklärung für ein derart gepflegtes Feindbild.

Der Historiker und Philosoph Hauke Ritz erweitert den Fokus der Fragestellung zu: «Warum hasst der Westen die Russen so sehr?», was er zum Beispiel mit dem Medienforscher Michael Meyen und mit der Politikwissenschaftlerin Ulrike Guérot bespricht. Ritz stellt die interessante These [11] auf, dass Russland eine Provokation für den Westen sei, welcher vor allem dessen kulturelles und intellektuelles Potenzial fürchte.

Die Russen sind Europäer aber anders, sagt Ritz. Diese «Fremdheit in der Ähnlichkeit» erzeuge vielleicht tiefe Ablehnungsgefühle. Obwohl Russlands Identität in der europäischen Kultur verwurzelt ist, verbinde es sich immer mit der Opposition in Europa. Als Beispiele nennt er die Kritik an der katholischen Kirche oder die Verbindung mit der Arbeiterbewegung. Christen, aber orthodox; Sozialismus statt Liberalismus. Das mache das Land zum Antagonisten des Westens und zu einer Bedrohung der Machtstrukturen in Europa.

Fazit

Selbstverständlich kann man Geschichte, Ereignisse und Entwicklungen immer auf verschiedene Arten lesen. Dieser Artikel, obwohl viel zu lang, konnte nur einige Aspekte der Ukraine-Tragödie anreißen, die in den offiziellen Darstellungen in der Regel nicht vorkommen. Mindestens dürfte damit jedoch klar geworden sein, dass die Russische Föderation bzw. Wladimir Putin nicht der alleinige Aggressor in diesem Konflikt ist. Das ist ein Stellvertreterkrieg zwischen USA/NATO (gut) und Russland (böse); die Ukraine (edel) wird dabei schlicht verheizt.

Das ist insofern von Bedeutung, als die gesamte europäische Kriegshysterie auf sorgsam kultivierten Freund-Feind-Bildern beruht. Nur so kann Konfrontation und Eskalation betrieben werden, denn damit werden die wahren Hintergründe und Motive verschleiert. Angst und Propaganda sind notwendig, damit die Menschen den Wahnsinn mitmachen. Sie werden belogen, um sie zuerst zu schröpfen und anschließend auf die Schlachtbank zu schicken. Das kann niemand wollen, außer den stets gleichen Profiteuren: die Rüstungs-Lobby und die großen Investoren, die schon immer an Zerstörung und Wiederaufbau verdient haben.

Apropos Investoren: Zu den Top-Verdienern und somit Hauptinteressenten an einer Fortführung des Krieges zählt BlackRock, einer der weltgrößten Vermögensverwalter. Der deutsche Bundeskanzler in spe, Friedrich Merz, der gerne «Taurus»-Marschflugkörper an die Ukraine liefern und die Krim-Brücke zerstören möchte, war von 2016 bis 2020 Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender von BlackRock in Deutschland. Aber das hat natürlich nichts zu sagen, der Mann macht nur seinen Job.

Es ist ein Spiel der Kräfte, es geht um Macht und strategische Kontrolle, um Geheimdienste und die Kontrolle der öffentlichen Meinung, um Bodenschätze, Rohstoffe, Pipelines und Märkte. Das klingt aber nicht sexy, «Demokratie und Menschenrechte» hört sich besser und einfacher an. Dabei wäre eine für alle Seiten förderliche Politik auch nicht so kompliziert; das Handwerkszeug dazu nennt sich Diplomatie. Noch einmal Gabriele Krone-Schmalz:

«Friedliche Politik ist nichts anderes als funktionierender Interessenausgleich. Da geht’s nicht um Moral.»

Die Situation in der Ukraine ist sicher komplex, vor allem wegen der inneren Zerrissenheit. Es dürfte nicht leicht sein, eine friedliche Lösung für das Zusammenleben zu finden, aber die Beteiligten müssen es vor allem wollen. Unter den gegebenen Umständen könnte eine sinnvolle Perspektive mit Neutralität und föderalen Strukturen zu tun haben.

Allen, die sich bis hierher durch die Lektüre gearbeitet (oder auch einfach nur runtergescrollt) haben, wünsche ich frohe Oster-Friedenstage!

[Titelbild: Pixabay; Abb. 1 und 2: nach Ganser/SIPER; Abb. 3: SIPER]

--- Quellen: ---

[1] Albrecht Müller, «Glaube wenig. Hinterfrage alles. Denke selbst.», Westend 2019

[2] Zwei nette Beispiele:

• ARD-faktenfinder (sic), «Viel Aufmerksamkeit für fragwürdige Experten», 03/2023
• Neue Zürcher Zeitung, «Aufstieg und Fall einer Russlandversteherin – die ehemalige ARD-Korrespondentin Gabriele Krone-Schmalz rechtfertigt seit Jahren Putins Politik», 12/2022

[3] George Washington University, «NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard – Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner», 12/2017

[4] Beispielsweise Wladimir Putin bei seiner Rede im Deutschen Bundestag, 25/09/2001

[5] William Engdahl, «Full Spectrum Dominance, Totalitarian Democracy In The New World Order», edition.engdahl 2009

[6] Daniele Ganser, «Illegale Kriege – Wie die NATO-Länder die UNO sabotieren. Eine Chronik von Kuba bis Syrien», Orell Füssli 2016

[7] Gabriele Krone-Schmalz, «Mit Friedensjournalismus gegen ‘Kriegstüchtigkeit’», Vortrag und Diskussion an der Universität Hamburg, veranstaltet von engagierten Studenten, 16/01/2025\ → Hier ist ein ähnlicher Vortrag von ihr (Video), den ich mit spanischer Übersetzung gefunden habe.

[8] Für mehr Hintergrund und Details empfehlen sich z.B. folgende Bücher:

• Mathias Bröckers, Paul Schreyer, «Wir sind immer die Guten», Westend 2019
• Gabriele Krone-Schmalz, «Russland verstehen? Der Kampf um die Ukraine und die Arroganz des Westens», Westend 2023
• Patrik Baab, «Auf beiden Seiten der Front – Meine Reisen in die Ukraine», Fiftyfifty 2023

[9] vgl. Jonathan Mowat, «Washington's New World Order "Democratization" Template», 02/2005 und RAND Corporation, «Swarming and the Future of Conflict», 2000

[10] Bemerkenswert einige Beiträge, von denen man später nichts mehr wissen wollte:

• ARD Monitor, «Todesschüsse in Kiew: Wer ist für das Blutbad vom Maidan verantwortlich», 10/04/2014, Transkript hier
• Telepolis, «Blutbad am Maidan: Wer waren die Todesschützen?», 12/04/2014
• Telepolis, «Scharfschützenmorde in Kiew», 14/12/2014
• Deutschlandfunk, «Gefahr einer Spirale nach unten», Interview mit Günter Verheugen, 18/03/2014
• NDR Panorama, «Putsch in Kiew: Welche Rolle spielen die Faschisten?», 06/03/2014

[11] Hauke Ritz, «Vom Niedergang des Westens zur Neuerfindung Europas», 2024

---

Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben.

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

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

TL;DR please educate your children about online safety.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Verstand ohne Gefühl ist unmenschlich; \ Gefühl ohne Verstand ist Dummheit. \ Egon Bahr

Seit Jahren werden wir darauf getrimmt, dass Fakten eigentlich gefühlt seien. Aber nicht alles ist relativ und nicht alles ist nach Belieben interpretierbar. Diese Schokoladenhasen beispielsweise, die an Ostern in unseren Gefilden typisch sind, «ostern» zwar nicht, sondern sie sitzen in der Regel, trotzdem verwandelt sie das nicht in «Sitzhasen».

Nichts soll mehr gelten, außer den immer invasiveren Gesetzen. Die eigenen Traditionen und Wurzeln sind potenziell «pfui», um andere Menschen nicht auszuschließen, aber wir mögen uns toleranterweise an die fremden Symbole und Rituale gewöhnen. Dabei ist es mir prinzipiell völlig egal, ob und wann jemand ein Fastenbrechen feiert, am Karsamstag oder jedem anderen Tag oder nie – aber bitte freiwillig.

Und vor allem: Lasst die Finger von den Kindern! In Bern setzten kürzlich Demonstranten ein Zeichen gegen die zunehmende Verbreitung woker Ideologie im Bildungssystem und forderten ein Ende der sexuellen Indoktrination von Schulkindern.

Wenn es nicht wegen des heiklen Themas Migration oder wegen des Regenbogens ist, dann wegen des Klimas. Im Rahmen der «Netto Null»-Agenda zum Kampf gegen das angeblich teuflische CO2 sollen die Menschen ihre Ernährungsgewohnheiten komplett ändern. Nach dem Willen von Produzenten synthetischer Lebensmittel, wie Bill Gates, sollen wir baldmöglichst praktisch auf Fleisch und alle Milchprodukte wie Milch und Käse verzichten. Ein lukratives Geschäftsmodell, das neben der EU aktuell auch von einem britischen Lobby-Konsortium unterstützt wird.

Sollten alle ideologischen Stricke zu reißen drohen, ist da immer noch «der Putin». Die Unions-Europäer offenbaren sich dabei ständig mehr als Vertreter der Rüstungsindustrie. Allen voran zündelt Deutschland an der Kriegslunte, angeführt von einem scheinbar todesmutigen Kanzlerkandidaten Friedrich Merz. Nach dessen erneuter Aussage, «Taurus»-Marschflugkörper an Kiew liefern zu wollen, hat Russland eindeutig klargestellt, dass man dies als direkte Kriegsbeteiligung werten würde – «mit allen sich daraus ergebenden Konsequenzen für Deutschland».

Wohltuend sind Nachrichten über Aktivitäten, die sich der allgemeinen Kriegstreiberei entgegenstellen oder diese öffentlich hinterfragen. Dazu zählt auch ein Kongress kritischer Psychologen und Psychotherapeuten, der letzte Woche in Berlin stattfand. Die vielen Vorträge im Kontext von «Krieg und Frieden» deckten ein breites Themenspektrum ab, darunter Friedensarbeit oder die Notwendigkeit einer «Pädagogik der Kriegsuntüchtigkeit».

Der heutige «stille Freitag», an dem Christen des Leidens und Sterbens von Jesus gedenken, ist vielleicht unabhängig von jeder religiösen oder spirituellen Prägung eine passende Einladung zur Reflexion. In der Ruhe liegt die Kraft. In diesem Sinne wünsche ich Ihnen frohe Ostertage!

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben und ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Zwei mal drei macht vier, \ widewidewitt und drei macht neune, \ ich mach mir die Welt, \ widewide wie sie mir gefällt. \ Pippi Langstrumpf

Egal, ob Koalitionsverhandlungen oder politischer Alltag: Die Kontroversen zwischen theoretisch verschiedenen Parteien verschwinden, wenn es um den Kampf gegen politische Gegner mit Rückenwind geht. Wer den Alteingesessenen die Pfründe ernsthaft streitig machen könnte, gegen den werden nicht nur «Brandmauern» errichtet, sondern der wird notfalls auch strafrechtlich verfolgt. Doppelstandards sind dabei selbstverständlich inklusive.

In Frankreich ist diese Woche Marine Le Pen wegen der Veruntreuung von EU-Geldern von einem Gericht verurteilt worden. Als Teil der Strafe wurde sie für fünf Jahre vom passiven Wahlrecht ausgeschlossen. Obwohl das Urteil nicht rechtskräftig ist – Le Pen kann in Berufung gehen –, haben die Richter das Verbot, bei Wahlen anzutreten, mit sofortiger Wirkung verhängt. Die Vorsitzende des rechtsnationalen Rassemblement National (RN) galt als aussichtsreiche Kandidatin für die Präsidentschaftswahl 2027.

Das ist in diesem Jahr bereits der zweite gravierende Fall von Wahlbeeinflussung durch die Justiz in einem EU-Staat. In Rumänien hatte Călin Georgescu im November die erste Runde der Präsidentenwahl überraschend gewonnen. Das Ergebnis wurde später annulliert, die behauptete «russische Wahlmanipulation» konnte jedoch nicht bewiesen werden. Die Kandidatur für die Wahlwiederholung im Mai wurde Georgescu kürzlich durch das Verfassungsgericht untersagt.

Die Veruntreuung öffentlicher Gelder muss untersucht und geahndet werden, das steht außer Frage. Diese Anforderung darf nicht selektiv angewendet werden. Hingegen mussten wir in der Vergangenheit bei ungleich schwerwiegenderen Fällen von (mutmaßlichem) Missbrauch ganz andere Vorgehensweisen erleben, etwa im Fall der heutigen EZB-Chefin Christine Lagarde oder im «Pfizergate»-Skandal um die Präsidentin der EU-Kommission Ursula von der Leyen.

Wenngleich derartige Angelegenheiten formal auf einer rechtsstaatlichen Grundlage beruhen mögen, so bleibt ein bitterer Beigeschmack. Es stellt sich die Frage, ob und inwieweit die Justiz politisch instrumentalisiert wird. Dies ist umso interessanter, als die Gewaltenteilung einen essenziellen Teil jeder demokratischen Ordnung darstellt, während die Bekämpfung des politischen Gegners mit juristischen Mitteln gerade bei den am lautesten rufenden Verteidigern «unserer Demokratie» populär zu sein scheint.

Die Delegationen von CDU/CSU und SPD haben bei ihren Verhandlungen über eine Regierungskoalition genau solche Maßnahmen diskutiert. «Im Namen der Wahrheit und der Demokratie» möchte man noch härter gegen «Desinformation» vorgehen und dafür zum Beispiel den Digital Services Act der EU erweitern. Auch soll der Tatbestand der Volksverhetzung verschärft werden – und im Entzug des passiven Wahlrechts münden können. Auf europäischer Ebene würde Friedrich Merz wohl gerne Ungarn das Stimmrecht entziehen.

Der Pegel an Unzufriedenheit und Frustration wächst in großen Teilen der Bevölkerung kontinuierlich. Arroganz, Machtmissbrauch und immer abstrusere Ausreden für offensichtlich willkürliche Maßnahmen werden kaum verhindern, dass den etablierten Parteien die Unterstützung entschwindet. In Deutschland sind die Umfrageergebnisse der AfD ein guter Gradmesser dafür.

[Vorlage Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben und ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Spanien bleibt einer der Vorreiter im europäischen Prozess der totalen Überwachung per Digitalisierung. Seit Mittwoch ist dort der digitale Personalausweis verfügbar. Dabei handelt es sich um eine Regierungs-App, die auf dem Smartphone installiert werden muss und in den Stores von Google und Apple zu finden ist. Per Dekret von Regierungschef Pedro Sánchez und Zustimmung des Ministerrats ist diese Maßnahme jetzt in Kraft getreten.

Mit den üblichen Argumenten der Vereinfachung, des Komforts, der Effizienz und der Sicherheit preist das Innenministerium die «Innovation» an. Auch die Beteuerung, dass die digitale Variante parallel zum physischen Ausweis existieren wird und diesen nicht ersetzen soll, fehlt nicht. Während der ersten zwölf Monate wird «der Neue» noch nicht für alle Anwendungsfälle gültig sein, ab 2026 aber schon.

Dass die ganze Sache auch «Risiken und Nebenwirkungen» haben könnte, wird in den Mainstream-Medien eher selten thematisiert. Bestenfalls wird der Aspekt der Datensicherheit angesprochen, allerdings in der Regel direkt mit dem Regierungsvokabular von den «maximalen Sicherheitsgarantien» abgehandelt. Dennoch gibt es einige weitere Aspekte, die Bürger mit etwas Sinn für Privatsphäre bedenken sollten.

Um sich die digitale Version des nationalen Ausweises besorgen zu können (eine App mit dem Namen MiDNI), muss man sich vorab online registrieren. Dabei wird die Identität des Bürgers mit seiner mobilen Telefonnummer verknüpft. Diese obligatorische fixe Verdrahtung kennen wir von diversen anderen Apps und Diensten. Gleichzeitig ist das die Basis für eine perfekte Lokalisierbarkeit der Person.

Für jeden Vorgang der Identifikation in der Praxis wird später «eine Verbindung zu den Servern der Bundespolizei aufgebaut». Die Daten des Individuums werden «in Echtzeit» verifiziert und im Erfolgsfall von der Polizei signiert zurückgegeben. Das Ergebnis ist ein QR-Code mit zeitlich begrenzter Gültigkeit, der an Dritte weitergegeben werden kann.

Bei derartigen Szenarien sträuben sich einem halbwegs kritischen Staatsbürger die Nackenhaare. Allein diese minimale Funktionsbeschreibung lässt die totale Überwachung erkennen, die damit ermöglicht wird. Jede Benutzung des Ausweises wird künftig registriert, hinterlässt also Spuren. Und was ist, wenn die Server der Polizei einmal kein grünes Licht geben? Das wäre spätestens dann ein Problem, wenn der digitale doch irgendwann der einzig gültige Ausweis ist: Dann haben wir den abschaltbaren Bürger.

Dieser neue Vorstoß der Regierung von Pedro Sánchez ist ein weiterer Schritt in Richtung der «totalen Digitalisierung» des Landes, wie diese Politik in manchen Medien – nicht einmal kritisch, sondern sehr naiv – genannt wird. Ebenso verharmlosend wird auch erwähnt, dass sich das spanische Projekt des digitalen Ausweises nahtlos in die Initiativen der EU zu einer digitalen Identität für alle Bürger sowie des digitalen Euro einreiht.

In Zukunft könnte der neue Ausweis «auch in andere staatliche und private digitale Plattformen integriert werden», wie das Medienportal Cope ganz richtig bemerkt. Das ist die Perspektive.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

Dazu passend:

Nur Abschied vom Alleinfahren? Monströse spanische Überwachungsprojekte gemäß EU-Norm

---

Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben und ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 9063ef6b:fd1e9a09

✅ Requirements

• GitHub account
• Own domain (e.g., yourdomain.com)
• Public Nostr key in hex format (not npub!)
• Basic DNS configuration knowledge

---

🛒 1. Register a Domain

Register a domain from a provider like orangewebsite, njal.la, or similar.

---

🌐 2. Configure DNS Records for GitHub Pages

Set the following A records for your domain (via your DNS provider):

| Type | Host | Value | TTL | Priority | |------|--------------|-------------------|-----|----------| | A | @ (or blank) | 185.199.108.153 | 300 | | | A | @ (or blank) | 185.199.109.153 | 300 | | | A | @ (or blank) | 185.199.110.153 | 300 | | | A | @ (or blank) | 185.199.111.153 | 300 | |

Optional:
Add a CNAME record for www → yourusername.github.io

---

📁 3. Create a GitHub Repository

1. Go to https://github.com/new
2. Repository name: e.g., nip5
3. Check "Add a README"
4. Click "Create repository"

---

🏗️ 4. Create Directory & File

a) .well-known/nostr.json

Path: .well-known/nostr.json

Put you nostrhandle (nostrname) and your nostr public key in the file. Example content:

json { "names": { "petermuster": "ldajflasjföldsjflj..." } }

IMPORTANT: Use your hex-encoded Nostr public key, not the npub1... format.

b) _config.yml in Root

Create a file named _config.yml with this content:

yml include: [".well-known"]

This ensures GitHub includes the .well-known folder in the build output.

---

⚙️ 5. Configure GitHub Pages

1. Go to Settings > Pages inside your repository
2. Under "Build and Deployment":
3. Choose: Deploy from branch
4. Branch: main or master
5. Under Custom domain:
6. Enter yourdomain.com
7. Ignore any warning
8. Enable ✅ Enforce HTTPS

It may take a few minutes for the certificate to be issued.

---

🔍 6. Configure Nostr Client

Open your Nostr client and set the NIP-05 identifier as:

nostrName@yourdomain.com e.g. petermuster@yourdomain.tech

Save – done!

---

✅ Test

In your browser or via curl:

bash curl https://yourdomain.com/.well-known/nostr.json?name=petermuster

Expected output:

json { "names": { "Nostr Benutzer": "elkajdlkajslfkjaödlkfjs..." } }

---

🛡️ Privacy Tips

| Item | Recommendation | |-----------------------------------|----------------------------------| | Public key is visible | Use pseudonyms only | | Register a KYC-free domain | e.g., orangewebsite, njal.la | | Use KYC-free email for GitHub | e.g., ProtonMail | | GitHub repository visibility | Must be public for GitHub Pages | | Commit metadata | Use a separate pseudonymous user | | Avoid tracking | Don’t include analytics scripts |

@ 866e0139:6a9334e5

Autor: Alexa Rodrian. 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.

---

Die neuesten Artikel der Friedenstaube gibt es jetzt auch im eigenen Friedenstaube-Telegram-Kanal.

---

Dieser Text erschien zuerst auf Manova.news

Den Frieden muss man heute fast mit der Lupe suchen. Erst recht die Menschen, die ihn noch weiter im Inneren tragen. Unbändige Wut staut sich auf, ob der unzähligen Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit. Dabei noch friedlich zu bleiben, nicht selbst in die Vergeltungsspirale zu rutschen, ist dieser Tage ein wahres Kunststück in Sachen Selbstbeherrschung. In diesem Beitrag für die Friedensnote ringt die Autorin mit ihren ambivalenten Gefühlen – um sich dann letzten Endes, trotz allem, für den Frieden zu entscheiden. Alexa Rodrian setzt der geballten Grausamkeit der Welt ein „Trotzdem“ entgegen. Trotzdem für den Frieden! Ihr Gedicht verfasste sie im Rahmen der nächsten großen Friedensdemo in Berlin. Die findet am 9. Mai 2025, am Viktoria-Louise-Platz ab 16.30 Uhr zum wiederholten Male unter dem Motto #FRIEDLICHZUSAMMEN statt. Im Vorfeld wurden die Teilnehmer gebeten, ein paar Worte über den Frieden als Videobotschaft aufzunehmen, um sie als Aufruf zur Demo auf Social Media zu posten. Genau das tat Alexa Rodrian mit der nachfolgenden Friedensnote.

Da saß ich nun lange und dachte bei mir, was kann man denn über den Frieden noch sagen, was nicht schon Tausende Male zuvor gesagt und oder geschrieben wurde? Meine liebe Kollegin Sabine Winterfeld hat mir das neulich in ihrem beeindruckenden literarischen Chanson-Abend „Selig sind die Friedfertigen“ dargestellt und nochmals klar gemacht: Nichts wurde noch nicht gesagt.

So sprach und sang sie, in intensiver und gekonnter Manier, nebst kritischen und bewegenden eigenen Texten solche von Emmy Ball Hennigs, Else Laske Schüler, Hermann Hesse und Erich Mühsam.

Worte, die, wenn sie jemals verstanden worden wären, niemals zu der heutigen Kriegshetze unseres politischen Elite-Mobs und seiner Vasallen hätten führen dürfen, wahre Friedens- und Freiheitsworte von Menschen, die wussten, wovon sie sprachen.

Die Geschichte wiederholt sich, und so gedacht könnten wir das mit den Friedensworten jetzt auch einfach sein lassen, da die Erfahrung uns ja gelehrt hat, dass sie eh nichts bringen und nichts verhindern. Gott sei Dank sind wir aber nicht alle total geschichtsvergessen!

Das dringliche und tief aus dem Herzen gesprochene „Nie wieder“ meiner Mutter zum Beispiel habe ich immer zutiefst berührt zur Kenntnis genommen und als ein Mantra in mein Leben integriert.

Und das obwohl oder gerade weil ein Teil meiner Familie Nazis waren und außer vielleicht meinem sozialistischen Onkel Eugen sicherlich niemand aus meiner Familie Juden im Keller versteckt hatte.

Dafür hat sich meine Mutter ihr Leben lang geschämt. Das führte so weit, dass sie ihre/unsere deutsche Identität verleugnen wollte, indem sie wilde Geschichten, von einer ihrer Tanten tradiert, über einen armenischen Wanderer erzählte, der angeblich unser Namensgeber und Urgroßvater war; so erklärte sie sich unser „Nichtdeutsch“-Sein, wie sie immer wieder betonte, und unsere dunkle Haut und Augen.

Ich wuchs sozusagen im Glauben auf, armenisches Blut zu haben, und vielleicht erklärt sich dadurch auch mein sehr frühes Engagement für den Frieden, gegen Rassismus und besonders gegen Genozide. Meine Mutter hat mich aufgeklärt über dieses Land der Täter und Zuschauer, und gleichzeitig hat sie mir, ohne es zu wissen, gespiegelt, wie sehr auch sie als unschuldiges Kind — 1933 geboren — zum Opfer wurde.

So spüre ich ihr Trauma immer wieder in mir, und deswegen bin und möchte ich Pazifist bleiben, und das im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes:

Ich will Frieden machen, tun und handeln, „pax facere“, gemeinsam mit denen, die sich nicht spalten lassen, nicht instrumentalisieren lassen, die, die wissen, wie Frieden geht.

Bei #FRIEDLICHZUSAMMEN gibt es einige von denen, und viele schöne Worte wurden bereits veröffentlicht. Es gibt ein sehr schönes und lyrisches Spokenword-Stück von Cem-Ali Gültekin, Jens Fischer Rodrian spricht und stellt seinen tollen neuen Friedenssong „Frieden“ vor; Tina Maria Aigner erklärt, wie der Frieden in sich selbst auf andere reflektiert, und Sandra Seelig macht uns unter anderem auf den Frieden in der Natur aufmerksam.

Und dann sind da noch die beeindruckenden Worte von Oliver Elias, der unlängst auf TikTok erstmals öffentlich gemacht hat, dass er der Großcousin von Anne Frank ist.

Ich kenne Oliver Elias noch nicht persönlich, aber sich als deutscher Jude, in diesem Land, mit Entsetzen gegen das Töten in Gaza auszusprechen und deutlich zu machen, dass die israelische Regierung zu kritisieren nichts mit Antisemitismus zu tun hat — und das alles trotz seiner Biografie und des Traumas seiner Familie —, verdient in meinen Augen den allerhöchsten Respekt!

Zu guter Letzt muss ich der Ehrlichkeit halber noch etwas hinzufügen, denn

• wenn ich die Bilder aus Palästina sehe von ermordeten und entstellten Kindern, Frauen und Männern,
• wenn ich jeden Tag höre, dass 1,8 Millionen Menschen ausgehungert werden und hier zweifelsohne ein intendierter grauenhafter Genozid stattfindet,
• wenn gestern zum wiederholten Male Menschenrechtsaktivisten, diesmal auf dem Hilfsschiff Conscience, das bei Malta liegt, mit Drohnen von Israel angegriffen werden,
• wenn seit Monaten Ärzte, Krankenschwester, Journalisten und viele andere daran gehindert werden, zu helfen und Bericht zu erstatten, und sogar in großer Anzahl getötet werden,
• wenn das alles ungeahndet und offenkundig vor den Augen der internationalen Gemeinschaft stattfindet,

dann werde ich ambivalent mit meinem Pazifismus. Da brodelt es in mir, meine Wut wird immer größer, meine Verzweiflung immer tiefer — da bin ich ratlos und gebe zu, dass ich mich frage, ob „friedlich“ hier noch die richtige Lösung sein kann.

Jetzt beginnt mein Dschihad, meine innere Auseinandersetzung, und „meine ethische und religiöse Pflicht zur Selbstbeherrschung“ ist schwer herausgefordert.

Am Ende aber weiß ich nur zu gut, dass die Spirale des Tötens nur zu mehr Töten führt, und deshalb zügle ich mich und schreibe lieber ein weiteres Gedicht.

Mein Frieden

Ein Kind zärtlich in den Armen wiegen

das ist Frieden

Streiten und sich trotzdem lieben

das ist Frieden

Lusttrunken auf der Brust des Lovers liegen

das ist Frieden

Freiheit, Ausgeglichenheit und Schwesterlichkeit

das ist Frieden

Wohlwollen, Verständnis, ohne zu verstehen, mit Empathie durchs Leben gehen

das ist Frieden.

Loslassen, was einst geschah

Verzeihen, ohne gänzlich zu vergeben

auch so kann man im Frieden leben.

Lachen laut und manchmal ohne Sinn

für den Frieden immer ein Gewinn

Und auch die Wut ist für den Frieden gut

denn besser laut gesprochen

als sein Gegenüber wutlos totgeschossen.

Den Hass, den gilt es wirklich zu vermeiden, denn er hält fest,

wenn du ihn pflegst, dann wird er bleiben und dich und andere in Kriege treiben.

Nein, denn für Frieden sind wir hier

für den sind wir geblieben und stehen friedlich miteinander gegen 's Kriegen.

---

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.

@ 66675158:1b644430

In the twilight of his days, Myrddin sat upon the weathered stone bench overlooking what remained of Libertalia. His ancient hands—once steady enough to craft the most intricate mechanisms known to the Free Realms—now trembled as they rested upon the gnarled walking stick he had carved from windfall oak. The city below, once a marvel of independent districts connected by the invisible threads of mutual cooperation, had become something else entirely. Something monstrous.

The sun was setting, casting long shadows across the Grand Plaza where the Central Authority's banners now flew. Myrddin's eyes, still sharp despite his five hundred and seventy years, could make out the uniformed guards patrolling in perfect synchronicity. The sight made his stomach turn.

"I built the foundations for freedom," he whispered to himself, "and they have erected prisons upon them."

A figure approached from behind, footsteps deliberately heavy to announce their presence. Myrddin did not turn.

"Master Myrddin," came the voice of Thalion, one of his few remaining former apprentices not yet captured by the Authority. "The Council of Remnants awaits your wisdom."

Myrddin scoffed. "Wisdom? What wisdom can I offer now? I who planted the seeds of our destruction through my own shortsightedness?"

"You could not have known—"

"I should have known!" Myrddin's voice cracked with the force of his outburst. "Every great civilization before us fell to the same disease. Centralization. The pooling of power into fewer and fewer hands until the many are crushed beneath the weight of the few. I knew this. I studied the ancient texts. I designed our systems specifically to prevent this very outcome."

Thalion remained silent, allowing the old engineer his moment of self-recrimination.

"Come," Myrddin finally said, rising with difficulty. "Let us not keep your Council waiting. Though what good words can do against the machinery of oppression, I cannot say."

As they walked the hidden path down from the overlook, Myrddin's mind drifted back to the beginning, to the founding of Libertalia four centuries earlier...

---

The Founding Council had gathered beneath the great oak that would later mark the center of Libertalia. Twelve visionaries from twelve different traditions, united by a single purpose: to create a society where no person would rule over another.

Young Myrddin, barely forty years old but already renowned for his brilliance, unrolled the plans he had spent a decade perfecting.

"The Nexus System," he explained, pointing to the intricate diagrams. "A method of connection that requires no central authority. Each district, each guild, each family unit can connect to the whole while maintaining complete sovereignty over their own affairs."

Lorien the Sage, eldest among them, leaned forward with interest. "You propose that trade, communication, defense—all can function without a ruling body?"

"Not only can they function," Myrddin replied with the confidence of youth, "they will function better. A decentralized system is resilient. Cut one connection, and a hundred others remain. Attack one node, and the system routes around the damage. But most importantly, when power is distributed, corruption finds no fertile ground in which to take root."

"And what prevents a group from seizing control?" asked Marwen the Warrior. "From forcing others to submit to their will?"

Myrddin smiled. "The architecture itself. See here—" he pointed to a complex series of interlocking mechanisms, "—the Consensus Protocol. Any attempt to exert control beyond one's rightful domain triggers automatic resistance from the system. The more one tries to centralize power, the more difficult it becomes."

"You speak of mechanisms as if they have will," Marwen said skeptically.

"Not will, but design," Myrddin corrected. "Like water flowing downhill. I have designed a system where power naturally disperses rather than concentrates."

The Council debated through the night, questioning every aspect of Myrddin's design. By morning, they had agreed to build their new society upon his principles. Libertalia would be a constellation of sovereign individuals and voluntary associations, connected but never controlled.

For three generations, it worked exactly as Myrddin had envisioned. The Free Realms prospered as never before. Innovation flourished in the absence of restrictive oversight. Disputes were resolved through mutual arbitration rather than imposed judgment. The Nexus System facilitated trade and communication while preserving the independence of all participants.

Myrddin, his lifespan extended by the alchemical discoveries his system had made possible, watched with pride as Libertalia became the envy of the known world.

But he had made one critical error.

---

"You created a system that required vigilance," Thalion said as they descended toward the hidden meeting place. "Perhaps that was the flaw."

"No," Myrddin replied. "The flaw was in believing that making something difficult would make it impossible. I should have made centralization not merely hard, but unachievable by any means."

They reached the abandoned mill that served as the Council's current hiding place. Inside, two dozen faces turned toward them—the last free thinkers in a land that once celebrated independence above all else.

Myrddin took his seat at the rough-hewn table. "Tell me," he said without preamble, "how much worse has it become since we last met?"

A woman named Sera, who had once been the foremost architect in the Eastern District, spoke first. "The Authority has implemented the Unified Identification Protocol. No citizen may trade, travel, or even purchase food without presenting their Authority Crystal for scanning."

"And these crystals track their movements?" Myrddin asked, though he already knew the answer.

"Every step," confirmed Sera. "Every transaction. Every word spoken near an Echo Stone."

Myrddin closed his eyes briefly. Echo Stones—his invention, meant to record important discoveries and preserve the wisdom of the ages. Now perverted into tools of surveillance.

"The schools have been consolidated," added a younger man named Ferris. "All children now learn from the same Authority-approved texts. The history of Libertalia is being rewritten. They claim you designed the Nexus System to eventually unite under central guidance."

"A lie," Myrddin spat.

"But a believable one," Thalion said gently. "You did build the infrastructure that made this possible, however unintentional."

Myrddin could not deny it. The Nexus System, designed for voluntary connection, had been gradually modified over the centuries. What began as simple efficiency improvements eventually created vulnerabilities. The Consensus Protocol, once the guardian of decentralization, had been subverted by those who understood its mechanics but not its purpose.

"The disease always begins the same way," Myrddin said, addressing the Council. "With promises of efficiency. Of security. Of protection from unseen threats. The centralizers never announce their true intentions. They speak of unity while forging chains."

"We know this, Master Myrddin," said Sera impatiently. "What we need is a solution, not a history lesson."

Myrddin smiled sadly. "The history is the solution, if only we would heed it. Every great civilization before us fell to centralization. The Aurelian Empire, whose emperors claimed divine right to rule all lands beneath the twin moons. The Dynasty of Eternal Harmony, whose bureaucracy grew so vast it consumed half the realm's production. The Jade Confederation, whose Council of Nine became a single Overlord within three generations."

He paused, gathering his thoughts.

"In every case, the pattern was identical. Power, once distributed among many, gradually accumulated in the hands of few. Those few, corrupted by their unnatural position, made decisions that benefited themselves rather than the whole. Resources were misallocated. Innovation stagnated. The system became brittle rather than resilient. And when crisis came—whether famine, war, or natural disaster—the centralized structure collapsed under its own weight."

"Yet people never learn," said Ferris bitterly.

"Because the benefits of centralization are immediate and visible, while its costs are delayed and diffuse," Myrddin replied. "The Authority provides convenience today at the cost of freedom tomorrow. They offer solutions to problems that would resolve themselves naturally in a decentralized system."

"What was your mistake, then?" asked Thalion. "Where in your design did you leave the opening for this disease to take hold?"

Myrddin's face darkened with regret. "I built a system that was resistant to centralization, but not immune to it. I created tools of such power and efficiency that they became irresistible targets for those who would control others. And most critically, I failed to encode the philosophical foundations of decentralization into the system itself."

He looked around at the faces of the Council, seeing in them the last embers of the fire that had once burned so brightly in Libertalia.

"I believed that people would choose freedom if given the option. I did not account for how seductive the promises of centralization would be. How easily people would trade liberty for convenience. How willingly they would accept security over sovereignty."

---

The decline had been gradual, almost imperceptible at first. It began two centuries after the founding, with the creation of the Coordination Council.

"Merely to improve efficiency," its proponents had argued. "To eliminate redundancies in our wonderfully decentralized system."

Myrddin, by then well into his second century, had voiced concerns but was overruled by younger generations who found the original Nexus System too cumbersome for their modern needs. The Coordination Council was given limited authority to standardize certain protocols across districts.

Within a decade, those standards became requirements. Requirements became regulations. Regulations became laws. The Council, originally composed of representatives who returned to their districts after brief terms of service, gradually transformed into a permanent body of administrators.

By the time Myrddin recognized the pattern, the disease had already taken root. The Coordination Council had become the Central Authority. The voluntary associations that once formed the backbone of Libertalian society were now subordinate to its dictates.

He had tried to warn them. He had written treatises on the dangers of centralization, had spoken at public forums, had even attempted to modify the Nexus System to restore its decentralizing functions. But he was dismissed as an outdated thinker, unable to appreciate the "improvements" of modern governance.

Now, four hundred years after the founding, Libertalia was Libertalia in name only. The Authority controlled all aspects of life. The districts, once proudly independent, were administrative zones whose boundaries could be redrawn at the Authority's whim. The guilds, once self-governing bodies of skilled craftspeople, were now licensing bureaus that enforced Authority standards.

And the people—the free, sovereign individuals for whom Myrddin had designed his system—had become subjects. Citizens, they were called, but the word had lost its original meaning of self-governance and had come to signify merely a registered and tracked unit of the Authority.

---

"We cannot defeat the Authority directly," Myrddin told the Council of Remnants. "They control too much. The military, the food supply, the Nexus itself. Any direct confrontation would be suicidal."

"Then what hope remains?" asked Sera.

"We must build anew," Myrddin said, his voice finding strength in purpose. "Not reform, but replace. The old system cannot be saved—it is too thoroughly corrupted. We must create a parallel system that makes centralization not merely difficult, but impossible by its very nature."

"How?" several voices asked at once.

Myrddin reached into his worn leather satchel and withdrew a small crystal, unlike the Authority Crystals in both color and cut. "I have spent the last fifty years designing what should have been built from the beginning. A truly decentralized system that cannot be subverted because its very operation depends on remaining distributed."

He placed the crystal in the center of the table. It pulsed with a soft blue light.

"The Arx," he explained. "Each crystal contains the complete system, yet functions as only one node within it. No node can control another. No group of nodes can outvote or overpower the minority. Consensus is achieved not through majority rule, but through voluntary participation."

Thalion picked up the crystal, examining it skeptically. "The Authority will never allow this."

"They need not allow what they cannot detect," Myrddin replied. "The Arx operates on principles the Authority's systems cannot recognize. It exists alongside their network but remains invisible to it."

"And what can this network do?" asked Ferris. "How does it help us against the might of the Authority?"

"It allows us to trade without their knowledge. To communicate without their oversight. To organize without their permission. And most importantly, to remember who we truly are—sovereign individuals who require no masters."

Myrddin stood, his ancient frame seeming to straighten with the weight of his purpose.

"Centralization is not merely inefficient or unjust—it is a disease that infects and ultimately kills any society it touches. It promises order but delivers stagnation. It promises security but creates vulnerability. It promises prosperity but ensures that wealth flows only to those who control the center."

He looked each Council member in the eye.

"I made a mistake in believing that making centralization difficult would be enough. This time, we will make it impossible. The Arx cannot be centralized because its very operation depends on distribution. Any attempt to control it causes it to fragment and reform beyond the controller's reach."

"And if the Authority discovers these crystals?" Sera asked.

"They can destroy individual crystals, but the network will continue. They can imprison those who carry them, but more will take their place. The design is now the important thing, not the designer. I have encoded the knowledge of how to create these crystals within the crystals themselves. The idea cannot be killed."

Myrddin sat back down, suddenly looking every one of his many years.

"I cannot undo the damage my oversight has caused. I cannot restore the Libertalia I helped to build. But I can give you the tools to create something better—something truly resistant to the disease of centralization."

The Council members looked at one another, hope kindling in eyes that had known only despair for too long.

"How do we begin?" Thalion asked.

Myrddin smiled. "We begin by remembering what we have forgotten. That no person has the right to rule another. That voluntary cooperation always outperforms forced compliance. That systems must serve individuals, not the reverse. That decentralization is not merely a technical architecture but a moral imperative."

He gestured to the crystal, still glowing in Thalion's palm.

"And we begin by building connections that cannot be controlled. Person to person. District to district. Free association by free association. The Authority believes itself invincible because it sits at the center of all things. But when there is no center, there is nothing to seize, nothing to corrupt, nothing to control."

As night fell over Libertalia, the Council of Remnants listened as the ancient engineer outlined his vision for a truly decentralized future. Outside, the Authority's patrols marched in perfect order, their uniformity a testament to the disease that had consumed what was once the freest society in the known world.

Myrddin knew he would not live to see his new design reach fruition. But for the first time in decades, he felt something like peace. He had identified his error. He had created a solution. And most importantly, he had ensured that the knowledge would outlive him.

Centralization was indeed a disease—perhaps the most persistent and destructive disease ever to afflict human societies. But like all diseases, it could be overcome with the right medicine. And the medicine was not more centralization, not better rulers, not wiser authorities.

The medicine was decentralization. Complete, uncompromising, and irreversible decentralization.

As the meeting concluded and the Council members departed with their crystals, Myrddin remained seated at the table. Thalion lingered behind.

"You know they will come for you eventually," his former apprentice said. "You are too significant a symbol to ignore forever."

Myrddin nodded. "Let them come. An old man is a small price to pay for the rebirth of freedom."

"Your new system," Thalion said hesitantly, "you are certain it cannot be centralized? That we are not simply repeating the cycle?"

"Nothing created by human hands can be perfect," Myrddin admitted. "But I have learned from my mistake. The Arx does not merely resist centralization—it actively works against it. The more one tries to control it, the more it disperses. It is not merely a technical solution but a philosophical one."

He placed a hand on Thalion's shoulder. "Remember always: centralization benefits only those at the center. For everyone else—the 99.999% who stand at the periphery—it is nothing but chains disguised as safety. Never again can we allow the disease to take root by promising efficiency at the cost of sovereignty."

Thalion nodded solemnly. "I will remember."

As his former apprentice departed, Myrddin turned to look out the small window at the city below. The Authority's lights blazed from the central towers, pushing back the natural darkness of night. So much power, concentrated in so few hands. So much potential, wasted in the service of control rather than creation.

He had lived long enough to see his greatest work corrupted. With what time remained to him, he would ensure that his final creation could not suffer the same fate. The Arx would spread, node by node, person by person, until the very concept of centralized authority became as obsolete as the diseases his earlier inventions had eradicated.

Myrddin Myrddin, Master Engineer of the Free Realms, closed his eyes and allowed himself, just for a moment, to imagine a world reborn in true freedom. A world where the disease of centralization had finally been cured.

It would not happen in his lifetime. Perhaps not even in Thalion's. But it would happen. Of that, he was certain.

For the truth that the Authority and all centralizers before them had never understood was simple: humans were not meant to be controlled. They were meant to be free. And in the end, that natural state would reassert itself, no matter how elaborate the systems of control became.

Centralization was a disease. And like all diseases, it would eventually meet a cure.

@ 866e0139:6a9334e5

Autor: Peter Schmuck. 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.

---

Die neuesten Artikel der Friedenstaube gibt es jetzt auch im eigenen Friedenstaube-Telegram-Kanal.

---

Der Text der Friedenserklärung wurde vom European Peace Project verfasst:

\ Heute, am 9. Mai 2025 – genau 80 Jahre nach dem Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegs, der 60 Millionen Menschen das Leben kostete, darunter 27 Millionen Sowjetbürgern, erheben wir, die Bürgerinnen und Bürger Europas, unsere Stimmen! Wir schämen uns für unsere Regierungen und die EU, die die Lehren des 20. Jahrhunderts nicht gelernt haben. Die EU, einst als Friedensprojekt gedacht, wurde pervertiert und hat damit den Wesenskern Europas verraten! Wir, die Bürger Europas, nehmen darum heute, am 9. Mai, unsere Geschicke und unsere Geschichte selbst in die Hand. Wir erklären die EU für gescheitert. Wir beginnen mit Bürger-Diplomatie und verweigern uns dem geplanten Krieg gegen Russland! Wir erkennen die Mitverantwortung des „Westens“, der europäischen Regierungen und der EU an diesem Konflikt an.

Wir, die Bürger Europas, treten mit dem European Peace Project der schamlosen Heuchlerei und den Lügen entgegen, die heute – am Europatag – auf offiziellen Festakten und in öffentlichen Sendern verbreitet werden.

Wir strecken den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern der Ukraine und Russlands die Hand aus. Ihr gehört zur europäischen Familie, und wir sind überzeugt, dass wir gemeinsam ein friedliches Zusammenleben auf unserem Kontinent organisieren können.

Wir haben die Bilder der Soldatenfriedhöfe vor Augen – von Wolgograd über Riga bis Lothringen. Wir sehen die frischen Gräber, die dieser sinnlose Krieg in der Ukraine und in Russland hinterlassen hat. Während die meisten EU-Regierungen und Verantwortlichen für den Krieg hetzen und verdrängen, was Krieg für die Bevölkerung bedeutet, haben wir die Lektion des letzten Jahrhunderts gelernt: Europa heißt „Nie wieder Krieg!“

Wir erinnern uns an die europäischen Aufbauleistungen des letzten Jahrhunderts und an die Versprechen von 1989 nach der friedlichen Revolution. Wir fordern ein europäisch-russisches Jugendwerk nach dem Vorbild des deutsch-französischen Jugendwerks von 1963, das die „Erbfeindschaft“ zwischen Deutschland und Frankreich beendet hat. Wir fordern ein Ende der Sanktionen und den Wiederaufbau der Nord Stream II-Pipeline. Wir weigern uns, unsere Steuergelder für Rüstung und Militarisierung zu verschwenden, auf Kosten von Sozialstandards und Infrastruktur. Im Rahmen einer OSZE-Friedenskonferenz fordern wir die Schaffung einer europäischen Sicherheitsarchitektur mit und nicht gegen Russland, wie in der Charta von Paris von 1990 festgelegt. Wir fordern ein neutrales, von den USA emanzipiertes Europa, das eine vermittelnde Rolle in einer multipolaren Welt einnimmt. Unser Europa ist post-kolonial und post-imperial.

Wir, die Bürger Europas, erklären diesen Krieg hiermit für beendet! Wir machen bei den Kriegsspielen nicht mit. Wir machen aus unseren Männern und Söhnen keine Soldaten, aus unseren Töchtern keine Schwestern im Lazarett und aus unseren Ländern keine Schlachtfelder.

Wir bieten an, sofort eine Abordnung europäischer Bürgerinnen und Bürger nach Kiew und Moskau zu entsenden, um den Dialog zu beginnen. Wir werden nicht länger zusehen, wie unsere Zukunft und die unserer Kinder auf dem Altar der Machtpolitik geopfert wird.

Es lebe Europa, es lebe der Friede, es lebe die Freiheit!

Auf der Webseite der Initiative oder in einem Gespräch mit Ulrike Guérot können Sie, liebe Leser, weitere Möglichkeiten erfahren, diese Friedensinitiative zu stärken!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zECOTfeweUE&list=PLS_jddBXjdqcBKneCQcPN8NOTSqlmNqpy

Danke an die IntiatorInnen und die bislang 15.000 Menschen, die das mitgestalten werden.

---

Peter Schmuck ist Professor für Psychologie und Initiator zahlreicher nachhaltiger Projekte.

---

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.

@ aa8de34f:a6ffe696

In seinem Beitrag vom 30. März 2025 fragt Henning Rosenbusch auf Telegram angesichts zunehmender digitaler Kontrolle und staatlicher Allmacht:

„Wie soll sich gegen eine solche Tyrannei noch ein Widerstand formieren können, selbst im Untergrund? Sehe ich nicht.“\ (Quelle: t.me/rosenbusch/25228)

Er beschreibt damit ein Gefühl der Ohnmacht, das viele teilen: Eine Welt, in der Totalitarismus nicht mehr mit Panzern, sondern mit Algorithmen kommt. Wo Zugriff auf Geld, Meinungsfreiheit und Teilhabe vom Wohlverhalten abhängt. Der Bürger als kontrollierbare Variable im Code des Staates.\ Die Frage ist berechtigt. Doch die Antwort darauf liegt nicht in alten Widerstandsbildern – sondern in einer neuen Realität.

-- Denn es braucht keinen Untergrund mehr. --

Der Widerstand der Zukunft trägt keinen Tarnanzug. Er ist nicht konspirativ, sondern transparent. Nicht bewaffnet, sondern mathematisch beweisbar. Bitcoin steht nicht am Rand dieser Entwicklung – es ist ihr Fundament. Eine Bastion aus physikalischer Realität, spieltheoretischem Schutz und ökonomischer Wahrheit. Es ist nicht unfehlbar, aber unbestechlich. Nicht perfekt, aber immun gegen zentrale Willkür.

Hier entsteht kein „digitales Gegenreich“, sondern eine dezentrale Renaissance. Keine Revolte aus Wut, sondern eine stille Abkehr: von Zwang zu Freiwilligkeit, von Abhängigkeit zu Selbstverantwortung. Diese Revolution führt keine Kriege. Sie braucht keine Führer. Sie ist ein Netzwerk. Jeder Knoten ein Individuum. Jede Entscheidung ein Akt der Selbstermächtigung.

Weltweit wachsen Freiheits-Zitadellen aus dieser Idee: wirtschaftlich autark, digital souverän, lokal verankert und global vernetzt. Sie sind keine Utopien im luftleeren Raum, sondern konkrete Realitäten – angetrieben von Energie, Code und dem menschlichen Wunsch nach Würde.

Der Globalismus alter Prägung – zentralistisch, monopolistisch, bevormundend – wird an seiner eigenen Hybris zerbrechen. Seine Werkzeuge der Kontrolle werden ihn nicht retten. Im Gegenteil: Seine Geister werden ihn verfolgen und erlegen.

Und während die alten Mächte um Erhalt kämpfen, wächst eine neue Welt – nicht im Schatten, sondern im Offenen. Nicht auf Gewalt gebaut, sondern auf Mathematik, Physik und Freiheit.

Die Tyrannei sieht keinen Widerstand.\ Weil sie nicht erkennt, dass er längst begonnen hat.\ Unwiderruflich. Leise. Überall.

@ 502ab02a:a2860397

Zeitgeber (ออกเสียงว่า ไซท’เกเบอะ) มาจากภาษาเยอรมัน คำว่า Zeit แปลว่า “เวลา” คำว่า Geber แปลว่า “ผู้ให้” หรือ “ตัวให้” แปลรวมกันว่า “ผู้ให้เวลา” หรือ “ตัวตั้งเวลา” ในบริบทชีววิทยาหมายถึง สิ่งแวดล้อมภายนอก ที่คอย “ตั้งนาฬิกาชีวภาพ” ภายในร่างกายเราให้เดินตามจังหวะที่เหมาะสม

นักวิจัยด้านนาฬิกาชีวภาพอย่าง Jürgen Aschoff และ Franz Halberg ในปี 1960–70s ใช้คำนี้เพื่ออธิบาย สิ่งเร้าที่ช่วยรีเซ็ตนาฬิกากลาง (Suprachiasmatic Nucleus) ของเราให้ตรงกับโลกภายนอก

ตัวอย่าง Zeitgeber หลักๆเช่น 1.แสงสว่าง-ความมืด แสงแดดเช้า (Blue light) บอกสมองว่า “เช้าแล้ว ตื่นได้” ตัวตั้ง circadian ความมืดตอนกลางคืน ปล่อยให้เมลาโทนินหลั่ง ส่งสัญญาณง่วงและพักผ่อน

2.อุณหภูมิ อุณหภูมิรอบตัวที่ลดลงตอนค่ำ ช่วยกระตุ้นการหลั่งเมลาโทนิน อีกแรงให้รู้ว่า “ได้เวลาเข้านอนแล้ว”

3.มื้ออาหาร เวลากินอาหารเป็นเวลาช่วยรีเซ็ตนาฬิกา peripheral clocks ในอวัยวะอย่างตับ ลำไส้

4.กิจกรรมทางสังคม-เสียง การทำงาน-พักผ่อนตามตารางประจำวัน หรือเสียงนาฬิกาปลุก / เสียงธรรมชาติช่วงเช้า ช่วยให้สมองปรับจังหวะได้

แล้วทำไม Zeitgeber ถึงมีความสำคัญขนาดนั้น? ลองนึกถึงนาฬิกาที่ตั้งผิดเวลาครับ ถ้าไม่มี zeitgeber ร่างกายเราจะเดินนาฬิกาชีวภาพได้ไม่ตรง “อาจง่วงไม่เป็นเวลา นอนไม่ลึก หรือฮอร์โมนเพี้ยน” การใช้ zeitgeber ให้เหมาะสม (เช่น รับแสงเช้าจริง ๆ งดจ้องจอหลังกลางคืน) จะช่วยให้ circadian, ultradian และ infradian rhythms ทำงานสอดคล้องกับธรรมชาติ ลดอาการ jet-lag, นอนไม่หลับ, อารมณ์ขึ้นลง หรือแม้แต่ปรับฮอร์โมนให้สมดุล ดังนั้น Zeitgeber คือ “เครื่องตั้งเวลา” ของร่างกายเรา ที่ช่วยให้ทุกกระบวนการชีวภาพเดินจังหวะตามโลกภายนอกอย่างกลมกลืน การเข้าใจและใช้ zeitgeber ให้ถูกต้อง จึงเป็นกุญแจสำคัญของสุขภาพกาย/ใจที่แข็งแรงยืนยาว

แสงแดดคือ zeitgeber สำคัญที่สุดของมนุษย์ ที่ไม่ได้มีบทบาทแค่กับวงจรรายวัน (circadian) แต่ยัง “ตั้งเวลา” ให้กับวงจรรายสั้น (ultradian) และวงจรรายยาว (infradian) ด้วย มาดูกันว่าแดดเข้ามาปั่นจังหวะเหล่านี้อย่างไรบ้าง

1. แสงแดดกับ Circadian Rhythm Circadian Rhythm คือวงจรชีวภาพรอบ 24 ชั่วโมง ควบคุมการนอน–ตื่น การหลั่งฮอร์โมน และอุณหภูมิร่างกาย แสงแดดเช้า (blue light) สายตาจะจับแสงผ่านจอประสาทตา (retina) ซึ่งมีเซลล์รับแสงชนิดพิเศษ (ipRGCs) ที่ไม่ใช่แค่ช่วยให้เรามองเห็น แต่ตอบสนองต่อความเข้มของแสงด้วย ด้วยการหยุดหลั่งเมลาโทนิน และเพิ่มคอร์ติซอล ทำให้ร่างกาย “ตื่น” และรีเซ็ตนาฬิกาทุกวัน กระบวนการนี้เรียกว่า photoentrainment ซึ่งทำให้ circadian rhythm ไม่ลอย (drift) ออกจากรอบ 24 ชม.

2. แสงแดดกับ Ultradian Rhythm Ultradian Rhythm คือวงจรชีวภาพที่สั้นกว่า 24 ชม. (เช่น การนอนสลับ NREM–REM ทุก ~90–120 นาที, การหลั่งฮอร์โมนเป็นช่วงเวลา) แสงแดด เช้า ช่วยเริ่มการหลั่งของคอร์ติซอล และกระตุ้นสมาธิ attention cycle (โพกัส 90 นาที พัก 15–20 นาที) ทำให้ ultradian cycles เหล่านี้เดินจังหวะตามความสดชื่นของแสง หรือแม้แต่ การรับแดดอ่อนๆ ช่วงเบรก (10–15 นาที) จะช่วยรีเซ็ต ultradian attention และ nap cycles ให้รอบต่อไปสดใส ไม่ง่วงเหงาหาวนอนกลางวัน

3. แสงแดดกับ Infradian Rhythm Infradian Rhythm คือวงจรชีวภาพยาวกว่า 24 ชม. (เช่น รอบเดือนของผู้หญิง) ดูกาลและแสงวันยาว–สั้น มีอิทธิพลต่ออารมณ์และฮอร์โมนรายปี (SAD) ร่างกายขาดแสง ทำให้ Melatonin ค้างในวัน ส่งผลให้อารมณ์ตกดิ่ง, รอบเดือน แสง UVB จะช่วยสังเคราะห์วิตามิน D ให้ปรับเอสโตรเจน/โปรเจสเตอโรนให้ขึ้น–ลงเป็นวัฏจักรที่สม่ำเสมอ รอบเดือนมาแบบมีคุณภาพ, ระบบภูมิคุ้มกัน แสง UVA สร้าง photolysis ของ nitrite สารพิเศษของโลก ปล่อย nitric oxide (NO) ช่วยในการลดอักเสบเรื้อรัง

เราจะเลือกใช้ “แดด” เป็น zeitgeber อย่างไรให้ตรงจังหวะ ให้ลองมองแต่ละช่วงเวลาแบบนี้ครับ พยายามทำให้เป็นจังหวะธรรมชาติของตัวเรา ไม่ต้องไปเกร็งเวลามากนะครับ - เช้า (6:30–9:00 น.) เปิดม่านหรือเดินรับแดด 10–15 นาที เน้น blue/UV light กระตุ้น circadian & ultradian - เบรกกลางวัน เดินออกไปรับแดดอ่อนๆ 10 นาที ช่วย ultradian attention & nap cycles - บ่ายแก่ (15:30–17:00 น.) ยืนรับแดดอ่อน–แสงอินฟราเรด ช่วย photobiomodulation ซ่อมแซมเซลล์ & สนับสนุน infradian recovery - หลีกเลี่ยงจอหลัง 20:00 น. ลดแสงสีฟ้าเทียม ให้เมลาโทนินผลิตตามธรรมชาติ

การใช้ แสงแดด ให้เป็น zeitgeber ครบทั้ง Circadian, Ultradian, Infradian จะทำให้ร่างกายเราเดินจังหวะกับธรรมชาติอย่างกลมกลืน ส่งผลต่อคุณภาพการนอน สมาธิ อารมณ์ และฮอร์โมนในทุกช่วงเวลาของชีวิตครับ

#pirateketo #SundaySpecialเราจะไปเป็นหมูแดดเดียว #กูต้องรู้มั๊ย #ม้วนหางสิลูก #siamstr

@ 99982b27:f5d86450

7Ball đã nhanh chóng trở thành một nền tảng giải trí trực tuyến được yêu thích, thu hút đông đảo người dùng nhờ vào sự sáng tạo và không ngừng đổi mới trong cách cung cấp dịch vụ. Giao diện của 7Ball được thiết kế tinh tế, dễ sử dụng, giúp người tham gia có thể dễ dàng tìm thấy các tính năng mà mình mong muốn chỉ trong vài cú nhấp chuột. Với nền tảng công nghệ vững chắc, 7Ball đảm bảo trải nghiệm mượt mà và nhanh chóng, dù bạn đang sử dụng bất kỳ thiết bị nào, từ điện thoại di động đến máy tính cá nhân. Điểm mạnh của 7Ball là khả năng cung cấp một không gian giải trí đa dạng, nơi người dùng có thể tham gia vào nhiều hoạt động khác nhau, từ các sự kiện hấp dẫn đến các trò chơi đầy thử thách. Mỗi tính năng trên nền tảng này đều được tối ưu hóa để mang lại trải nghiệm người dùng tuyệt vời, không gặp phải sự gián đoạn hay chậm trễ. Chính sự kết hợp giữa công nghệ hiện đại và thiết kế tối ưu đã giúp 7Ball nhanh chóng chiếm được lòng tin và sự yêu mến của cộng đồng người dùng.

Một yếu tố quan trọng giúp 7BALL giữ vững vị thế của mình trên thị trường giải trí trực tuyến chính là sự chú trọng đặc biệt đến bảo mật và an toàn của người dùng. Nền tảng này đã áp dụng các biện pháp bảo mật tiên tiến để bảo vệ thông tin cá nhân và các giao dịch trực tuyến của người tham gia. Điều này giúp người dùng an tâm khi tham gia vào các hoạt động trên nền tảng mà không lo ngại về sự xâm nhập hay rủi ro từ các mối đe dọa trên mạng. Với hệ thống mã hóa dữ liệu cao cấp và đội ngũ giám sát luôn theo dõi mọi hoạt động, 7Ball đã tạo ra một môi trường giải trí trực tuyến an toàn, bảo vệ quyền lợi tối đa cho người dùng. Ngoài việc đảm bảo tính bảo mật, 7Ball còn không ngừng cải thiện chất lượng dịch vụ và giao diện, giúp người tham gia có được những trải nghiệm tốt nhất mỗi khi truy cập. Các chương trình khuyến mãi, sự kiện và trò chơi luôn được cập nhật mới mẻ, mang lại cho người dùng những phút giây giải trí không thể quên.

Với sự chuyên nghiệp trong dịch vụ và cam kết không ngừng nâng cao chất lượng, 7Ball đã xây dựng được một cộng đồng người dùng mạnh mẽ và thân thiện. Đội ngũ hỗ trợ khách hàng của 7Ball luôn sẵn sàng giải đáp mọi thắc mắc của người dùng, cung cấp các dịch vụ tư vấn và hỗ trợ kỹ thuật một cách nhanh chóng và hiệu quả. Điều này không chỉ giúp giải quyết vấn đề của người tham gia mà còn tạo dựng niềm tin vững chắc từ phía cộng đồng. Hơn nữa, 7Ball còn tạo ra một không gian giao lưu, chia sẻ giữa các thành viên, giúp mọi người kết nối và học hỏi từ nhau. Các sự kiện tương tác và thử thách thường xuyên được tổ chức, giúp người tham gia không chỉ có cơ hội giải trí mà còn có thể phát triển các kỹ năng và chiến lược cá nhân. Với tất cả những yếu tố này, 7Ball không chỉ đơn thuần là một nền tảng giải trí trực tuyến, mà còn là một cộng đồng, nơi người tham gia có thể giao lưu, kết nối và cùng nhau chia sẻ niềm vui.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Der Irrsinn ist bei Einzelnen etwas Seltenes – \ aber bei Gruppen, Parteien, Völkern, Zeiten die Regel. \ Friedrich Nietzsche

Erinnern Sie sich an die Horrorkomödie «Scary Movie»? Nicht, dass ich diese Art Filme besonders erinnerungswürdig fände, aber einige Szenen daraus sind doch gewissermaßen Klassiker. Dazu zählt eine, die das Verhalten vieler Protagonisten in Horrorfilmen parodiert, wenn sie in Panik flüchten. Welchen Weg nimmt wohl die Frau in der Situation auf diesem Bild?

Diese Szene kommt mir automatisch in den Sinn, wenn ich aktuelle Entwicklungen in Europa betrachte. Weitreichende Entscheidungen gehen wider jede Logik in die völlig falsche Richtung. Nur ist das hier alles andere als eine Komödie, sondern bitterernst. Dieser Horror ist leider sehr real.

Die Europäische Union hat sich selbst über Jahre konsequent in eine Sackgasse manövriert. Sie hat es versäumt, sich und ihre Politik selbstbewusst und im Einklang mit ihren Wurzeln auf dem eigenen Kontinent zu positionieren. Stattdessen ist sie in blinder Treue den vermeintlichen «transatlantischen Freunden» auf ihrem Konfrontationskurs gen Osten gefolgt.

In den USA haben sich die Vorzeichen allerdings mittlerweile geändert, und die einst hoch gelobten «Freunde und Partner» erscheinen den europäischen «Führern» nicht mehr vertrauenswürdig. Das ist spätestens seit der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz, der Rede von Vizepräsident J. D. Vance und den empörten Reaktionen offensichtlich. Große Teile Europas wirken seitdem wie ein aufgescheuchter Haufen kopfloser Hühner. Orientierung und Kontrolle sind völlig abhanden gekommen.

Statt jedoch umzukehren oder wenigstens zu bremsen und vielleicht einen Abzweig zu suchen, geben die Crash-Piloten jetzt auf dem Weg durch die Sackgasse erst richtig Gas. Ja sie lösen sogar noch die Sicherheitsgurte und deaktivieren die Airbags. Den vor Angst dauergelähmten Passagieren fällt auch nichts Besseres ein und so schließen sie einfach die Augen. Derweil übertrumpfen sich die Kommentatoren des Events gegenseitig in sensationslüsterner «Berichterstattung».

Wie schon die deutsche Außenministerin mit höchsten UN-Ambitionen, Annalena Baerbock, proklamiert auch die Europäische Kommission einen «Frieden durch Stärke». Zu dem jetzt vorgelegten, selbstzerstörerischen Fahrplan zur Ankurbelung der Rüstungsindustrie, genannt «Weißbuch zur europäischen Verteidigung – Bereitschaft 2030», erklärte die Kommissionspräsidentin, die «Ära der Friedensdividende» sei längst vorbei. Soll das heißen, Frieden bringt nichts ein? Eine umfassende Zusammenarbeit an dauerhaften europäischen Friedenslösungen steht demnach jedenfalls nicht zur Debatte.

Zusätzlich brisant ist, dass aktuell «die ganze EU von Deutschen regiert wird», wie der EU-Parlamentarier und ehemalige UN-Diplomat Michael von der Schulenburg beobachtet hat. Tatsächlich sitzen neben von der Leyen und Strack-Zimmermann noch einige weitere Deutsche in – vor allem auch in Krisenzeiten – wichtigen Spitzenposten der Union. Vor dem Hintergrund der Kriegstreiberei in Deutschland muss eine solche Dominanz mindestens nachdenklich stimmen.

Ihre ursprünglichen Grundwerte wie Demokratie, Freiheit, Frieden und Völkerverständigung hat die EU kontinuierlich in leere Worthülsen verwandelt. Diese werden dafür immer lächerlicher hochgehalten und beschworen.

Es wird dringend Zeit, dass wir, der Souverän, diesem erbärmlichen und gefährlichen Trauerspiel ein Ende setzen und die Fäden selbst in die Hand nehmen. In diesem Sinne fordert uns auch das «European Peace Project» auf, am 9. Mai im Rahmen eines Kunstprojekts den Frieden auszurufen. Seien wir dabei!

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben und ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 95543309:196c540e

Lets see if this works with the blossom upload and without markdown hassle.

:cat:

https://blossom.primal.net/73a099f931366732c18dd60da82db6ef65bb368eb96756f07d9fa7a8a3644009.mp4

@ a296b972:e5a7a2e8

Pferdeflüsterer: Wie viele Finger sehen Sie an meiner Hand?

 

Pony: Ich sage Ihnen ganz ehrlich, das kann ich im Moment nicht beantworten, und außerdem leide ich augenblicklich an Migräne.

Pferdeflüsterer: Dann stelle ich Ihnen aus Rücksicht auf Ihre Migräne die Frage gerne etwas einfacher: Glauben Sie, dass ich Finger an meiner Hand habe?

Pony: Ich bin nicht hier, um Schulabfragen zu beantworten und Spekulationen über die Anzahl der Finger an Ihrer Hand anzustellen.

Pferdeflüsterer: Ok, dann formuliere ich die Frage noch allgemeiner: Wissen Sie, was Finger sind?

Pony: Diese Frage ist übergriffig und ich bin nicht bereit, Ihnen auf diesem Niveau weiter Fragen zu beantworten.

Pferdeflüsterer: Gut, wenn Sie erlauben, kommen wir zu einer anderen Frage. Sie sagen, ich zitiere: Man muss radikal sein. Ich möchte einen „Systemwechsel“ und den Kapitalismus stürzen. Zitat Ende. Kennen Sie Beispiele aus der Geschichte, in der das jemals gelungen ist?

Pony: Ich sage Ihnen ganz ehrlich, das kann ich im Moment auch nicht beantworten, und, wie bereits schon gesagt, leide ich immer noch an Migräne.

Pferdeflüsterer: Dann stelle ich Ihnen aus Rücksicht auf Ihre immer noch vorhandene Migräne die Frage gerne etwas einfacher: Sind Sie der Ansicht, dass der sogenannte demokratische Sozialismus in der ehemaligen DDR ein Erfolgsrezept war?

Pony: Sie spielen auf die Vergangenheit der Linken als Nachfolgepartei der SED an. Ich kann mich nur wiederholen. Ich bin nicht hier, um Ihnen die geschichtliche Entwicklung der Linken darzulegen.

Pferdeflüsterer: Ok, dann formuliere ich die Frage noch allgemeiner: Kennen Sie den Unterschied zwischen Kapitalismus, Demokratie und Sozialismus?

Pony: Auch diese Frage ist übergriffig und ich bin nicht bereit, Ihnen auf diesem Niveau weitere Fragen zu beantworten.

Es soll abgekürzt werden. Dieses Frage- und Antwortspiel zog sich noch weitere 9 Stunden hin. Dem Pferdeflüsterer sei für seine Geduld gedankt, jedoch ohne sie wäre er wohl kaum ein Pferdeflüsterer geworden und sehr gut bezahlt, kann man das schon mal aushalten.

Offene Abschlussfrage: Auf die Barrikaden, (die Hütte brennt!). Ist das schon ein offener, gesichert linksextremer Aufruf, der die Demokratie gefährdet und somit ein Fall für das Bundesamt für Fassungslosigkeit, oder fällt das mehr in den Bereich des Ministeriums für Komplikationen?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uywqryKWwUg

Dieser Artikel wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben

* *

(Bild von pixabay)

@ 66675158:1b644430

I don't believe in "vibe coding" – it's just the newest Silicon Valley fad trying to give meaning to their latest favorite technology, LLMs. We've seen this pattern before with blockchain, when suddenly Non Fungible Tokens appeared, followed by Web3 startups promising to revolutionize everything from social media to supply chains. VCs couldn't throw money fast enough at anything with "decentralized" (in name only) in the pitch deck. Andreessen Horowitz launched billion-dollar crypto funds, while Y Combinator batches filled with blockchain startups promising to be "Uber for X, but on the blockchain."

The metaverse mania followed, with Meta betting its future on digital worlds where we'd supposedly hang out as legless avatars. Decentralized (in name only) autonomous organizations emerged as the next big thing – supposedly democratic internet communities that ended up being the next scam for quick money.

Then came the inevitable collapse. The FTX implosion in late 2022 revealed fraud, Luna/Terra's death spiral wiped out billions (including my ten thousand dollars), while Celsius and BlockFi froze customer assets before bankruptcy.

By 2023, crypto winter had fully set in. The SEC started aggressive enforcement actions, while users realized that blockchain technology had delivered almost no practical value despite a decade of promises.

Blockchain's promises tapped into fundamental human desires – decentralization resonated with a generation disillusioned by traditional institutions. Evangelists presented a utopian vision of freedom from centralized control. Perhaps most significantly, crypto offered a sense of meaning in an increasingly abstract world, making the clear signs of scams harder to notice.

The technology itself had failed to solve any real-world problems at scale. By 2024, the once-mighty crypto ecosystem had become a cautionary tale. Venture firms quietly scrubbed blockchain references from their websites while founders pivoted to AI and large language models.

---

Most reading this are likely fellow bitcoiners and nostr users who understand that Bitcoin is blockchain's only valid use case. But I shared that painful history because I believe the AI-hype cycle will follow the same trajectory.

Just like with blockchain, we're now seeing VCs who once couldn't stop talking about "Web3" falling over themselves to fund anything with "AI" in the pitch deck. The buzzwords have simply changed from "decentralized" to "intelligent."

"Vibe coding" is the perfect example – a trendy name for what is essentially just fuzzy instructions to LLMs. Developers who've spent years honing programming skills are now supposed to believe that "vibing" with an AI is somehow a legitimate methodology.

This might be controversial to some, but obvious to others:

Formal, context-free grammar will always remain essential for building precise systems, regardless of how advanced natural language technology becomes

The mathematical precision of programming languages provides a foundation that human language's ambiguity can never replace. Programming requires precision – languages, compilers, and processors operate on explicit instructions, not vibes. What "vibe coding" advocates miss is that beneath every AI-generated snippet lies the same deterministic rules that have always governed computation.

LLMs don't understand code in any meaningful sense—they've just ingested enormous datasets of human-written code and can predict patterns. When they "work," it's because they've seen similar patterns before, not because they comprehend the underlying logic.

This creates a dangerous dependency. Junior developers "vibing" with LLMs might get working code without understanding the fundamental principles. When something breaks in production, they'll lack the knowledge to fix it.

Even experienced developers can find themselves in treacherous territory when relying too heavily on LLM-generated code. What starts as a productivity boost can transform into a dependency crutch.

The real danger isn't just technical limitations, but the false confidence it instills. Developers begin to believe they understand systems they've merely instructed an AI to generate – fundamentally different from understanding code you've written yourself.

We're already seeing the warning signs: projects cobbled together with LLM-generated code that work initially but become maintenance nightmares when requirements change or edge cases emerge.

The venture capital money is flowing exactly as it did with blockchain. Anthropic raised billions, OpenAI is valued astronomically despite minimal revenue, and countless others are competing to build ever-larger models with vague promises. Every startup now claims to be "AI-powered" regardless of whether it makes sense.

Don't get me wrong—there's genuine innovation happening in AI research. But "vibe coding" isn't it. It's a marketing term designed to make fuzzy prompting sound revolutionary.

Cursor perfectly embodies this AI hype cycle. It's an AI-enhanced code editor built on VS Code that promises to revolutionize programming by letting you "chat with your codebase." Just like blockchain startups promised to "revolutionize" industries, Cursor promises to transform development by adding LLM capabilities.

Yes, Cursor can be genuinely helpful. It can explain unfamiliar code, suggest completions, and help debug simple issues. After trying it for just an hour, I found the autocomplete to be MAGICAL for simple refactoring and basic functionality.

But the marketing goes far beyond reality. The suggestion that you can simply describe what you want and get production-ready code is dangerously misleading. What you get are approximations with:

• Security vulnerabilities the model doesn't understand
• Edge cases it hasn't considered
• Performance implications it can't reason about
• Dependency conflicts it has no way to foresee

The most concerning aspect is how such tools are marketed to beginners as shortcuts around learning fundamentals. "Why spend years learning to code when you can just tell AI what you want?" This is reminiscent of how crypto was sold as a get-rich-quick scheme requiring no actual understanding.

When you "vibe code" with an AI, you're not eliminating complexity—you're outsourcing understanding to a black box. This creates developers who can prompt but not program, who can generate but not comprehend.

The real utility of LLMs in development is in augmenting existing workflows:

• Explaining unfamiliar codebases
• Generating boilerplate for well-understood patterns
• Suggesting implementations that a developer evaluates critically
• Assisting with documentation and testing

These uses involve the model as a subordinate assistant to a knowledgeable developer, not as a replacement for expertise. This is where the technology adds value—as a sophisticated tool in skilled hands.

Cursor is just a better hammer, not a replacement for understanding what you're building. The actual value emerges when used by developers who understand what happens beneath the abstractions. They can recognize when AI suggestions make sense and when they don't because they have the fundamental knowledge to evaluate output critically.

This is precisely where the "vibe coding" narrative falls apart.

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hours: Available 24 hours

@ 0a425f12:c4dc49ff

Planting new sod sounds simple. Lay it down, water it, done. Nah. That’s just half the story. Mess up the basics, and your lawn turns patchy or yellow within days. Below are some key mistakes folks make – most don’t even realise it till the grass starts dying. Avoid these, or all that Bermuda grass, Zoysia, or St. Augustine sod you paid for? Wasted.

Not Watering Enough (Or Too Much)

Watering is weirdly tricky. Some think you flood it, some sprinkle it once and call it good. Both? Wrong.

New sod needs moisture constantly for the first few weeks. Not just surface wet, but soaked down to where roots gonna grow. If it dries out, even a day or two, them roots shrink back. That leads to shrinkage gaps, brown edges, even whole squares drying up.

Now the flip side? Overwatering. It ain’t about turning your lawn into a swamp. Too much water drowns roots, they rot, and fungus loves soggy grass. Mushrooms pop up, blades turn pale. And once fungus spreads, getting it out’s a pain. Set a timer. Early morning’s best. Avoid watering at night unless you wanna feed mold.

Also, different sod types need different water levels. Zoysia sod ain’t thirsty like St. Augustine. Use your hand – if it feels squishy, back off. If dry and crumbly, bump it up.

Installing Sod On Bad Soil

Throwing new sod on junk dirt is asking for trouble. Sod’s just skin. If the body (soil) under it’s trash, it won’t stick.

First off, you gotta check the soil pH. Anything too acidic or way too alkaline? Sod roots won’t even grow. You can get soil test kits at garden stores or online, pretty cheap. If the pH ain’t right, use lime or sulfur depending what side you need to fix.

Second, compacted soil is death for sod. If the ground’s hard like a sidewalk, roots can’t go down. You need to aerate or till the soil before laying sod. Mix in some compost or sand depending on drainage needs. Make it loose but not fluffy.

Last part? Level the area. Don’t leave holes or slopes. Uneven spots collect water, or the sod don’t touch dirt properly. When air pockets form under the sod, roots dry out fast.

Skipping Starter Fertilizer

You ever tried starting a car with no fuel? That’s your sod without a starter fertilizer. It’s gotta eat.

New sod needs phosphorus-heavy fertilizer to encourage root growth. Problem is, most people either skip it, or throw on the wrong one. A high-nitrogen fertilizer will just make it look green for a week, but the roots? Weak and lazy.

Use something like 10-10-10 or 15-15-15 starter blends. Look for one that’s labeled for new sod or turf establishment. Apply it right before or during laying the sod. Water it in so it doesn’t just sit there on top.

Also, don’t keep feeding every few days thinking more is better. Too much burns the grass. After first application, wait at least 3–4 weeks before reapplying anything. Stick to what the sod variety needs – Bermuda feeds different than Fescue.

If you’re in Texas or southern regions, the soil’s usually nutrient-poor, especially in clay zones. Don’t ignore that. Local extension offices often got free guides for your area.

Mowing Too Soon (or Way Too Late)

Mowing sounds harmless. Grass too tall? Cut it. Simple, right? Not really.

Cut too early? You slice off the tops before roots even grab the soil. That’ll rip the sod clean out. Like tearing bandages off fresh scabs. Usually, wait 10–14 days after laying sod before mowing. Always check if the sod’s rooted. Tug on a corner. If it lifts? Wait.

Other side of the coin – waiting forever. If your new sod grows tall and thick, it blocks sunlight from reaching the base. That leads to thinning, disease, even weeds moving in. Keep it under control.

Big tip – never cut more than one-third of the grass height in one mow. It shocks the sod, stunts growth. And dull mower blades? Slice and tear instead of clean cuts. That opens wounds for pests and fungal infections.

If it’s St. Augustine grass, you’ll mow it higher – around 3.5 inches. Zoysia or Bermuda grass? Lower, closer to 1.5 or 2 inches. Know your grass type or risk killing it one mow at a time.

Not Rolling the Sod After Install

This one? Almost always skipped. And it kills your sod quietly.

When sod’s not rolled, air gaps stay between the grass and dirt. You won’t see it, but the roots? They ain't touching soil good. No contact = no growth. That’s how sod turns yellow even when you watering perfect.

A lawn roller, filled with water, presses sod down evenly. It pushes the roots into soil and gets rid of air pockets. Do it once right after laying sod. If you miss this step, that nice new lawn can turn patchy in under a week.

Don’t worry about crushing it – the roller’s weight is perfect. You ain't smashing it like concrete. Just a good firm press. If you don't have a roller? Rent one from local garden centers, or even Home Depot. Cheap insurance for hundreds of bucks worth of new sod.

Another problem from not rolling: uneven lawn. It looks bumpy, grows uneven, and mowing becomes a chore. Roller fixes that early. Less headache later.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Wir werden nicht zulassen, dass technisch manches möglich ist, \ aber der Staat es nicht nutzt. \ Angela Merkel

Die Modalverben zu erklären, ist im Deutschunterricht manchmal nicht ganz einfach. Nicht alle Fremdsprachen unterscheiden zum Beispiel bei der Frage nach einer Möglichkeit gleichermaßen zwischen «können» im Sinne von «die Gelegenheit, Kenntnis oder Fähigkeit haben» und «dürfen» als «die Erlaubnis oder Berechtigung haben». Das spanische Wort «poder» etwa steht für beides.

Ebenso ist vielen Schülern auf den ersten Blick nicht recht klar, dass das logische Gegenteil von «müssen» nicht unbedingt «nicht müssen» ist, sondern vielmehr «nicht dürfen». An den Verkehrsschildern lässt sich so etwas meistens recht gut erklären: Manchmal muss man abbiegen, aber manchmal darf man eben nicht.

Dieses Beispiel soll ein wenig die Verwirrungstaktik veranschaulichen, die in der Politik gerne verwendet wird, um unpopuläre oder restriktive Maßnahmen Stück für Stück einzuführen. Zuerst ist etwas einfach innovativ und bringt viele Vorteile. Vor allem ist es freiwillig, jeder kann selber entscheiden, niemand muss mitmachen. Später kann man zunehmend weniger Alternativen wählen, weil sie verschwinden, und irgendwann verwandelt sich alles andere in «nicht dürfen» – die Maßnahme ist obligatorisch.

Um die Durchsetzung derartiger Initiativen strategisch zu unterstützen und nett zu verpacken, gibt es Lobbyisten, gerne auch NGOs genannt. Dass das «NG» am Anfang dieser Abkürzung übersetzt «Nicht-Regierungs-» bedeutet, ist ein Anachronismus. Das war vielleicht früher einmal so, heute ist eher das Gegenteil gemeint.

In unserer modernen Zeit wird enorm viel Lobbyarbeit für die Digitalisierung praktisch sämtlicher Lebensbereiche aufgewendet. Was das auf dem Sektor der Mobilität bedeuten kann, haben wir diese Woche anhand aktueller Entwicklungen in Spanien beleuchtet. Begründet teilweise mit Vorgaben der Europäischen Union arbeitet man dort fleißig an einer «neuen Mobilität», basierend auf «intelligenter» technologischer Infrastruktur. Derartige Anwandlungen wurden auch schon als «Technofeudalismus» angeprangert.

Nationale Zugangspunkte für Mobilitätsdaten im Sinne der EU gibt es nicht nur in allen Mitgliedsländern, sondern auch in der Schweiz und in Großbritannien. Das Vereinigte Königreich beteiligt sich darüber hinaus an anderen EU-Projekten für digitale Überwachungs- und Kontrollmaßnahmen, wie dem biometrischen Identifizierungssystem für «nachhaltigen Verkehr und Tourismus».

Natürlich marschiert auch Deutschland stracks und euphorisch in Richtung digitaler Zukunft. Ohne vernetzte Mobilität und einen «verlässlichen Zugang zu Daten, einschließlich Echtzeitdaten» komme man in der Verkehrsplanung und -steuerung nicht aus, erklärt die Regierung. Der Interessenverband der IT-Dienstleister Bitkom will «die digitale Transformation der deutschen Wirtschaft und Verwaltung vorantreiben». Dazu bewirbt er unter anderem die Konzepte Smart City, Smart Region und Smart Country und behauptet, deutsche Großstädte «setzen bei Mobilität voll auf Digitalisierung».

Es steht zu befürchten, dass das umfassende Sammeln, Verarbeiten und Vernetzen von Daten, das angeblich die Menschen unterstützen soll (und theoretisch ja auch könnte), eher dazu benutzt wird, sie zu kontrollieren und zu manipulieren. Je elektrischer und digitaler unsere Umgebung wird, desto größer sind diese Möglichkeiten. Im Ergebnis könnten solche Prozesse den Bürger nicht nur einschränken oder überflüssig machen, sondern in mancherlei Hinsicht regelrecht abschalten. Eine gesunde Skepsis ist also geboten.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben. Er ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 0c469779:4b21d8b0

Sobre el amor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ aa8de34f:a6ffe696

19. März 2025

🔐 1. SHA-256 is Quantum-Resistant

Bitcoin’s proof-of-work mechanism relies on SHA-256, a hashing algorithm. Even with a powerful quantum computer, SHA-256 remains secure because:

• Quantum computers excel at factoring large numbers (Shor’s Algorithm).
• However, SHA-256 is a one-way function, meaning there's no known quantum algorithm that can efficiently reverse it.
• Grover’s Algorithm (which theoretically speeds up brute force attacks) would still require 2¹²⁸ operations to break SHA-256 – far beyond practical reach.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

🔑 2. Public Key Vulnerability – But Only If You Reuse Addresses

Bitcoin uses Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) to generate keys.

• A quantum computer could use Shor’s Algorithm to break SECP256K1, the curve Bitcoin uses.
• If you never reuse addresses, it is an additional security element
• 🔑 1. Bitcoin Addresses Are NOT Public Keys

Many people assume a Bitcoin address is the public key—this is wrong.

• When you receive Bitcoin, it is sent to a hashed public key (the Bitcoin address).
• The actual public key is never exposed because it is the Bitcoin Adress who addresses the Public Key which never reveals the creation of a public key by a spend
• Bitcoin uses Pay-to-Public-Key-Hash (P2PKH) or newer methods like Pay-to-Witness-Public-Key-Hash (P2WPKH), which add extra layers of security.

🕵️♂️ 2.1 The Public Key Never Appears

• When you send Bitcoin, your wallet creates a digital signature.
• This signature uses the private key to prove ownership.
• The Bitcoin address is revealed and creates the Public Key
• The public key remains hidden inside the Bitcoin script and Merkle tree.

This means: ✔ The public key is never exposed. ✔ Quantum attackers have nothing to target, attacking a Bitcoin Address is a zero value game.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

🔄 3. Bitcoin Can Upgrade

Even if quantum computers eventually become a real threat:

• Bitcoin developers can upgrade to quantum-safe cryptography (e.g., lattice-based cryptography or post-quantum signatures like Dilithium).
• Bitcoin’s decentralized nature ensures a network-wide soft fork or hard fork could transition to quantum-resistant keys.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

⏳ 4. The 10-Minute Block Rule as a Security Feature

• Bitcoin’s network operates on a 10-minute block interval, meaning:Even if an attacker had immense computational power (like a quantum computer), they could only attempt an attack every 10 minutes.Unlike traditional encryption, where a hacker could continuously brute-force keys, Bitcoin’s system resets the challenge with every new block.This limits the window of opportunity for quantum attacks.

---

🎯 5. Quantum Attack Needs to Solve a Block in Real-Time

• A quantum attacker must solve the cryptographic puzzle (Proof of Work) in under 10 minutes.
• The problem? Any slight error changes the hash completely, meaning:If the quantum computer makes a mistake (even 0.0001% probability), the entire attack fails.Quantum decoherence (loss of qubit stability) makes error correction a massive challenge.The computational cost of recovering from an incorrect hash is still incredibly high.

---

⚡ 6. Network Resilience – Even if a Block Is Hacked

• Even if a quantum computer somehow solved a block instantly:The network would quickly recognize and reject invalid transactions.Other miners would continue mining under normal cryptographic rules.51% Attack? The attacker would need to consistently beat the entire Bitcoin network, which is not sustainable.

---

🔄 7. The Logarithmic Difficulty Adjustment Neutralizes Threats

• Bitcoin adjusts mining difficulty every 2016 blocks (\~2 weeks).
• If quantum miners appeared and suddenly started solving blocks too quickly, the difficulty would adjust upward, making attacks significantly harder.
• This self-correcting mechanism ensures that even quantum computers wouldn't easily overpower the network.

---

🔥 Final Verdict: Quantum Computers Are Too Slow for Bitcoin

✔ The 10-minute rule limits attack frequency – quantum computers can’t keep up.

✔ Any slight miscalculation ruins the attack, resetting all progress.

✔ Bitcoin’s difficulty adjustment would react, neutralizing quantum advantages.

Even if quantum computers reach their theoretical potential, Bitcoin’s game theory and design make it incredibly resistant. 🚀

@ 4fe14ef2:f51992ec

Let's support Bitcoin merchants! I'd love to hear some of your latest Lightning purchases and interesting products you bought. Feel free to include links to the shops or businesses you bought from.

Who else has a recent purchase they’re excited about? Bonus sats if you found a killer deal! ⚡

If you missed our last thread, here are some of the items stackers recently spent and zap on.

Share & Repost

N: X:

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/977228

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

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

Concern

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

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

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

Optimism

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

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

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

Realism

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

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

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Bald werde es verboten, alleine im Auto zu fahren, konnte man dieser Tage in verschiedenen spanischen Medien lesen. Die nationale Verkehrsbehörde (Dirección General de Tráfico, kurz DGT) werde Alleinfahrern das Leben schwer machen, wurde gemeldet. Konkret erörtere die Generaldirektion geeignete Sanktionen für Personen, die ohne Beifahrer im Privatauto unterwegs seien.

Das Alleinfahren sei zunehmend verpönt und ein Mentalitätswandel notwendig, hieß es. Dieser «Luxus» stehe im Widerspruch zu den Maßnahmen gegen Umweltverschmutzung, die in allen europäischen Ländern gefördert würden. In Frankreich sei es «bereits verboten, in der Hauptstadt allein zu fahren», behauptete Noticiastrabajo Huffpost in einer Zwischenüberschrift. Nur um dann im Text zu konkretisieren, dass die sogenannte «Umweltspur» auf der Pariser Ringautobahn gemeint war, die für Busse, Taxis und Fahrgemeinschaften reserviert ist. Ab Mai werden Verstöße dagegen mit einem Bußgeld geahndet.

Die DGT jedenfalls wolle bei der Umsetzung derartiger Maßnahmen nicht hinterherhinken. Diese Medienberichte, inklusive des angeblich bevorstehenden Verbots, beriefen sich auf Aussagen des Generaldirektors der Behörde, Pere Navarro, beim Mobilitätskongress Global Mobility Call im November letzten Jahres, wo es um «nachhaltige Mobilität» ging. Aus diesem Kontext stammt auch Navarros Warnung: «Die Zukunft des Verkehrs ist geteilt oder es gibt keine».

Die «Faktenchecker» kamen der Generaldirektion prompt zu Hilfe. Die DGT habe derlei Behauptungen zurückgewiesen und klargestellt, dass es keine Pläne gebe, Fahrten mit nur einer Person im Auto zu verbieten oder zu bestrafen. Bei solchen Meldungen handele es sich um Fake News. Teilweise wurde der Vorsitzende der spanischen «Rechtsaußen»-Partei Vox, Santiago Abascal, der Urheberschaft bezichtigt, weil er einen entsprechenden Artikel von La Gaceta kommentiert hatte.

Der Beschwichtigungsversuch der Art «niemand hat die Absicht» ist dabei erfahrungsgemäß eher ein Alarmzeichen als eine Beruhigung. Walter Ulbrichts Leugnung einer geplanten Berliner Mauer vom Juni 1961 ist vielen genauso in Erinnerung wie die Fake News-Warnungen des deutschen Bundesgesundheitsministeriums bezüglich Lockdowns im März 2020 oder diverse Äußerungen zu einer Impfpflicht ab 2020.

Aber Aufregung hin, Dementis her: Die Pressemitteilung der DGT zu dem Mobilitätskongress enthält in Wahrheit viel interessantere Informationen als «nur» einen Appell an den «guten» Bürger wegen der Bemühungen um die Lebensqualität in Großstädten oder einen möglichen obligatorischen Abschied vom Alleinfahren. Allerdings werden diese Details von Medien und sogenannten Faktencheckern geflissentlich übersehen, obwohl sie keineswegs versteckt sind. Die Auskünfte sind sehr aufschlussreich, wenn man genauer hinschaut.

Digitalisierung ist der Schlüssel für Kontrolle

Auf dem Kongress stellte die Verkehrsbehörde ihre Initiativen zur Förderung der «neuen Mobilität» vor, deren Priorität Sicherheit und Effizienz sei. Die vier konkreten Ansätze haben alle mit Digitalisierung, Daten, Überwachung und Kontrolle im großen Stil zu tun und werden unter dem Euphemismus der «öffentlich-privaten Partnerschaft» angepriesen. Auch lassen sie die transhumanistische Idee vom unzulänglichen Menschen erkennen, dessen Fehler durch «intelligente» technologische Infrastruktur kompensiert werden müssten.

Die Chefin des Bereichs «Verkehrsüberwachung» erklärte die Funktion des spanischen National Access Point (NAP), wobei sie betonte, wie wichtig Verkehrs- und Infrastrukturinformationen in Echtzeit seien. Der NAP ist «eine essenzielle Web-Applikation, die unter EU-Mandat erstellt wurde», kann man auf der Website der DGT nachlesen.

Das Mandat meint Regelungen zu einem einheitlichen europäischen Verkehrsraum, mit denen die Union mindestens seit 2010 den Aufbau einer digitalen Architektur mit offenen Schnittstellen betreibt. Damit begründet man auch «umfassende Datenbereitstellungspflichten im Bereich multimodaler Reiseinformationen». Jeder Mitgliedstaat musste einen NAP, also einen nationalen Zugangspunkt einrichten, der Zugang zu statischen und dynamischen Reise- und Verkehrsdaten verschiedener Verkehrsträger ermöglicht.

Diese Entwicklung ist heute schon weit fortgeschritten, auch und besonders in Spanien. Auf besagtem Kongress erläuterte die Leiterin des Bereichs «Telematik» die Plattform «DGT 3.0». Diese werde als Integrator aller Informationen genutzt, die von den verschiedenen öffentlichen und privaten Systemen, die Teil der Mobilität sind, bereitgestellt werden.

Es handele sich um eine Vermittlungsplattform zwischen Akteuren wie Fahrzeugherstellern, Anbietern von Navigationsdiensten oder Kommunen und dem Endnutzer, der die Verkehrswege benutzt. Alle seien auf Basis des Internets der Dinge (IOT) anonym verbunden, «um der vernetzten Gemeinschaft wertvolle Informationen zu liefern oder diese zu nutzen».

So sei DGT 3.0 «ein Zugangspunkt für einzigartige, kostenlose und genaue Echtzeitinformationen über das Geschehen auf den Straßen und in den Städten». Damit lasse sich der Verkehr nachhaltiger und vernetzter gestalten. Beispielsweise würden die Karten des Produktpartners Google dank der DGT-Daten 50 Millionen Mal pro Tag aktualisiert.

Des Weiteren informiert die Verkehrsbehörde über ihr SCADA-Projekt. Die Abkürzung steht für Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition, zu deutsch etwa: Kontrollierte Steuerung und Datenerfassung. Mit SCADA kombiniert man Software und Hardware, um automatisierte Systeme zur Überwachung und Steuerung technischer Prozesse zu schaffen. Das SCADA-Projekt der DGT wird von Indra entwickelt, einem spanischen Beratungskonzern aus den Bereichen Sicherheit & Militär, Energie, Transport, Telekommunikation und Gesundheitsinformation.

Das SCADA-System der Behörde umfasse auch eine Videostreaming- und Videoaufzeichnungsplattform, die das Hochladen in die Cloud in Echtzeit ermöglicht, wie Indra erklärt. Dabei gehe es um Bilder, die von Überwachungskameras an Straßen aufgenommen wurden, sowie um Videos aus DGT-Hubschraubern und Drohnen. Ziel sei es, «die sichere Weitergabe von Videos an Dritte sowie die kontinuierliche Aufzeichnung und Speicherung von Bildern zur möglichen Analyse und späteren Nutzung zu ermöglichen».

Letzteres klingt sehr nach biometrischer Erkennung und Auswertung durch künstliche Intelligenz. Für eine bessere Datenübertragung wird derzeit die Glasfaserverkabelung entlang der Landstraßen und Autobahnen ausgebaut. Mit der Cloud sind die Amazon Web Services (AWS) gemeint, die spanischen Daten gehen somit direkt zu einem US-amerikanischen «Big Data»-Unternehmen.

Das Thema «autonomes Fahren», also Fahren ohne Zutun des Menschen, bildet den Abschluss der Betrachtungen der DGT. Zusammen mit dem Interessenverband der Automobilindustrie ANFAC (Asociación Española de Fabricantes de Automóviles y Camiones) sprach man auf dem Kongress über Strategien und Perspektiven in diesem Bereich. Die Lobbyisten hoffen noch in diesem Jahr 2025 auf einen normativen Rahmen zur erweiterten Unterstützung autonomer Technologien.

Wenn man derartige Informationen im Zusammenhang betrachtet, bekommt man eine Idee davon, warum zunehmend alles elektrisch und digital werden soll. Umwelt- und Mobilitätsprobleme in Städten, wie Luftverschmutzung, Lärmbelästigung, Platzmangel oder Staus, sind eine Sache. Mit dem Argument «emissionslos» wird jedoch eine Referenz zum CO2 und dem «menschengemachten Klimawandel» hergestellt, die Emotionen triggert. Und damit wird so ziemlich alles verkauft.

Letztlich aber gilt: Je elektrischer und digitaler unsere Umgebung wird und je freigiebiger wir mit unseren Daten jeder Art sind, desto besser werden wir kontrollier-, steuer- und sogar abschaltbar. Irgendwann entscheiden KI-basierte Algorithmen, ob, wann, wie, wohin und mit wem wir uns bewegen dürfen. Über einen 15-Minuten-Radius geht dann möglicherweise nichts hinaus. Die Projekte auf diesem Weg sind ernst zu nehmen, real und schon weit fortgeschritten.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Was nützt die schönste Schuldenbremse, wenn der Russe vor der Tür steht? \ Wir können uns verteidigen lernen oder alle Russisch lernen. \ Jens Spahn

In der Politik ist buchstäblich keine Idee zu riskant, kein Mittel zu schäbig und keine Lüge zu dreist, als dass sie nicht benutzt würden. Aber der Clou ist, dass diese Masche immer noch funktioniert, wenn nicht sogar immer besser. Ist das alles wirklich so schwer zu durchschauen? Mir fehlen langsam die Worte.

Aktuell werden sowohl in der Europäischen Union als auch in Deutschland riesige Milliardenpakete für die Aufrüstung – also für die Rüstungsindustrie – geschnürt. Die EU will 800 Milliarden Euro locker machen, in Deutschland sollen es 500 Milliarden «Sondervermögen» sein. Verteidigung nennen das unsere «Führer», innerhalb der Union und auch an «unserer Ostflanke», der Ukraine.

Das nötige Feindbild konnte inzwischen signifikant erweitert werden. Schuld an allem und zudem gefährlich ist nicht mehr nur Putin, sondern jetzt auch Trump. Europa müsse sich sowohl gegen Russland als auch gegen die USA schützen und rüsten, wird uns eingetrichtert.

Und während durch Diplomatie genau dieser beiden Staaten gerade endlich mal Bewegung in die Bemühungen um einen Frieden oder wenigstens einen Waffenstillstand in der Ukraine kommt, rasselt man im moralisch überlegenen Zeigefinger-Europa so richtig mit dem Säbel.

Begleitet und gestützt wird der ganze Prozess – wie sollte es anders sein – von den «Qualitätsmedien». Dass Russland einen Angriff auf «Europa» plant, weiß nicht nur der deutsche Verteidigungsminister (und mit Abstand beliebteste Politiker) Pistorius, sondern dank ihnen auch jedes Kind. Uns bleiben nur noch wenige Jahre. Zum Glück bereitet sich die Bundeswehr schon sehr konkret auf einen Krieg vor.

Die FAZ und Corona-Gesundheitsminister Spahn markieren einen traurigen Höhepunkt. Hier haben sich «politische und publizistische Verantwortungslosigkeit propagandistisch gegenseitig befruchtet», wie es bei den NachDenkSeiten heißt. Die Aussage Spahns in dem Interview, «der Russe steht vor der Tür», ist das eine. Die Zeitung verschärfte die Sache jedoch, indem sie das Zitat explizit in den Titel übernahm, der in einer ersten Version scheinbar zu harmlos war.

Eine große Mehrheit der deutschen Bevölkerung findet Aufrüstung und mehr Schulden toll, wie ARD und ZDF sehr passend ermittelt haben wollen. Ähnliches gelte für eine noch stärkere militärische Unterstützung der Ukraine. Etwas skeptischer seien die Befragten bezüglich der Entsendung von Bundeswehrsoldaten dorthin, aber immerhin etwa fifty-fifty.

Eigentlich ist jedoch die Meinung der Menschen in «unseren Demokratien» irrelevant. Sowohl in der Europäischen Union als auch in Deutschland sind die «Eliten» offenbar der Ansicht, der Souverän habe in Fragen von Krieg und Frieden sowie von aberwitzigen astronomischen Schulden kein Wörtchen mitzureden. Frau von der Leyen möchte über 150 Milliarden aus dem Gesamtpaket unter Verwendung von Artikel 122 des EU-Vertrags ohne das Europäische Parlament entscheiden – wenn auch nicht völlig kritiklos.

In Deutschland wollen CDU/CSU und SPD zur Aufweichung der «Schuldenbremse» mehrere Änderungen des Grundgesetzes durch das abgewählte Parlament peitschen. Dieser Versuch, mit dem alten Bundestag eine Zweidrittelmehrheit zu erzielen, die im neuen nicht mehr gegeben wäre, ist mindestens verfassungsrechtlich umstritten.

Das Manöver scheint aber zu funktionieren. Heute haben die Grünen zugestimmt, nachdem Kanzlerkandidat Merz läppische 100 Milliarden für «irgendwas mit Klima» zugesichert hatte. Die Abstimmung im Plenum soll am kommenden Dienstag erfolgen – nur eine Woche, bevor sich der neu gewählte Bundestag konstituieren wird.

Interessant sind die Argumente, die BlackRocker Merz für seine Attacke auf Grundgesetz und Demokratie ins Feld führt. Abgesehen von der angeblichen Eile, «unsere Verteidigungsfähigkeit deutlich zu erhöhen» (ausgelöst unter anderem durch «die Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz und die Ereignisse im Weißen Haus»), ließ uns der CDU-Chef wissen, dass Deutschland einfach auf die internationale Bühne zurück müsse. Merz schwadronierte gefährlich mehrdeutig:

«Die ganze Welt schaut in diesen Tagen und Wochen auf Deutschland. Wir haben in der Europäischen Union und auf der Welt eine Aufgabe, die weit über die Grenzen unseres eigenen Landes hinausgeht.»

[Titelbild: Tag des Sieges]

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 8671a6e5:f88194d1

Even bitcoiners don’t value hard money enough (yet)

Bitcoiners love to talk about hard money and how bitcoin will change the world. They even claim to fix the world, by fixing “the money”.Yet many talk the talk, but don’t make the efforts, nor sacrifices.Walking the walk, is usually no further than the nearest bitcoin meetup, or the occasional trip to a tax-haven.Other than that. They’re chained to their fiat-past. Their kids, their house, their hobbies, their spouse and job.They serve the local bank branch (beg them to have a bit of their own money like everyone else), they watch TV, hold bitcoin and have this mindset where they truly think that bitcoin will grow, despite them doing jack all. They think they can reap the benefits in silence, while others do the heavy lifting, they smirk.They delude themselves however, thinking their sly passive stance is a risk-free act of brilliance.However, they’re scared, and have bitcoin in a fiat cage.Their existence is just a wallet waiting to be drained by force or pressure. By the same monstrous forces that keep our heads down.Whether discussing its digital scarcity or its fiat price, the focus invariably circles back to Bitcoin as a driver for a product or service.Do you want bitcoin, do you like bitcoin? Want to work with bitcoin? Here’s a service or wallet you can buy for a few hundred dollars, here’s my link. Want to participate in the network?Buy our pre-made and plug-and-play “solution”? Want to know more, or do you know wealthy people that want in” “Call me…”They’re selling.Don’t get me wrong,I also believe bitcoin is changing that world right now.And earning a living is good, be it with art, writing, selling a service or moving a box from A to B.But they don’t get it. Because it’s damned near impossible to escape the cage

Disproof Escapism

The bitcoin genie is out of the bottle. We DO have digitally scarce, hard money!

The core of the message most bitcoiners promote (including the author of this article) revolves around the prevalent “debt-and-war” fiat system and the harm it inflicts on society in general. Bitcoiners explain how it enslaves us, impoverishes us, and fosters a short-term perspective, empty consumerism, and a disregard for skills, all while leaving entire generations in debt and modern forms of servitude.

That reality alone will change many mechanisms within society. That should be the core of bitcoiners and their way of living. Not promoting a referral link to get a few sats or putting a sticker on a bathroom wall at a bar. We discuss open source theories and personality traits, not how to win the race. We don’t scheme, infiltrate or sabotage; we step onto the stage humbly, like nervous kids reciting poetry for a king. We only face our own audiences. Not the audience of followers of the monsters. We might as well do a leaflet campaign in the desert while we’re at it.We often hear terms like "sound money" and the assertion "there's no second best," with some even calling it "digital gold." This latter term is particularly misleading. Gold, despite its past significance, was subject to confiscation, serving the ambitions of nations and the wealthy. Bitcoin, in contrast, is not simply a digital iteration of gold; that label is a fiat construct that fails to capture its distinct nature.

However, the question remains: why is it that, when push comes to shove, we as Bitcoiners don’t truly live, think, and breathe this “thing” called Bitcoin as the hardest money in existence? Because we don’t. I’ve visited a fair share of meetups and conferences (though not many, as conferences are largely a sham anyway) to observe the ethos in practice. And it’s not always a pretty sight.

Assholes and grifters remain assholes and grifters, regardless of whether they hold BTC or not.

Thinking in fiat terms is still rampant (including for myself, by the way, to some extent). We were born into fiat, shaped by fiat, and have worked, traded, saved, and lost within its confines.

The fiat mindset, I dare say, is even more detrimental when Bitcoiners adopt it, as it amplifies the negative consequences even beyond those of the fiat world itself.

After all, at the very least, those within the fiat system are all equally screwed in their flawed monetary reality by a system that is a true circus Maximus of greed and debt. Consider those burdened by immense student loan debt, individuals with unrecognized talent, and others denied opportunities because less skilled people from higher financial echelons secure “proof of stake” jobs. Even if they lack the necessary abilities. There are fiat denizens sent to war, subjected to bombings, and relentlessly exploited for profit throughout their lives to sustain a parasitic, rent-seeking system… all under the false promise of security in their later years… when in reality, they are chewed up and spit out.When these fiat slaves wield a fiat mentality toward one another, it’s considered normal; no one can bat an eye if one fiat rent-seeker bleeds another dry, then tosses them aside for a new victim once the yield or short-term gain is realized. That’s simply how the fiat hamster wheel has been turning generations on end, while the proof-of-stake lords benefit across multiple generations.

The exploitation, the focus on short-term gains, the inherent stupidity of the system—it’s ingrained in the people themselves. Their greed and fiat/shitcoin mentality is "the norm." Some even dare to call it "capitalism" or democracy.

They can’t be offended by anyone screwing them over or getting ahead to gain a few fiat tokens, be it dollars or the Euro Mickey Mouse coin. They just carry on, shrug their shoulders, and crawl over each other like the basket full of crabs they inhabit day to day. Being among the few crabs that can touch the rim of the basket before being pulled down again by the other crabs, is what’s called success.

However, witnessing such behaviors and ways of living among individuals who identify as Bitcoiners evokes not only profound ethical sadness but also reveals consequences far more damaging to Bitcoin than if those same individuals had remained solely within the fiat system. Therefore, a fiat mentality within the Bitcoin space is even more repugnant than the mindset of some shitcoiners. At least with shitcoiners, you understand they are peddling a token, coin, or some fabricated service to offload onto unsuspecting individuals to make ends meet (and fund their cheap hotel rooms in exotic looking places while projecting an image of success (and the Modern Ottoman beard look) on Instagram). Consider a scenario: if someone at a vegetable market (assuming such places still exist in the fiat world) suggests to another vendor a way to conduct more business off the books, it’s met with indifference. That’s considered normal.But when a Bitcoiner at a meetup — an event where for three years you've been trying to dissociate Bitcoin from the tired narrative of it being solely "for fraudsters and criminals" — and you overhear "Bitcoiners" discussing methods for laundering illicit funds, then it becomes a significant problem. As if they can’t make ends meet without doing “the fiat thing”. Such individuals, as a Bitcoiner, disgust me. They clearly "don't get it." They fail to grasp the fundamental values of Bitcoin. They resemble the stereotypical used car salesmen who prioritize nothing beyond their immediate needs, like avoiding having to have a cheap dinner of dog food and tomato sauce that evening if they bag another customer by whatever lies they’ll have to tell. I would go so far as to assert that Bitcoiners with a fiat mentality are more detrimental to Bitcoin's growth than both those enslaved by the fiat system and shitcoiners themselves. A fiat drone will simply save, invest, and adhere to the established rules of banks and central banks.

They don’t question these norms; it’s their accepted reality. They’re labeled “normies” for a reason—they find satisfaction in conforming, believing the deception and theft, even perceiving it as beneficial because that’s what they’ve been told on television. They place their trust in numbers and statistics while diligently paying off their mortgages and investing in whatever financial products the TV shows spoon-feed them. Shitcoiners (closely related to fiat slaves) will merely promote their scams and worthless projects to generate short-term gains (in fiat, naturally) to sustain their shallow lifestyles of loneliness, prostitutes, and grocery bills paid with bank cards from the Seychelles.

But Bitcoiners with a fiat mentality? They actively undermine Bitcoin. They are toxic, and the sooner they revert to pure fiat, the better for the Bitcoin ecosystem. They offer no positive contribution whatsoever to Bitcoin’s progress.

More bitcoiners need to grow a spine

I've started to label these individuals as “cosplay bitcoiners.” They are typically nothing more than bitcoin holders (definitely not HODLers). These are people who act as though Bitcoin is merely another speculative asset (alongside a plethora of garbage coins and scams) instead of the monetary revolution it truly embodies. Most bitcoiners engage in this cosplay, reciting the talking points without actually changing their lives. Or… they view it simply as a means to generate income by uttering the right phrases and selling various items and merchandise. If Bitcoin were to cease to exist (a highly improbable scenario), they would likely be selling counterfeit Pokémon merchandise, fake Rolexes, or working as box movers in retail (sporting a perm). This might upset some who have dedicated significant portions of their lives to the Bitcoin ecosystem. However, what should be far more infuriating is the realization that your dreams, hope, and hard work are ultimately benefiting these cosplayers.

These individuals also say things like “You could consider moving to Solana for a while…” or “I have a referral link for insert flavor-of-the-week scam.” This genuine effort to cultivate a Bitcoin ethos is often undermined by people lacking activism, backbone, or conviction. Typically, these are the same individuals who inquire about price action during minor dips in Bitcoin's fiat value. They exhibit “scared money” behavior, just like in the fiat world. Consider that: they are scared (of) money. That’s right,… people that lived, and were raised in fiat are in fact scared… of money. This ingrained perspective, though varying in its impact, can act as a distraction or even a negative influence on Bitcoin's overall growth. I know the genuine contributors are out there. Rest assured, I am acutely aware of what it means to dedicate your time and energy to the betterment of Bitcoin; I've done it before and continue to do so years later. I respect that immensely. But the moment you recognize your efforts are primarily benefiting these parasites, you should immediately cease and let them wither.

They are not there for Bitcoin at all. I believe a fundamental aspect of being a Bitcoiner is calling out such behavior — to embody a form of activism, a vetting process aimed at fostering greater freedom. This might seem paradoxical, but it’s not; it’s akin to broadcasting a double-spent transaction onto mempool and having it rejected by the nodes. In my opinion, Bitcoin's primary essence is freedom. This freedom is underpinned by consensus and proof of work. However, this doesn't imply that we should be a universally accommodating resource for individuals who merely hold Bitcoin and seek to profit off our efforts while contributing nothing of substance to the space beyond their own marketing nonsense. They say the lines, but don’t save lives.

But why not?

If Bitcoin is truly the hardest money, the scarcest asset humanity has ever encountered, then why would we willingly trade it for a demonstrably inferior, inflationary, and state-controlled currency? This holds true even if that fiat is disguised as a modern "coin" or a cheap imitation of Bitcoin.

The uncomfortable truth is that many Bitcoiners, whether consciously or subconsciously, remain tethered to the legacy financial system. We espouse the principle of "don't trust, verify," yet we often evaluate Bitcoin through the distorted lens of its fiat exchange rate. Furthermore, many local meetups are infiltrated by individuals whose motives, schemes, and outright nonsense we fail to scrutinize or verify.

We neglect even the most fundamental forms of verification (such as accepting a function purported to be around 40 KB in data size when it's bundled within a > 50 MB software program). We profess belief in absolute scarcity, yet we shy away from adopting Bitcoin as our genuine unit of account, nor do we accurately measure our purchasing power (as devising a truly precise method might necessitate an invention worthy of a Nobel Prize in Economics).

Armed with the hardest money, ample liquidity, and considerable intellect, we still find ourselves waiting for Presidents, Philosophers, and various Personalities to artificially inflate Bitcoin's price, behaving like apprehensive investors in a newly listed startup.

“But with bitcoin”

These Philosophers, Personalities, and Presidents (PPPs) often represent a mere "follow-the-leader" phenomenon among many who identify as Bitcoiners. Philosophers delve into the intricacies of Bitcoin: its support for local social structures, its international applications, the underlying mathematics, the time-based mechanisms… It's all incredibly fascinating and has been explained countless times in various tones and for diverse audiences. Yet, much like in Bitcoin software development, there's often a lack of curation or editing; people simply produce without rigorous testing or questioning the necessity or widespread adoption of their contributions. Some even mistakenly believe these philosophers will somehow influence the "price." However, their role is primarily to explain, analyze, and provide understanding. That, of course, is valuable as it stimulates thought (even this very writing serves that purpose). However, Bitcoiners deeply entrenched in the philosophical aspects can often be blind to their own contradictory circumstances.

It can be jarring, even alienating, to listen to a podcast dissecting the profound intricacies of time and Bitcoin's blockchain while simultaneously enduring the mundane reality of your fiat job, with a coworker loudly handling customer calls nearby. The core issue is that this mentality increasingly mirrors the practices of the fiat (and shitcoin) world: passively holding onto "your bag" or "your stake" and promoting that position while vaguely advising others that "education is important" or "spreading the word is good." Ultimately, many of those dispensing this advice do little more than appear on their YouTube channels, take the stage at their own conferences, or write (or commission) their paid newsletters. Some diligently court wealthy individuals to explain Bitcoin, aiming to earn a few dollars, but they might as well be selling Tupperware if it paid the bills. Genuine care is often absent; it's their Bitcoin-flavored version of a fiat job. They are simply holding onto sats, much like one would hold onto ETFs or stocks in the traditional financial world. Michael Saylor, at a conference in Madeira, once stated: “You are here because Bitcoin needs you… and when you leave, I sincerely hope you will go out there and do good for Bitcoin.”

That's a commendable call to action. However, it also inadvertently highlights a form of servitude, a call that, regrettably, many have not heeded. Right now, Bitcoin's treated more like digital real estate than actual cash – something to hodl and hope it moons, while others do the promoting. Activism, at least here in Belgium, is a ghost town.

Elsewhere, it's often just small-time stuff, easily corrupted by book-writers, shitcoin promoters, ego-trippers, or even creeps hitting on vulnerable women in new-age scenes. This passive vibe has helped a bit, sure, but it shows we're still scared to call Bitcoin real money. It's the hardest money ever, yet we act like fiat's the boss, when Bitcoin's the true store of value. The circular economy crawls along. Instead of waiting for "hyperbitcoinization," we need to act like it's already here: support Bitcoin-only businesses, demand salaries in sats, and actually think in sats, not fiat. But become organized, more to the point: set up systems so you can build and rely on one another.To make Bitcoin truly hard money, we gotta stop pricing it and thinking in fiat, actually use it to pay and get paid, teach people it's a monetary system not just an investment, and directly challenge fiat by building Bitcoin-native economies, not just begging institutions to buy in. The more we act like Bitcoin is money, the faster the world will have to agree.

Bitcoin’s success is not inevitable.

Because it is maintained by people, and people are inherently flawed. However, it is also governed by mathematics, a perfect framework that categorizes chaos into order and back into incomprehensible chaos. There, within the crucible of math, language, cryptography, and time, lies Bitcoin: our creation, our potential salvation, and perhaps our sole remaining hope.

It demands action from Bitcoiners. If we genuinely believe in Bitcoin as the hardest money, we must begin to utilize it as such, rather than posturing on stages like immature, attention-seeking individuals vying for personal recognition and petty power struggles.

The future is not forged by those idly waiting for a magical price point; it is built by those who actively transact, develop, work, and live on Bitcoin today. Hard money transcends mere scarcity; it embodies utility, intrinsic value, and the tangible construction of liberty. Bitcoin's purpose is not simply to replace the existing decay of fiat with a superficial rebranding of the same fundamental rot. Bitcoin is not intended to supplant the old fiat corruption with an identical corruption merely bearing a Bitcoin label or logo.

The divergence is stark: one grey-colored path leads us to a state of ambiguity and ineffectiveness, the other to a vibrant, focused purpose. This ambiguity manifests as excessive accommodation, an unwarranted stubbornness where adaptability is needed. We tend towards being overly compliant and even subservient, exhibiting exaggerated politeness and empathy, even as our advancements inevitably dismantle the obsolete systems. That path has a Dixie orange color.

This is because many Bitcoiners now crave external validation, leading to inconsistent and muddled messaging, belonging authentically to neither the stagnant grey nor the purposeful orange.

We, and our true Bitcoiners—our intellectual offspring—represent an inherently incompatible lineage, incapable of either peaceful coexistence ("protest") or productive integration ("procreate") with these outdated methodologies and their swarm of futile endeavors. The cosplay bitcoiners and their lukewarm followers and creations aspire to be part of a fintech reality that is not their own, and a fiat world that has relegated them to the roles of insignificant footnotes and background commentators.

Despite our core differences, we persist in engaging with the stake-people, the frail-minded powerhouses that let us participate in their arenas, gathering under the harsh glare of moral decay and corruption. We mine Bitcoin from the future, but it’s tethered to the present. They hamper our progress with outdated tools and (re)distribution systems rooted in the 18th century.We can invent so much better systems, bulldoze the old and rebuild our cities and reclaim our value.

It’s time…

The moment has arrived to begin valuing Bitcoin for what it has always been destined to be and will forever remain: hard money. Let us consign the parasites to their rightful place – the gutter of fiat. Reader, dear reader, you who have invested the time and effort to cease scrolling through the endless torrent of filth, garbage, and attention-seeking displays on your phone, do you grasp the unique historical opportunity presented to your vulnerable digital soul to reclaim your life, to transcend mere survival and truly flourish? Do you comprehend this? Do you even realize that digitally scarce, digitally verifiable hard money awaits your mining, purchase, holding, and personal safekeeping? Or do you still cling to the illusions projected onto the wall of Plato's cave, telling you every lie under the sun for their short gains and diatribes? Do you live in the corridor of greyness? Probably.

Observing the vapid semantic debates onstage, the performative security measures, and the blatant power struggles, I am reminded of the early Christian disciples and the challenges they must have faced in spreading the word of their Lord, relying solely on their individual conviction while constantly encountering those driven purely by the pursuit of power. Bitcoiners are no different, despite never having known their own guiding figures. The distinction lies in our approach: we do not expel the transgressors and the disreputable from the market; nor do we seek to cure the afflicted or nourish the starving. We are not torn apart by lions, for we operate in the shadows, our influence primarily through written works, lacking the support that stems from personal charisma. Fiat bleeds people dry, fueling the vile machinery of passive rent-seeking yield and perpetual servitude.

In Bitcoin, we possess the potential to be their undoing, but only if we can match their ruthlessness, their multi-generational cunning, and their inherent malice. That’s not in our nature, so we’ll need to change and adapt. To truly prevail, we must outmaneuver their evil, win their long-term game. To win, we must out-evil evil. Win their multi-generational ongoing long-term game.That’s not easy, because you’re being poisoned day in day out.

So… here goes.

You must choose your path: gray or orange.

Decide how you’ll navigate the clutter: hardware wallets you don’t need, unscalable orange-pilling that’s more about ego than Bitcoin, books that hardly anyone reads, redundant artwork you’ll never buy, searching for a place in the unreachable oasis of bitcoin jobs, the mirage of funding,the naïveté of Value4Value, the Saylor-worshipping instinct, stickers slapped on poles, rushed and untested software, apps that repel users, conference circuses filled with grifters, posers and some half-gods, The pump-my-bags philosophers. The fork in the road lies ahead

Will you keep micro-dosing the corruption of the fiat world, day by day? Or will you don your armor and sacrifice for future generations?\ You ‘ll be part of an army of cyber Jesuït knights, or part of a gang of ad hoc grifters smelling like patchouli and fear.

npub1sec6degc3ae7warveuxaz6dlffnc2sutwtqjr7pmll7sf7ypjngsd4p0l7

Let centuries of hate and destruction be channeled like unbreakable equations, their tax collecting vultures, their redistribution to the weak.We can be in harnesses, economically cause their bellies gorged on our produce, sliced virtually apart, ending their predatory exploitation and theater politics. Let that hate flow block by block, so our wait for a revolution, promised peace, and security, finally ends. We don’t need to wait, We have all we need - right - friggin - now! All we need is here to start as the first generation of the ones that turn the table. We can strike from here onwards.

You can’t do that just by standing there, we need to rally behind something. So … we need to…

## Slay the Monsters ( A Bitcoin manifesto )

The race against fiat’s totalitarian grip isn’t coming — it’s already here.

And we’re late.

We’re not facing some bureaucratic mess or sleepy institution. We’re facing monsters. Real monsters. The kind that don’t blink, don’t break, and don’t stop.

These creatures don’t rule from parliaments. They rule from shadows. From bloodlines. From vaults built on centuries of power—and centuries of control.

And while we argue over memes, While we nitpick sound quality on a free podcast, While we debate how orange our sunglasses should be— They’re already building the next cage.

You want to know the core of the battle?

It’s this: They built a system designed to enslave you. And it works. Because it’s not just code or money—it’s a mindset. And they’ve trained you for generations to stay small. Stay busy. Stay broke.

They don’t care about trending topics, the fashion they make you wear, the rent seeking and mind numbing media garbage. They don’t care about today’s startup scene. They don’t need to. They freeze technology until their factories are ready. They script the narrative until their puppet politicians can sell it. They control enough markets to play with your life like a cat with a mouse.

And no, they’re not thinking in 5-year business plans. They’re thinking in bloodlines. They’re thinking in centuries.

They are bloodsuckers.

They take the rights of the gifted, Take the skills of the builders and make them into jesters They crush the dreams of the brave, weaken strong sons, and turn bright daughters into obedient servants.They make you lose time;Steal your effortSlap a price on anyone.

But here’s the good news:

We are Bitcoiners. We don’t need their permission. We don’t need to play their game. We hold a sword they can’t lift — an indestructible blockchain. And we have “forever coins”. We have the heaviest hammer

We can build faster. Stack hard money. Deliver proof of work and become the worst multi-generational pests they’ve ever seen. And take everything from them in about four generations:

One generation to build and adapt. One or two to take over, and One glorious one to finish the job and chop their virtual heads off to end the corruptionTheir heads on a stake, is the only proof-of-stake’ism that will be universally liked.

Because in their world, people are the fuel — drained for passive yield. But in our world?

We, the Bitcoin people who underwrite its value, represent the negative yield on fiat. We ARE your negative yield in human form \ We are their weakness — if we become as relentless and evil as they are.We can be methodical and calculated, generations of poison for their systemWe infiltrate, poison, outpace them.Like they did centuries ago with the commons, the tribes and kings. As focused. As strategic. As ruthless.

Then—only then—can we clean ourselves.

Only then, with the deed done, can we rebuild humanity. Burn the bloodlines that buried us.The old bloodlines—those leeches—will be caged, stripped, and left to wither in poverty, and as history proves… they never survive poverty\ While we’ve been bathing in it by choice.

From their ashes, we’ll purge our own darkness and thrive through innovation, not tyranny We will work, We will thrive through innovation, not colonization. Through consensus, not decree. Through quality not administrative control. And talent and skills will rise on merit, not aristocratic last names. We verify without grandeur.

In that world, our temples will exalt beauty — not control.In that world, Their goons and servants will be our jesters, dancing like harlots, their princesses will be sobbing on dirt, they’ll all eat their own industrial drab

The power is already ours; we don’t need to pray, we don’t need hope nor luck. We need raw, unrelenting will.

We need power.

And evil, focused, unshakable determination.

You can’t slay monsters with flyers. You don’t take down empires with stickers. You don’t bring bloodlines to their knees with polite debates on their stages.You slay monsters with the sharpest sword in history — Bitcoin.

They’re gutted with the sharpest blade—our blockchain—plunged into their stone cold hearts, until their black blood flows over the marble floors of their castles and their next of kin. Then, we feast and build anew on the ruins of their depravity.

Their next of kin witnessing our determination while their funding falls dry in promises of continuity they hide or perish.

Then we slay the rest.We drink their blood, their wine, their milkshake. We burn their paper promises and their repeating cycles of social unrest and greed.

We build something new. Something real. On the ruins of everything they corrupted.Bitcoiners need to be more than politeBe more evil, to do more good.Show monsters no mercy nor empathy. Don’t give them hard money, but wreck their legacy, faceless organizations and companies.

We are the debt collectors of last resort. We are the negative yield that spins and twists.We are the final rotation of the hamster wheel of pointless energy.We save ourselves with math..

Bitcoiners,Do thy proof of work, or become a whore for their next generation of silver spoon fed monster kids...\ You’ll have to be polite doing the deeds if you doOr take the smile off their face.Sacrifice.WorkDefy

Slay monsters like a knight building a legacy, freeing the world.

Or serve the monsters like the bitch you are.

Our consensus and your choice.

By AVB

If you like my writings: tip me here

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

This piece is the first in a series that will focus on things I think are a priority if your focus is similar to mine: building a strong family and safeguarding their future.

---

Choosing the ideal place to raise a family is one of the most significant decisions you will ever make. For simplicity sake I will break down my thought process into key factors: strong property rights, the ability to grow your own food, access to fresh water, the freedom to own and train with guns, and a dependable community.

A Jurisdiction with Strong Property Rights

Strong property rights are essential and allow you to build on a solid foundation that is less likely to break underneath you. Regions with a history of limited government and clear legal protections for landowners are ideal. Personally I think the US is the single best option globally, but within the US there is a wide difference between which state you choose. Choose carefully and thoughtfully, think long term. Obviously if you are not American this is not a realistic option for you, there are other solid options available especially if your family has mobility. I understand many do not have this capability to easily move, consider that your first priority, making movement and jurisdiction choice possible in the first place.

Abundant Access to Fresh Water

Water is life. I cannot overstate the importance of living somewhere with reliable, clean, and abundant freshwater. Some regions face water scarcity or heavy regulations on usage, so prioritizing a place where water is plentiful and your rights to it are protected is critical. Ideally you should have well access so you are not tied to municipal water supplies. In times of crisis or chaos well water cannot be easily shutoff or disrupted. If you live in an area that is drought prone, you are one drought away from societal chaos. Not enough people appreciate this simple fact.

Grow Your Own Food

A location with fertile soil, a favorable climate, and enough space for a small homestead or at the very least a garden is key. In stable times, a small homestead provides good food and important education for your family. In times of chaos your family being able to grow and raise healthy food provides a level of self sufficiency that many others will lack. Look for areas with minimal restrictions, good weather, and a culture that supports local farming.

Guns

The ability to defend your family is fundamental. A location where you can legally and easily own guns is a must. Look for places with a strong gun culture and a political history of protecting those rights. Owning one or two guns is not enough and without proper training they will be a liability rather than a benefit. Get comfortable and proficient. Never stop improving your skills. If the time comes that you must use a gun to defend your family, the skills must be instinct. Practice. Practice. Practice.

A Strong Community You Can Depend On

No one thrives alone. A ride or die community that rallies together in tough times is invaluable. Seek out a place where people know their neighbors, share similar values, and are quick to lend a hand. Lead by example and become a good neighbor, people will naturally respond in kind. Small towns are ideal, if possible, but living outside of a major city can be a solid balance in terms of work opportunities and family security.

---

Let me know if you found this helpful. My plan is to break down how I think about these five key subjects in future posts.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

«Wir brauchen eine digitale Brandmauer gegen den Faschismus», schreibt der Chaos Computer Club (CCC) auf seiner Website. Unter diesem Motto präsentierte er letzte Woche einen Forderungskatalog, mit dem sich 24 Organisationen an die kommende Bundesregierung wenden. Der Koalitionsvertrag müsse sich daran messen lassen, verlangen sie.

In den drei Kategorien «Bekenntnis gegen Überwachung», «Schutz und Sicherheit für alle» sowie «Demokratie im digitalen Raum» stellen die Unterzeichner, zu denen auch Amnesty International und Das NETTZ gehören, unter anderem die folgenden «Mindestanforderungen»:

• Verbot biometrischer Massenüberwachung des öffentlichen Raums sowie der ungezielten biometrischen Auswertung des Internets.
• Anlasslose und massenhafte Vorratsdatenspeicherung wird abgelehnt.
• Automatisierte Datenanalysen der Informationsbestände der Strafverfolgungsbehörden sowie jede Form von Predictive Policing oder automatisiertes Profiling von Menschen werden abgelehnt.
• Einführung eines Rechts auf Verschlüsselung. Die Bundesregierung soll sich dafür einsetzen, die Chatkontrolle auf europäischer Ebene zu verhindern.
• Anonyme und pseudonyme Nutzung des Internets soll geschützt und ermöglicht werden.
• Bekämpfung «privaten Machtmissbrauchs von Big-Tech-Unternehmen» durch durchsetzungsstarke, unabhängige und grundsätzlich föderale Aufsichtsstrukturen.
• Einführung eines digitalen Gewaltschutzgesetzes, unter Berücksichtigung «gruppenbezogener digitaler Gewalt» und die Förderung von Beratungsangeboten.
• Ein umfassendes Förderprogramm für digitale öffentliche Räume, die dezentral organisiert und quelloffen programmiert sind, soll aufgelegt werden.

Es sei ein Irrglaube, dass zunehmende Überwachung einen Zugewinn an Sicherheit darstelle, ist eines der Argumente der Initiatoren. Sicherheit erfordere auch, dass Menschen anonym und vertraulich kommunizieren können und ihre Privatsphäre geschützt wird.

Gesunde digitale Räume lebten auch von einem demokratischen Diskurs, lesen wir in dem Papier. Es sei Aufgabe des Staates, Grundrechte zu schützen. Dazu gehöre auch, Menschenrechte und demokratische Werte, insbesondere Freiheit, Gleichheit und Solidarität zu fördern sowie den Missbrauch von Maßnahmen, Befugnissen und Infrastrukturen durch «die Feinde der Demokratie» zu verhindern.

Man ist geneigt zu fragen, wo denn die Autoren «den Faschismus» sehen, den es zu bekämpfen gelte. Die meisten der vorgetragenen Forderungen und Argumente finden sicher breite Unterstützung, denn sie beschreiben offenkundig gängige, kritikwürdige Praxis. Die Aushebelung der Privatsphäre, der Redefreiheit und anderer Grundrechte im Namen der Sicherheit wird bereits jetzt massiv durch die aktuellen «demokratischen Institutionen» und ihre «durchsetzungsstarken Aufsichtsstrukturen» betrieben.

Ist «der Faschismus» also die EU und ihre Mitgliedsstaaten? Nein, die «faschistische Gefahr», gegen die man eine digitale Brandmauer will, kommt nach Ansicht des CCC und seiner Partner aus den Vereinigten Staaten. Private Überwachung und Machtkonzentration sind dabei weltweit schon lange Realität, jetzt endlich müssen sie jedoch bekämpft werden. In dem Papier heißt es:

«Die willkürliche und antidemokratische Machtausübung der Tech-Oligarchen um Präsident Trump erfordert einen Paradigmenwechsel in der deutschen Digitalpolitik. (...) Die aktuellen Geschehnisse in den USA zeigen auf, wie Datensammlungen und -analyse genutzt werden können, um einen Staat handstreichartig zu übernehmen, seine Strukturen nachhaltig zu beschädigen, Widerstand zu unterbinden und marginalisierte Gruppen zu verfolgen.»

Wer auf der anderen Seite dieser Brandmauer stehen soll, ist also klar. Es sind die gleichen «Feinde unserer Demokratie», die seit Jahren in diese Ecke gedrängt werden. Es sind die gleichen Andersdenkenden, Regierungskritiker und Friedensforderer, die unter dem großzügigen Dach des Bundesprogramms «Demokratie leben» einem «kontinuierlichen Echt- und Langzeitmonitoring» wegen der Etikettierung «digitaler Hass» unterzogen werden.

Dass die 24 Organisationen praktisch auch die Bekämpfung von Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon und anderen fordern, entbehrt nicht der Komik. Diese fallen aber sicher unter das Stichwort «Machtmissbrauch von Big-Tech-Unternehmen». Gleichzeitig verlangen die Lobbyisten implizit zum Beispiel die Förderung des Nostr-Netzwerks, denn hier finden wir dezentral organisierte und quelloffen programmierte digitale Räume par excellence, obendrein zensurresistent. Das wiederum dürfte in der Politik weniger gut ankommen.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

Here’s a revised timeline of macro-level events from The Mandibles: A Family, 2029–2047 by Lionel Shriver, reimagined in a world where Bitcoin is adopted as a widely accepted form of money, altering the original narrative’s assumptions about currency collapse and economic control. In Shriver’s original story, the failure of Bitcoin is assumed amid the dominance of the bancor and the dollar’s collapse. Here, Bitcoin’s success reshapes the economic and societal trajectory, decentralizing power and challenging state-driven outcomes.

Part One: 2029–2032

• 2029 (Early Year)\ The United States faces economic strain as the dollar weakens against global shifts. However, Bitcoin, having gained traction emerges as a viable alternative. Unlike the original timeline, the bancor—a supranational currency backed by a coalition of nations—struggles to gain footing as Bitcoin’s decentralized adoption grows among individuals and businesses worldwide, undermining both the dollar and the bancor.

• 2029 (Mid-Year: The Great Renunciation)\ Treasury bonds lose value, and the government bans Bitcoin, labeling it a threat to sovereignty (mirroring the original bancor ban). However, a Bitcoin ban proves unenforceable—its decentralized nature thwarts confiscation efforts, unlike gold in the original story. Hyperinflation hits the dollar as the U.S. prints money, but Bitcoin’s fixed supply shields adopters from currency devaluation, creating a dual-economy split: dollar users suffer, while Bitcoin users thrive.

• 2029 (Late Year)\ Dollar-based inflation soars, emptying stores of goods priced in fiat currency. Meanwhile, Bitcoin transactions flourish in underground and online markets, stabilizing trade for those plugged into the bitcoin ecosystem. Traditional supply chains falter, but peer-to-peer Bitcoin networks enable local and international exchange, reducing scarcity for early adopters. The government’s gold confiscation fails to bolster the dollar, as Bitcoin’s rise renders gold less relevant.

• 2030–2031\ Crime spikes in dollar-dependent urban areas, but Bitcoin-friendly regions see less chaos, as digital wallets and smart contracts facilitate secure trade. The U.S. government doubles down on surveillance to crack down on bitcoin use. A cultural divide deepens: centralized authority weakens in Bitcoin-adopting communities, while dollar zones descend into lawlessness.

• 2032\ By this point, Bitcoin is de facto legal tender in parts of the U.S. and globally, especially in tech-savvy or libertarian-leaning regions. The federal government’s grip slips as tax collection in dollars plummets—Bitcoin’s traceability is low, and citizens evade fiat-based levies. Rural and urban Bitcoin hubs emerge, while the dollar economy remains fractured.

Time Jump: 2032–2047

• Over 15 years, Bitcoin solidifies as a global reserve currency, eroding centralized control. The U.S. government adapts, grudgingly integrating bitcoin into policy, though regional autonomy grows as Bitcoin empowers local economies.

Part Two: 2047

• 2047 (Early Year)\ The U.S. is a hybrid state: Bitcoin is legal tender alongside a diminished dollar. Taxes are lower, collected in BTC, reducing federal overreach. Bitcoin’s adoption has decentralized power nationwide. The bancor has faded, unable to compete with Bitcoin’s grassroots momentum.

• 2047 (Mid-Year)\ Travel and trade flow freely in Bitcoin zones, with no restrictive checkpoints. The dollar economy lingers in poorer areas, marked by decay, but Bitcoin’s dominance lifts overall prosperity, as its deflationary nature incentivizes saving and investment over consumption. Global supply chains rebound, powered by bitcoin enabled efficiency.

• 2047 (Late Year)\ The U.S. is a patchwork of semi-autonomous zones, united by Bitcoin’s universal acceptance rather than federal control. Resource scarcity persists due to past disruptions, but economic stability is higher than in Shriver’s original dystopia—Bitcoin’s success prevents the authoritarian slide, fostering a freer, if imperfect, society.

Key Differences

• Currency Dynamics: Bitcoin’s triumph prevents the bancor’s dominance and mitigates hyperinflation’s worst effects, offering a lifeline outside state control.
• Government Power: Centralized authority weakens as Bitcoin evades bans and taxation, shifting power to individuals and communities.
• Societal Outcome: Instead of a surveillance state, 2047 sees a decentralized, bitcoin driven world—less oppressive, though still stratified between Bitcoin haves and have-nots.

This reimagining assumes Bitcoin overcomes Shriver’s implied skepticism to become a robust, adopted currency by 2029, fundamentally altering the novel’s bleak trajectory.

@ 84b0c46a:417782f5

• Lumilumi The Nostr Web Client.

Lightweight modes are available, such as not displaying icon images, not loading images automatically, etc.

• Long Form Content Editor A lightweight Long Form Content Editor with editing functionality for your articles. It supports embedding Nostr IDs via NIP-19 and custom emoji integration.

• Nostr Share Component Demo A simple web component for sharing content to Nostr. Create customizable share buttons that let users easily post to Nostr clients with pre-filled content. Perfect for blogs, websites, or any content you want shared on the Nostr network. Try the interactive demo to see how seamlessly it integrates with your website.

  Only clients that support receiving shared text via URL parameters can be added to the client list. If your preferred client meets this requirement, feel free to submit a pull request.

• Nostr Follow Organizer A practical tool for managing your Nostr follows(kind3) with ease.

• NAKE NAKE is a powerful utility for Nostr developers and users that simplifies working with NIP-19 and NIP-49 formats. This versatile tool allows you to easily encode and decode Nostr identifiers and encrypted data according to these protocol specifications.

• chrome extension
• firefox add-on

• Nostviewstr A versatile Nostr tool that specializes in creating and editing addressable or replaceable events on the Nostr network. This comprehensive editor allows you to manage various types of lists and structured content within the Nostr ecosystem.

• Luminostr Luminostr is a recovery tool for Nostr that helps you retrieve and restore Addressable or Replaceable events (such as kind: 0, 3, 10002, 10000, etc.) from relays. It allows you to search for these events across multiple relays and optionally re-publish them to ensure their persistence.

• Nostr Bookmark Recovery Tool Nostr Bookmark Recovery Tool is a utility for retrieving and re-publishing past bookmark events ( kind:10003,30001,30003 ) from public relays. Rather than automatically selecting the latest version, it allows users to pick any previous version and overwrite the current one with it. This is useful for restoring a preferred snapshot of your bookmark list.

• Profile Editor Profile Editor is a simple tool for editing and publishing your Nostr profile (kind: 0 event). It allows you to update fields such as name, display name, picture, and about text, and then publish the updated profile to selected relays.

• Nostr bookmark viewer Nostr Bookmark Viewer is a tool for viewing and editing Nostr bookmark events (kind: 10003, 30001, 30003). It allows users to load bookmark data from relays, browse saved posts, and optionally edit and publish their own bookmark lists.

• Nostr Note Duplicater Nostr Note Duplicater is a tool that rebroadcasts an existing Nostr event from a relay to other selected relays.

• もの画像サイト

• いろいろbotサイト

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Die «Eliten» führen bereits groß angelegte Pilotprojekte für eine Zukunft durch, die sie wollen und wir nicht. Das schreibt der OffGuardian in einem Update zum Thema «EU-Brieftasche für die digitale Identität». Das Portal weist darauf hin, dass die Akteure dabei nicht gerade zimperlich vorgehen und auch keinen Hehl aus ihren Absichten machen. Transition News hat mehrfach darüber berichtet, zuletzt hier und hier.

Mit der EU Digital Identity Wallet (EUDI-Brieftasche) sei eine einzige von der Regierung herausgegebene App geplant, die Ihre medizinischen Daten, Beschäftigungsdaten, Reisedaten, Bildungsdaten, Impfdaten, Steuerdaten, Finanzdaten sowie (potenziell) Kopien Ihrer Unterschrift, Fingerabdrücke, Gesichtsscans, Stimmproben und DNA enthält. So fasst der OffGuardian die eindrucksvolle Liste möglicher Einsatzbereiche zusammen.

Auch Dokumente wie der Personalausweis oder der Führerschein können dort in elektronischer Form gespeichert werden. Bis 2026 sind alle EU-Mitgliedstaaten dazu verpflichtet, Ihren Bürgern funktionierende und frei verfügbare digitale «Brieftaschen» bereitzustellen.

Die Menschen würden diese App nutzen, so das Portal, um Zahlungen vorzunehmen, Kredite zu beantragen, ihre Steuern zu zahlen, ihre Rezepte abzuholen, internationale Grenzen zu überschreiten, Unternehmen zu gründen, Arzttermine zu buchen, sich um Stellen zu bewerben und sogar digitale Verträge online zu unterzeichnen.

All diese Daten würden auf ihrem Mobiltelefon gespeichert und mit den Regierungen von neunzehn Ländern (plus der Ukraine) sowie über 140 anderen öffentlichen und privaten Partnern ausgetauscht. Von der Deutschen Bank über das ukrainische Ministerium für digitalen Fortschritt bis hin zu Samsung Europe. Unternehmen und Behörden würden auf diese Daten im Backend zugreifen, um «automatisierte Hintergrundprüfungen» durchzuführen.

Der Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände (VZBV) habe Bedenken geäußert, dass eine solche App «Risiken für den Schutz der Privatsphäre und der Daten» berge, berichtet das Portal. Die einzige Antwort darauf laute: «Richtig, genau dafür ist sie ja da!»

Das alles sei keine Hypothese, betont der OffGuardian. Es sei vielmehr «Potential». Damit ist ein EU-Projekt gemeint, in dessen Rahmen Dutzende öffentliche und private Einrichtungen zusammenarbeiten, «um eine einheitliche Vision der digitalen Identität für die Bürger der europäischen Länder zu definieren». Dies ist nur eines der groß angelegten Pilotprojekte, mit denen Prototypen und Anwendungsfälle für die EUDI-Wallet getestet werden. Es gibt noch mindestens drei weitere.

Den Ball der digitalen ID-Systeme habe die Covid-«Pandemie» über die «Impfpässe» ins Rollen gebracht. Seitdem habe das Thema an Schwung verloren. Je näher wir aber der vollständigen Einführung der EUid kämen, desto mehr Propaganda der Art «Warum wir eine digitale Brieftasche brauchen» könnten wir in den Mainstream-Medien erwarten, prognostiziert der OffGuardian. Vielleicht müssten wir schon nach dem nächsten großen «Grund», dem nächsten «katastrophalen katalytischen Ereignis» Ausschau halten. Vermutlich gebe es bereits Pläne, warum die Menschen plötzlich eine digitale ID-Brieftasche brauchen würden.

Die Entwicklung geht jedenfalls stetig weiter in genau diese Richtung. Beispielsweise hat Jordanien angekündigt, die digitale biometrische ID bei den nächsten Wahlen zur Verifizierung der Wähler einzuführen. Man wolle «den Papierkrieg beenden und sicherstellen, dass die gesamte Kette bis zu den nächsten Parlamentswahlen digitalisiert wird», heißt es. Absehbar ist, dass dabei einige Wahlberechtigte «auf der Strecke bleiben» werden, wie im Fall von Albanien geschehen.

Derweil würden die Briten gerne ihre Privatsphäre gegen Effizienz eintauschen, behauptet Tony Blair. Der Ex-Premier drängte kürzlich erneut auf digitale Identitäten und Gesichtserkennung. Blair ist Gründer einer Denkfabrik für globalen Wandel, Anhänger globalistischer Technokratie und «moderner Infrastruktur».

Abschließend warnt der OffGuardian vor der Illusion, Trump und Musk würden den US-Bürgern «diesen Schlamassel ersparen». Das Department of Government Efficiency werde sich auf die digitale Identität stürzen. Was könne schließlich «effizienter» sein als eine einzige App, die für alles verwendet wird? Der Unterschied bestehe nur darin, dass die US-Version vielleicht eher privat als öffentlich sei – sofern es da überhaupt noch einen wirklichen Unterschied gebe.

[Titelbild: Screenshot OffGuardian]

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ f4a890ce:af88c4aa

執行摘要

上週市場總市值進一步上升至2.96兆美元，顯示資金持續淨流入，加密資產整體維持多頭氣氛。儘管成交量自高點回落至868.3億美元，但市場流動性仍處於健康水準。恐懼與貪婪指數下滑至60，情緒從過度樂觀回落至中性偏樂觀區間，短期可能出現技術性整理。 衍生性商品方面，永續合約持倉再創新高至1,200億美元，顯示槓桿資金依然積極參與。不過，空單爆倉規模高達5.17億美元，顯示空頭遭遇大幅擠壓，需留意市場過熱風險。期權市場仍聚焦高價位行權價，反映中期上行預期不變。 ETF方面，本週BTC與ETH皆出現資金淨流入，分別為4.225億與650萬美元，顯示機構資金還是更喜歡BTC。 本週需持續關注市場情緒，資金是否重新進場?穩定幣市值變化，是否有新增資金流入?永續合約持倉量和期權市場看漲部位集中在高價區，是否引發誘多行情?ETF 是流入或流出?投資人信心是否進一步下滑?

---

加密市場

本週加密市場總市值上升至 3.23 兆美元，較上週略有增長，顯示市場仍維持穩定向上的趨勢。與此同時，成交量提升至 163.1 億美元，代表市場交易活躍度有所回升，資金流動性改善。

https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/

投資者情緒方面，恐懼與貪婪指數攀升至 73，顯示市場情緒轉向「貪婪」，投資人信心增強，買盤意願更為積極。

https://www.coinglass.com/zh-TW/pro/i/FearGreedIndex

而相對強弱指標進入強勢區間，表明短線上漲動能依然存在。

https://www.coinglass.com/zh-TW/pro/i/RsiHeatMap

山寨幣季節指數為 27，顯示市場資金仍偏向比特幣，對中小型代幣的風險偏好仍較為保守，尚未出現明顯的資金輪動情形。

https://www.blockchaincenter.net/en/altcoin-season-index/

此外，穩定幣市值增長至 2,422.26 億美元，可能反映部分資金正在準備籌碼，等待更具吸引力的市場機會。

https://defillama.com/stablecoins

小結

本週加密市場總市值持續上漲，而成交量同步回溫，顯示交易活動回升，市場信心增強。恐懼與貪婪指數進一步攀升至貪婪區間，暗示市場風險偏好提升，但仍須關注市場過熱風險。相對強弱指標顯示市場仍具上升動能，但山寨幣季節指數低迷，顯示資金仍主要集中於比特幣。穩定幣市值增長，反映投資者仍保持一定的謹慎態度。未來需密切關注宏觀經濟環境及市場資金流向，以判斷趨勢是否能夠持續。

---

衍生性商品

本週永續合約市場的持倉規模較上週進一步攀升，從 116.9B 增至 132.2B，顯示市場對槓桿交易的需求依舊強勁。

https://www.coinglass.com/zh-TW/pro/futures/Cryptofutures

資金費率方面，當前整體市場呈 正費率，主要交易所的資金費率保持在 0.01% 左右，反映出市場偏向多頭。

https://www.coinglass.com/zh-TW/FundingRate

然而，市場波動仍然導致大規模的強制清算。根據最新數據，5月8日 出現大量爆倉事件，空單爆倉金額達 835.998M，而多單爆倉金額則達 131.779M。

https://www.coinglass.com/zh-TW/LiquidationData

清算熱力圖顯示，$93,000 附近 的清算金額達 188.95M，這一價位區間成為近期市場的重要風險區域。

https://www.coinglass.com/zh-TW/pro/futures/LiquidationHeatMap

期權市場的數據顯示投資者對不同價格區間的配置策略仍有明顯差異。在 $85,000 行權價的看跌期權合約數量維持在 9.82K，但總金額增加至$15.42M，顯示市場對該區間的下行防禦仍然較強；而 $100,000 行權價的看漲期權合約數量則由 15.67K 增至 17.8K，總金額大幅提升至 $177.43M，顯示投資者對市場上行的預期正逐步增強。

https://www.coinglass.com/zh-TW/pro/options/OIStrike

此外，最大痛點仍然維持在 $90,000，但時間點有所調整，分別落在 2025/05/30 與 2025/06/27，顯示市場對長期風險的調整。

https://www.coinglass.com/zh-TW/pro/options/max-pain

小結

本週衍生性商品市場展現出更高的槓桿操作與波動風險，特別是在清算金額與爆倉數據方面。期權市場的配置策略分歧仍然明顯，投資者對短期與長期的行情預期有所不同。在市場波動區域，資金流向與槓桿操作需更加謹慎，以避免因價格劇烈變動導致強制清算。建議投資者持續關注關鍵價格區間的變化，並根據市場動向調整交易策略，以應對可能出現的市場風險。

---

ETF

在本週的加密貨幣ETF市場中，比特幣（BTC）與以太坊（ETH）皆呈現資金流入的狀態。比特幣ETF吸引了4.225億美元的資金流入，顯示出市場對BTC的信心。 而ETH ETF則流入650萬美元，雖然相較比特幣規模較小，仍然顯示資金回流跡象。

https://coinmarketcap.com/zh-tw/etf/

小結

整體而言，本週加密貨幣ETF市場出現資金回流，尤其BTC的流入幅度相當亮眼。市場投資情緒似乎有所回溫，但仍需留意後續可能的波動因素，例如宏觀經濟變數及技術面調整。若資金流入趨勢能夠持續，將進一步確認市場情緒的轉變，為後續行情提供更多參考依據。

---

鏈上分析 | BTC

從本週的鏈上數據來看，BTC 持續自交易所流出，持續創出新低，表明持有者更偏向於自我持幣。

https://cryptoquant.com/asset/btc/chart/exchange-flows/exchange-reserve?exchange=all_exchange&window=DAY&sma=0&ema=0&priceScale=log&metricScale=linear&chartStyle=line

地址分布方面，中小持倉(10-100)的地址數量持續下滑；而其餘的地址數量則呈現小幅上升，代表市場對後市仍保有一定信心。值得關注的是10k以上的超級鯨魚地址開始出現買入的動作，而近期仍持續上升中。

https://cryptoquant.com/community/dashboard/67e2481ba2a7203afd437b31

近期鯨魚活躍地址呈現明顯上升趨勢，無論是新進鯨魚還是長期未動的大型地址皆出現甦醒跡象，反映市場中大型資金正逐步活躍並積極參與。這種現象往往代表對未來市場走勢的樂觀看法，有助於市場底部籌碼的穩定與後續動能的蓄積，值得持續關注其資金動向與潛在布局。

https://cryptoquant.com/community/dashboard/67e2481ba2a7203afd437b31

近期觀察到「1+ Year HODL Wave」指標持續下降，顯示過去一年未曾移動 BTC 的長期持有者開始活躍。這通常代表部分長期投資人選擇獲利了結。

https://www.bitcoinmagazinepro.com/charts/1-year-hodl-wave/

目前比特幣的 NUPL（Net Unrealized Profit/Loss）指標已進入「樂觀/焦慮（Optimism/Anxiety）」區間，此區間歷史上曾多次出現在牛市中後段，並伴隨著市場高點的反轉風險。

https://www.bitcoinmagazinepro.com/charts/relative-unrealized-profit--loss/

從「短期持有者實現價格（Short-Term Holder Realized Price）」圖表觀察，目前市場價格已明確站上該指標，代表短期持有者的籌碼壓力已基本完成消化。此現象顯示市場獲得良好支撐，且買盤力量逐步強化，推動價格持續上行。若能維持在該實現價格之上，將有助於鞏固多頭趨勢，為後續行情打下上漲基礎。

https://www.bitcoinmagazinepro.com/charts/short-term-holder-realized-price/

小結

從地址分布來看，大戶（鯨魚級地址）持續進行比特幣的累積，而中小型持倉地址則出現持續拋售現象，顯示市場籌碼正在向強手集中。NUPL 指標目前位於「樂觀／焦慮（Optimism/Anxiety）」區間，雖然歷史上部分牛市高點也曾出現在此階段，但仍有機會延伸至「信念／否認（Belief/Denial）」階段，帶來進一步上漲動能。此外，短期持有者實現價格已被市場價格突破，顯示籌碼壓力已基本消化，支撐當前上行趨勢。後續仍觀察大戶行為與情緒變化將是判斷行情延續與否的關鍵。

---

總體經濟

本週總體經濟數據與上週保持一致，聯邦基金有效利率維持在 4.33%，顯示市場仍處於高利率環境。

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDS

隨著 6 月 18 日即將召開的聯邦公開市場委員會 (FOMC) 會議，市場普遍預期利率將維持不變，反映出決策者對當前經濟形勢的謹慎態度。

https://www.cmegroup.com/cn-t/markets/interest-rates/cme-fedwatch-tool.html

和上週一致，消費者物價指數 (CPI) 為 2.41%，仍處於聯準會通膨目標的範圍內。另一方面，失業率穩定在 4.2%，企業對於人力需求依然穩固。這樣的情況使得貨幣政策決策者在調整利率時需更加謹慎，以避免過度收緊或過度寬鬆對經濟帶來的衝擊。

https://www.macromicro.me/series/37/unemployment-rate

https://www.macromicro.me/series/128/consumer-price-index-sa-yoy

小結

現階段總體經濟環境維持穩定，貨幣政策仍以觀望為主。在市場流動性尚未顯著提升的情況下，投資人仍需密切關注即將公佈的經濟數據，以尋找可能影響資產價格的關鍵因素。

---

新聞

VanEck 提交在美國推出首個 BNB ETF 的提案

https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2025/05/06/vaneck-submits-proposal-to-launch-first-bnb-etf-in-the-u-s

比特幣支付應用程式 Strike 將提供 BTC 借貸服務，協助新興產業發展

https://www.coindesk.com/business/2025/05/07/bitcoin-payments-app-strike-to-offer-btc-lending-in-boost-to-reemergent-sector

Revolut 將透過 Lightspark 為歐洲用戶推出比特幣閃電支付

https://www.coindesk.com/business/2025/05/07/revolut-to-roll-out-bitcoin-lightning-payments-for-europe-users-through-lightspark

富途證券開通比特幣、以太坊、USDT儲值：香港券商挾著加密走

https://www.blocktempo.com/futu-securities-launches-bitcoin-ethereum-and-usdt-top-up/

@ 4857600b:30b502f4

Mitch McConnell, a senior Republican senator, announced he will not seek reelection.

At 83 years old and with health issues, this decision was expected. After seven terms, he leaves a significant legacy in U.S. politics, known for his strategic maneuvering.

McConnell stated, “My current term in the Senate will be my last.” His retirement marks the end of an influential political era.

@ 9e69e420:d12360c2

Federal employees must remove pronouns from email signatures by the end of the day. This directive comes from internal memos tied to two executive orders signed by Donald Trump. The orders target diversity and equity programs within the government.

CDC, Department of Transportation, and Department of Energy employees were affected. Staff were instructed to make changes in line with revised policy prohibiting certain language.

One CDC employee shared frustration, stating, “In my decade-plus years at CDC, I've never been told what I can and can't put in my email signature.” The directive is part of a broader effort to eliminate DEI initiatives from federal discourse.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Ständige Lügen und Unterstellungen, permanent falsche Fürsorge \ können Bausteine von emotionaler Manipulation sein. Mit dem Zweck, \ Macht und Kontrolle über eine andere Person auszuüben. \ Apotheken Umschau

Irgendetwas muss passiert sein: «Gaslighting» ist gerade Thema in vielen Medien. Heute bin ich nach längerer Zeit mal wieder über dieses Stichwort gestolpert. Das war in einem Artikel von Norbert Häring über Manipulationen des Deutschen Wetterdienstes (DWD). In diesem Fall ging es um eine Pressemitteilung vom Donnerstag zum «viel zu warmen» Winter 2024/25.

Häring wirft der Behörde vor, dreist zu lügen und Dinge auszulassen, um die Klimaangst wach zu halten. Was der Leser beim DWD nicht erfahre, sei, dass dieser Winter kälter als die drei vorangegangenen und kälter als der Durchschnitt der letzten zehn Jahre gewesen sei. Stattdessen werde der falsche Eindruck vermittelt, es würde ungebremst immer wärmer.

Wem also der zu Ende gehende Winter eher kalt vorgekommen sein sollte, mit dessen Empfinden stimme wohl etwas nicht. Das jedenfalls wolle der DWD uns einreden, so der Wirtschaftsjournalist. Und damit sind wir beim Thema Gaslighting.

Als Gaslighting wird eine Form psychischer Manipulation bezeichnet, mit der die Opfer desorientiert und zutiefst verunsichert werden, indem ihre eigene Wahrnehmung als falsch bezeichnet wird. Der Prozess führt zu Angst und Realitätsverzerrung sowie zur Zerstörung des Selbstbewusstseins. Die Bezeichnung kommt von dem britischen Theaterstück «Gas Light» aus dem Jahr 1938, in dem ein Mann mit grausamen Psychotricks seine Frau in den Wahnsinn treibt.

Damit Gaslighting funktioniert, muss das Opfer dem Täter vertrauen. Oft wird solcher Psychoterror daher im privaten oder familiären Umfeld beschrieben, ebenso wie am Arbeitsplatz. Jedoch eignen sich die Prinzipien auch perfekt zur Manipulation der Massen. Vermeintliche Autoritäten wie Ärzte und Wissenschaftler, oder «der fürsorgliche Staat» und Institutionen wie die UNO oder die WHO wollen uns doch nichts Böses. Auch Staatsmedien, Faktenchecker und diverse NGOs wurden zu «vertrauenswürdigen Quellen» erklärt. Das hat seine Wirkung.

Warum das Thema Gaslighting derzeit scheinbar so populär ist, vermag ich nicht zu sagen. Es sind aber gerade in den letzten Tagen und Wochen auffällig viele Artikel dazu erschienen, und zwar nicht nur von Psychologen. Die Frankfurter Rundschau hat gleich mehrere publiziert, und Anwälte interessieren sich dafür offenbar genauso wie Apotheker.

Die Apotheken Umschau machte sogar auf «Medical Gaslighting» aufmerksam. Davon spreche man, wenn Mediziner Symptome nicht ernst nähmen oder wenn ein gesundheitliches Problem vom behandelnden Arzt «schnöde heruntergespielt» oder abgetan würde. Kommt Ihnen das auch irgendwie bekannt vor? Der Begriff sei allerdings irreführend, da er eine manipulierende Absicht unterstellt, die «nicht gewährleistet» sei.

Apropos Gaslighting: Die noch amtierende deutsche Bundesregierung meldete heute, es gelte, «weiter [sic!] gemeinsam daran zu arbeiten, einen gerechten und dauerhaften Frieden für die Ukraine zu erreichen». Die Ukraine, wo sich am Montag «der völkerrechtswidrige Angriffskrieg zum dritten Mal jährte», verteidige ihr Land und «unsere gemeinsamen Werte».

Merken Sie etwas? Das Demokratieverständnis mag ja tatsächlich inzwischen in beiden Ländern ähnlich traurig sein. Bezüglich Friedensbemühungen ist meine Wahrnehmung jedoch eine andere. Das muss an meinem Gedächtnis liegen.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 4180da63:7b3c147e

By John "Potato Jack" LeFebvre

The cold, cold air of the morning tickled the nose of Christmas Goat as he lay quietly in bed, just waking up.

The cold air of the morning whispered in the ear of Christmas Goat; it whispered:- icicle secrets!

The moon, round and white, with swirling breezes, made Christmas Goat’s bedroom look like milk.

That reminded Christmas Goat – "It’s time to milk my cows!"

Christmas Goat peeled away the bed sheet and four blankets which kept him warm at night, and sitting on the edge of the bed he put on his gumboots.

He walked out of his bedroom and bumped into a wall because he was still a bit tired. He stood out on his front verandah and looked at the farm. "Come on you cows! It’s time for milking!!" he yelled.

The cows made a quiet line and walked, one behind the other, off to the milking sheds…

..all except for two cows who Christmas Goat had to throw a few potatoes at: then they got moving.

In the shed, the moos filled the air. Christmas Goat made his way past steaming cow flops carrying a bucket and a small stool.

He sat down next to Harry the cow.

"Ready for milking?", he asked.

"Yes, but you should have given me a girls name," said the cow.

"Oh well", said Christmas Goat, "here we go".

"Okay" said the cow, so Christmas Goat grabbed her teats with both hands and made the squirty milk goosh into the bucket.

"How are the kids?" asked Christmas Goat.

"Oh not bad," said Harry. "Bruce is in school and Terry’s just learning to moo."

"Yes, they’re good cows," said Christmas Goat.

"They are" said Harry. "I just wish you hadn’t given them boy’s names."

"Oh well," said Christmas Goat.

Christmas Goat milked all the cows one by one, and then he said to himself, "I think I’ll make myself a hot coffee". Back inside, he turned on the radio, and stirred the coffee powder into the hot water. Yum, he thought, pouring the cow’s milk on top. "Yum Yum Yum".

Christmas Goat drank all of this hot coffee and then made toast. A bird landed on his window sill and said "tweet tweet, tweet tweet ¯ ".

"Tweet tweet " said Christmas Goat".

The telephone rang four times and Christmas Goat picked it up.

"Hello, this is Christmas Goat?"

"Hello Christmas Goat? I’ve been a good goat all year and can you tell me what I’m getting for Christmas?"

"Christmas is tomorrow," said Christmas Goat.

"I know, but … - please tell me, just this once ..!"

"All right little goatgirl, what’s your name?"

"My name is Brenda," said the little girlgoat.

"Let me look at my list here…" said Christmas Goat. "

"Hmmm…" He moved his papers around.

"Are you still there?" asked the little goatgirl.

"Aha!! Yes I’m still here. I’ve just found your name on the list Brenda, here it is. Let’s see, oooh!"

"What is it! Wot is it!"

"It’s a …." But then Christmas Goat stopped talking.

"Why have you stopped talking?" said Brenda, panicking.

"Now, now," said Christmas Goat, "I just remembered it’s a secret."

"A secret!" said Brenda.

"Yes," said ChristmasGoat. "It has to be a surprise."

"No! Tell me now!" said Brenda.

Christmas Goat made a whistling sound with his lips. And then he hung up the phone.

By hanging up the phone like that, Christmas Goat felt a bit rude. But Brenda was rude first, he thought. Meanwhile, Brenda was at home, crying.

Christmas Goat thought , " I better go to see Brenda and explain to her why Christmas has to be a surprise." He went to the garage, oiled the wheels of his cart, and tied up a couple of humans.

"Good humans!" he said as they pulled him out of the garage down the street. The two people pulled the cart steadily along, steam pluming their foreheads.

It was a cold morning, and yet ChristmasGoat knew the earth was a round huge ball that spun on it’s axis while being invisibly dragged around a gigantic non stop fire- "the sun" – and that soon, because of this axis-spin, his part of the world would be receiving increasingly direct sun rays and it would get warm, so he didn’t worry . He explained this to the two men pulling his cart as it rolled through the suburbs, but they just blinked.

After a while, they arrived at Brenda’s house, and Christmas Goat tied the two men to a post and gave them a bottle of beer. Christmas Goat walked up the driveway, up the stairs, and went "knock kn0ck knock". A goat came to the door.

"Hallo Brenda?"

"No I’m Brenda’s brother. Brenda’s in her room, crying."

"Rats," said Christmas Goat.

There was Brenda, covered in tears, sitting on her carpet. Christmas Goat came in and sat down.

"Why did you make me sad?" said the little goatgirl.

"Well," said Christmas Goat, "I really didn’t want to do that. Every year, thousands of little goats ask me ‘what am I getting for Christmas,’ and every time I have to say to them, ‘you’ll see on Christmas day.’ And I Have to say this, I can’t say anything else, that’s just the way Christmas is."

"Come on, you must be able to tell me something a little deeper than (sniff) that."

Oh," said Christmas Goat, "you want the Big Reality explanation.."

"Yes," said Brenda, pouting and looking up from hurt eyes.

"Well," said Christmas Goat, "think what the world would be like with no surprise."

"Why? What would the world be like without surprise?" asked Brenda.

"Utterly predicable, " said Christmas Goat.

"What does predickable mean?" asked Brenda.

"In this case, it means ‘always knowing what’s going to happen’," said Christmas Goat.

"That sounds great!" said Brenda.

"Not really," said ChristmasGoat. "Think about it. Every day you wake up, you know what to wear, you know what’s going to be for breakfast, you know what job you have to go to, you know when it starts, you know how to get there, you know what you will see on the way, you know when you will stop for lunch, you know when you will finish, you know what’s for dinner, by looking at the program, you know what’s on T.V that night, they tell you what the weather will be like tomorrow, you know that if you …"

"That sounds Great!!" butted in Brenda.

"Yeah it sounded great to humans once, too, when they ruled the world. Woops."

"What was that?" said Brenda.

"What was what?" asked Christmas Goat.

"That thing you said, " said Brenda.

"I can’t remember, " said Christmas Goat, although now the shoe was on the other hoof.

"Well I remember, " said Brenda. "It just shocked me, that’s all. You said ‘when humans ruled the world.’"

"You’re right," sighed Christmas Goat. "That’s what I said..

Maybe we can forget about it though?"

Tell me tell me tell me tell me tell me tell me tell me tell me tell me tell me tell me tell me tell me tell… "

"ALL-RIGHT" said Christmas Goat, giving in. "Are you sure you want this dark knowledge?"

"Yes, I’m sure," said Brenda dribbling with excitement.

"Right, well once upon a time, the humans, like those two hitched up to the post outside drinking beer, were our masters. What they said, went."

"Boy," said Brenda.

"That’s right," continued Christmas Goat. "In fact they were the kings of the world. Us goats were treated horribly at times."

"What happened?" asked Brenda the little goatgirl.

"Those people became so set in their ways that they became stale. Nearly every effort at becoming the rulers made them and their lives boring. They thought they knew everything."

"People don’t know anything!" said Brenda.

"Not now they don’t," said Christmas Goat. "But they did in a distant past. Unfortunately they made the mistake of killing most surprises, and that’s when we snuck up them."

"Us goats?"

"Yep."

"And now we’re the kings and queens!" said Brenda gleefully.

"Of course," said Christmas Goat. "But we mustn’t let ourselves get trapped by prediction. That’s why I’m Christmas Goat. It’s my job to make sure surprise is still big in our lives, especially at this time of the year, Christmas." "Thankyou for telling me that true story," said Brenda. "I look forward to my surprise present tomorrow morning."

"That’s a good boy," said Christmas Goat.

"I’m a girl," said Brenda.

That night, Christmas Goat tied up his strongest humans who hauled and heaved his sleigh-cart all over the world through beautiful bright darkness. Kind Mummy and Daddy goats left a snack for Christmas Goat, and beer for the sweaty humans.

Christmas Goat and his team finished delivering the presents just in time.

"Good humans," he said, patting his helpers and switching on the T.V for them.

When Brenda woke up, there was a terrific colourful ping pong ball under her Christmas Tree.

"That is a surprise," smiled Brenda. "I’m a netballer!"

@ b99efe77:f3de3616

asfadfadsf draft 333446666

afasdfasdfsadf

petrinet ;startDay () -> working ;stopDay working -> () ;startPause working -> paused ;endPause paused -> working ;goSmoke working -> smoking ;endSmoke smoking -> working ;startEating working -> eating ;stopEating eating -> working ;startCall working -> onCall ;endCall onCall -> working ;startMeeting working -> inMeetinga ;endMeeting inMeeting -> working ;logTask working -> working

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Europa – das Ganze ist eine wunderbare Idee, \ aber das war der Kommunismus auch. \ Loriot

«Europa hat fertig», könnte man unken, und das wäre nicht einmal sehr verwegen. Mit solch einer Einschätzung stünden wir nicht alleine, denn die Stimmen in diese Richtung mehren sich. Der französische Präsident Emmanuel Macron warnte schon letztes Jahr davor, dass «unser Europa sterben könnte». Vermutlich hatte er dabei andere Gefahren im Kopf als jetzt der ungarische Ministerpräsident Viktor Orbán, der ein «baldiges Ende der EU» prognostizierte. Das Ergebnis könnte allerdings das gleiche sein.

Neben vordergründigen Themenbereichen wie Wirtschaft, Energie und Sicherheit ist das eigentliche Problem jedoch die obskure Mischung aus aufgegebener Souveränität und geschwollener Arroganz, mit der europäische Politiker:innende unterschiedlicher Couleur aufzutreten pflegen. Und das Tüpfelchen auf dem i ist die bröckelnde Legitimation politischer Institutionen dadurch, dass die Stimmen großer Teile der Bevölkerung seit Jahren auf vielfältige Weise ausgegrenzt werden.

Um «UnsereDemokratie» steht es schlecht. Dass seine Mandate immer schwächer werden, merkt natürlich auch unser «Führungspersonal». Entsprechend werden die Maßnahmen zur Gängelung, Überwachung und Manipulation der Bürger ständig verzweifelter. Parallel dazu plustern sich in Paris Macron, Scholz und einige andere noch einmal mächtig in Sachen Verteidigung und «Kriegstüchtigkeit» auf.

Momentan gilt es auch, das Überschwappen covidiotischer und verschwörungsideologischer Auswüchse aus den USA nach Europa zu vermeiden. So ein «MEGA» (Make Europe Great Again) können wir hier nicht gebrauchen. Aus den Vereinigten Staaten kommen nämlich furchtbare Nachrichten. Beispielsweise wurde einer der schärfsten Kritiker der Corona-Maßnahmen kürzlich zum Gesundheitsminister ernannt. Dieser setzt sich jetzt für eine Neubewertung der mRNA-«Impfstoffe» ein, was durchaus zu einem Entzug der Zulassungen führen könnte.

Der europäischen Version von «Verteidigung der Demokratie» setzte der US-Vizepräsident J. D. Vance auf der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz sein Verständnis entgegen: «Demokratie stärken, indem wir unseren Bürgern erlauben, ihre Meinung zu sagen». Das Abschalten von Medien, das Annullieren von Wahlen oder das Ausschließen von Menschen vom politischen Prozess schütze gar nichts. Vielmehr sei dies der todsichere Weg, die Demokratie zu zerstören.

In der Schweiz kamen seine Worte deutlich besser an als in den meisten europäischen NATO-Ländern. Bundespräsidentin Karin Keller-Sutter lobte die Rede und interpretierte sie als «Plädoyer für die direkte Demokratie». Möglicherweise zeichne sich hier eine außenpolitische Kehrtwende in Richtung integraler Neutralität ab, meint mein Kollege Daniel Funk. Das wären doch endlich mal ein paar gute Nachrichten.

Von der einstigen Idee einer europäischen Union mit engeren Beziehungen zwischen den Staaten, um Konflikte zu vermeiden und das Wohlergehen der Bürger zu verbessern, sind wir meilenweit abgekommen. Der heutige korrupte Verbund unter technokratischer Leitung ähnelt mehr einem Selbstbedienungsladen mit sehr begrenztem Zugang. Die EU-Wahlen im letzten Sommer haben daran ebenso wenig geändert, wie die Bundestagswahl am kommenden Sonntag darauf einen Einfluss haben wird.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 97c70a44:ad98e322

There was a slight dust up recently over a website someone runs removing a listing for an app someone built based on entirely arbitrary criteria. I'm not to going to attempt to speak for either wounded party, but I would like to share my own personal definition for what constitutes a "nostr app" in an effort to help clarify what might be an otherwise confusing and opaque purity test.

In this post, I will be committing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, in which I start with the most liberal definition I can come up with, and gradually refine it until all that is left is the purest, gleamingest, most imaginary and unattainable nostr app imaginable. As I write this, I wonder if anything built yet will actually qualify. In any case, here we go.

It uses nostr

The lowest bar for what a "nostr app" might be is an app ("application" - i.e. software, not necessarily a native app of any kind) that has some nostr-specific code in it, but which doesn't take any advantage of what makes nostr distinctive as a protocol.

Examples might include a scraper of some kind which fulfills its charter by fetching data from relays (regardless of whether it validates or retains signatures). Another might be a regular web 2.0 app which provides an option to "log in with nostr" by requesting and storing the user's public key.

In either case, the fact that nostr is involved is entirely neutral. A scraper can scrape html, pdfs, jsonl, whatever data source - nostr relays are just another target. Likewise, a user's key in this scenario is treated merely as an opaque identifier, with no appreciation for the super powers it brings along.

In most cases, this kind of app only exists as a marketing ploy, or less cynically, because it wants to get in on the hype of being a "nostr app", without the developer quite understanding what that means, or having the budget to execute properly on the claim.

It leverages nostr

Some of you might be wondering, "isn't 'leverage' a synonym for 'use'?" And you would be right, but for one connotative difference. It's possible to "use" something improperly, but by definition leverage gives you a mechanical advantage that you wouldn't otherwise have. This is the second category of "nostr app".

This kind of app gets some benefit out of the nostr protocol and network, but in an entirely selfish fashion. The intention of this kind of app is not to augment the nostr network, but to augment its own UX by borrowing some nifty thing from the protocol without really contributing anything back.

Some examples might include:

• Using nostr signers to encrypt or sign data, and then store that data on a proprietary server.
• Using nostr relays as a kind of low-code backend, but using proprietary event payloads.
• Using nostr event kinds to represent data (why), but not leveraging the trustlessness that buys you.

An application in this category might even communicate to its users via nostr DMs - but this doesn't make it a "nostr app" any more than a website that emails you hot deals on herbal supplements is an "email app". These apps are purely parasitic on the nostr ecosystem.

In the long-term, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Email's ubiquity is self-reinforcing. But in the short term, this kind of "nostr app" can actually do damage to nostr's reputation by over-promising and under-delivering.

It complements nostr

Next up, we have apps that get some benefit out of nostr as above, but give back by providing a unique value proposition to nostr users as nostr users. This is a bit of a fine distinction, but for me this category is for apps which focus on solving problems that nostr isn't good at solving, leaving the nostr integration in a secondary or supporting role.

One example of this kind of app was Mutiny (RIP), which not only allowed users to sign in with nostr, but also pulled those users' social graphs so that users could send money to people they knew and trusted. Mutiny was doing a great job of leveraging nostr, as well as providing value to users with nostr identities - but it was still primarily a bitcoin wallet, not a "nostr app" in the purest sense.

Other examples are things like Nostr Nests and Zap.stream, whose core value proposition is streaming video or audio content. Both make great use of nostr identities, data formats, and relays, but they're primarily streaming apps. A good litmus test for things like this is: if you got rid of nostr, would it be the same product (even if inferior in certain ways)?

A similar category is infrastructure providers that benefit nostr by their existence (and may in fact be targeted explicitly at nostr users), but do things in a centralized, old-web way; for example: media hosts, DNS registrars, hosting providers, and CDNs.

To be clear here, I'm not casting aspersions (I don't even know what those are, or where to buy them). All the apps mentioned above use nostr to great effect, and are a real benefit to nostr users. But they are not True Scotsmen.

It embodies nostr

Ok, here we go. This is the crème de la crème, the top du top, the meilleur du meilleur, the bee's knees. The purest, holiest, most chaste category of nostr app out there. The apps which are, indeed, nostr indigitate.

This category of nostr app (see, no quotes this time) can be defined by the converse of the previous category. If nostr was removed from this type of application, would it be impossible to create the same product?

To tease this apart a bit, apps that leverage the technical aspects of nostr are dependent on nostr the protocol, while apps that benefit nostr exclusively via network effect are integrated into nostr the network. An app that does both things is working in symbiosis with nostr as a whole.

An app that embraces both nostr's protocol and its network becomes an organic extension of every other nostr app out there, multiplying both its competitive moat and its contribution to the ecosystem:

• In contrast to apps that only borrow from nostr on the technical level but continue to operate in their own silos, an application integrated into the nostr network comes pre-packaged with existing users, and is able to provide more value to those users because of other nostr products. On nostr, it's a good thing to advertise your competitors.
• In contrast to apps that only market themselves to nostr users without building out a deep integration on the protocol level, a deeply integrated app becomes an asset to every other nostr app by becoming an organic extension of them through interoperability. This results in increased traffic to the app as other developers and users refer people to it instead of solving their problem on their own. This is the "micro-apps" utopia we've all been waiting for.

Credible exit doesn't matter if there aren't alternative services. Interoperability is pointless if other applications don't offer something your app doesn't. Marketing to nostr users doesn't matter if you don't augment their agency as nostr users.

If I had to choose a single NIP that represents the mindset behind this kind of app, it would be NIP 89 A.K.A. "Recommended Application Handlers", which states:

Nostr's discoverability and transparent event interaction is one of its most interesting/novel mechanics. This NIP provides a simple way for clients to discover applications that handle events of a specific kind to ensure smooth cross-client and cross-kind interactions.

These handlers are the glue that holds nostr apps together. A single event, signed by the developer of an application (or by the application's own account) tells anyone who wants to know 1. what event kinds the app supports, 2. how to link to the app (if it's a client), and (if the pubkey also publishes a kind 10002), 3. which relays the app prefers.

As a sidenote, NIP 89 is currently focused more on clients, leaving DVMs, relays, signers, etc somewhat out in the cold. Updating 89 to include tailored listings for each kind of supporting app would be a huge improvement to the protocol. This, plus a good front end for navigating these listings (sorry nostrapp.link, close but no cigar) would obviate the evil centralized websites that curate apps based on arbitrary criteria.

Examples of this kind of app obviously include many kind 1 clients, as well as clients that attempt to bring the benefits of the nostr protocol and network to new use cases - whether long form content, video, image posts, music, emojis, recipes, project management, or any other "content type".

To drill down into one example, let's think for a moment about forms. What's so great about a forms app that is built on nostr? Well,

• There is a spec for forms and responses, which means that...
• Multiple clients can implement the same data format, allowing for credible exit and user choice, even of...
• Other products not focused on forms, which can still view, respond to, or embed forms, and which can send their users via NIP 89 to a client that does...
• Cryptographically sign forms and responses, which means they are self-authenticating and can be sent to...
• Multiple relays, which reduces the amount of trust necessary to be confident results haven't been deliberately "lost".

Show me a forms product that does all of those things, and isn't built on nostr. You can't, because it doesn't exist. Meanwhile, there are plenty of image hosts with APIs, streaming services, and bitcoin wallets which have basically the same levels of censorship resistance, interoperability, and network effect as if they weren't built on nostr.

It supports nostr

Notice I haven't said anything about whether relays, signers, blossom servers, software libraries, DVMs, and the accumulated addenda of the nostr ecosystem are nostr apps. Well, they are (usually).

This is the category of nostr app that gets none of the credit for doing all of the work. There's no question that they qualify as beautiful nostrcorns, because their value propositions are entirely meaningless outside of the context of nostr. Who needs a signer if you don't have a cryptographic identity you need to protect? DVMs are literally impossible to use without relays. How are you going to find the blossom server that will serve a given hash if you don't know which servers the publishing user has selected to store their content?

In addition to being entirely contextualized by nostr architecture, this type of nostr app is valuable because it does things "the nostr way". By that I mean that they don't simply try to replicate existing internet functionality into a nostr context; instead, they create entirely new ways of putting the basic building blocks of the internet back together.

A great example of this is how Nostr Connect, Nostr Wallet Connect, and DVMs all use relays as brokers, which allows service providers to avoid having to accept incoming network connections. This opens up really interesting possibilities all on its own.

So while I might hesitate to call many of these things "apps", they are certainly "nostr".

Appendix: it smells like a NINO

So, let's say you've created an app, but when you show it to people they politely smile, nod, and call it a NINO (Nostr In Name Only). What's a hacker to do? Well, here's your handy-dandy guide on how to wash that NINO stench off and Become a Nostr.

You app might be a NINO if:

• There's no NIP for your data format (or you're abusing NIP 78, 32, etc by inventing a sub-protocol inside an existing event kind)
• There's a NIP, but no one knows about it because it's in a text file on your hard drive (or buried in your project's repository)
• Your NIP imposes an incompatible/centralized/legacy web paradigm onto nostr
• Your NIP relies on trusted third (or first) parties
• There's only one implementation of your NIP (yours)
• Your core value proposition doesn't depend on relays, events, or nostr identities
• One or more relay urls are hard-coded into the source code
• Your app depends on a specific relay implementation to work (ahem, relay29)
• You don't validate event signatures
• You don't publish events to relays you don't control
• You don't read events from relays you don't control
• You use legacy web services to solve problems, rather than nostr-native solutions
• You use nostr-native solutions, but you've hardcoded their pubkeys or URLs into your app
• You don't use NIP 89 to discover clients and services
• You haven't published a NIP 89 listing for your app
• You don't leverage your users' web of trust for filtering out spam
• You don't respect your users' mute lists
• You try to "own" your users' data

Now let me just re-iterate - it's ok to be a NINO. We need NINOs, because nostr can't (and shouldn't) tackle every problem. You just need to decide whether your app, as a NINO, is actually contributing to the nostr ecosystem, or whether you're just using buzzwords to whitewash a legacy web software product.

If you're in the former camp, great! If you're in the latter, what are you waiting for? Only you can fix your NINO problem. And there are lots of ways to do this, depending on your own unique situation:

• Drop nostr support if it's not doing anyone any good. If you want to build a normal company and make some money, that's perfectly fine.
• Build out your nostr integration - start taking advantage of webs of trust, self-authenticating data, event handlers, etc.
• Work around the problem. Think you need a special relay feature for your app to work? Guess again. Consider encryption, AUTH, DVMs, or better data formats.
• Think your idea is a good one? Talk to other devs or open a PR to the nips repo. No one can adopt your NIP if they don't know about it.
• Keep going. It can sometimes be hard to distinguish a research project from a NINO. New ideas have to be built out before they can be fully appreciated.
• Listen to advice. Nostr developers are friendly and happy to help. If you're not sure why you're getting traction, ask!

I sincerely hope this article is useful for all of you out there in NINO land. Maybe this made you feel better about not passing the totally optional nostr app purity test. Or maybe it gave you some actionable next steps towards making a great NINON (Nostr In Not Only Name) app. In either case, GM and PV.

@ b99efe77:f3de3616

asfadfadsf draft 333

afasdfasdfsadf

petrinet ;startDay () -> working ;stopDay working -> () ;startPause working -> paused ;endPause paused -> working ;goSmoke working -> smoking ;endSmoke smoking -> working ;startEating working -> eating ;stopEating eating -> working ;startCall working -> onCall ;endCall onCall -> working ;startMeeting working -> inMeetinga ;endMeeting inMeeting -> working ;logTask working -> working

@ 044da344:073a8a0e

Alles neu macht der Oktober. Sorry für das Sprachspiel. Wenn Sie so etwas mögen, dann kommen Sie in ein paar Monaten zu uns in die Oberpfalz –

• entweder zum Journalismus-Retreat für den Nachwuchs der Gegenöffentlichkeit oder
• eine Woche später zum Kurs Intellektuelle Selbstverteidigung.

Wenn man den Unterschied auf den Punkt bringen müsste: Für Kurs eins sollten sie schon öffentlich sichtbar sein mit Texten, Podcasts und Videos, auf diesem Pfad weitermachen wollen und dafür nach Aufmunterung, Bestärkung, Weggefährten suchen. Kurs zwei verlangt all das nicht. Keine Schranke, nicht einmal in Sachen Alter. Während uns bisher wichtig war, dass die Teilnehmer wenigstens eventuell und im Fall der Fälle in Richtung Medienpräsenz schielen, steht bei diesem neuen Angebot Medienkompetenz im Mittelpunkt, journalistisches Handwerk inklusive.

Infos zur Anmeldung, zur Organisation und zu allem, was Sie sonst noch wissen wollen, finden Sie unter den Links oben.

Freie Akademie für Medien & Journalismus

Unterstützen

@ 8d34bd24:414be32b

What does it say about us that believers don’t listen as well as unbelievers? Let’s investigate some scripture verses and see what we can discover.

An Object Lesson:

Jesus warned His disciples several times that He would be killed and rise from the dead on the third day. Right after Jesus asked them who they thought He was and Peter replied that He was the Christ (Messiah), Jesus told them what would happen.

From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. (Matthew 16:21)

We know the disciples heard and understood what Jesus was saying because Peter immediately rebuked Jesus.

Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You.” But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.” (Matthew 16:22-23)

You’d think that Peter would have this moment locked in his mind after being rebuked so harshly for questioning Jesus’s prediction of what would happen.

A while later, Jesus again told His disciples what was about to happen.

And while they were gathering together in Galilee, Jesus said to them, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men; and they will kill Him, and He will be raised on the third day.” And they were deeply grieved. (Matthew 17:22-23)

They again heard what was said because they were “deeply grieved.” They didn’t like what they heard.

Then a third time, as they were approaching Jerusalem, He made certain they knew what was coming:

As Jesus was about to go up to Jerusalem, He took the twelve disciples aside by themselves, and on the way He said to them, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn Him to death, and will hand Him over to the Gentiles to mock and scourge and crucify Him, and on the third day He will be raised up.” (Matthew 20:17-19)

The disciples should have known that Jesus’s crucifixion and death were not the end. He told them repeatedly that He would die and be raised from the dead on the third day. They should have been diligently waiting with expectation, but instead they immediately hid, gave up, and headed back to their old lives.

His female followers still cared enough to try to prepare Jesus’s body for burial, but even they did not expect Him to rise as He said.

The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying. Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you.” (Matthew 28:5-7) {emphasis mine}

Even when the woman came and told the disciples that they had seen Jesus as He had said, none believed them, although Peter and John did have a glimmer of hope and went to look for themselves.

In contrast, the Pharisees, the very people who hated Jesus so much that they fought to have Him crucified, remembered Jesus’s statements.

Now on the next day, the day after the preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate, and said, “Sir, we remember that when He was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I am to rise again.’ Therefore, give orders for the grave to be made secure until the third day, otherwise His disciples may come and steal Him away and say to the people, ‘He has risen from the dead,’ and the last deception will be worse than the first.” Pilate said to them, “You have a guard; go, make it as secure as you know how.” And they went and made the grave secure, and along with the guard they set a seal on the stone. (Matthew 27:62-66) {emphasis mine}

The Pharisees acted in response to Jesus’s claims. The disciples ignored or forgot Jesus’s claims.

KNOW:

How often do we ignore or forget Jesus’s promises? How often do we despair when we should hold tightly to the promises given to us in the Bible? Are there times that our opponents, unbelievers, are better at quoting the Bible back at us than we are at using the Bible to defend the truth and our faith?

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)

We need to know God’s word so we can “give an account for the hope that is in” us. First we need to read the whole Bible. We can’t know who God is, what He has done, and what He commands for us without knowing God’s word.

After we have gotten the big picture by reading through the Bible once, we need to really get to know it well. This not only includes reading the Bible continually, but also include memorizing key verses, so we can bring them to remembrance when we need them.

Some people can repeat a verse multiple times and just know it. Some of us have trouble memorizing things. We have to go to extraordinary measures to memorize God’s word. Some techniques I have used:

• WHITEBOARD APPROACH:

• Write the verse on the white board.

• Read out loud.

• Erase one word. (You can underline where the word is if that helps you remember that a word goes there)

• Read out loud saying verse including missing word.

• Continue erasing words, one at a time, saying the verse until all of the words are gone.

• I haven’t used it personally, but Verse Locker was recommended by another substacker and seems to use a similar technique.

• MUSICAL VERSES:

• Make up a tune and sing the verse or put the verse to a tune you already know.

• If you aren’t good at making up songs, there are sites that have verses to songs, but I haven’t used them personally other than a few from Awana years ago.

• FIRST LETTER:

• Write down the first letter of each word of the verse you want to memorize This gives hints and helps you not accidentally miss words.

• I’ve also made a necklace (it was supposed to be a bracelet, but the verse, 1 Peter 3:15 above, I picked was too long) made of beads with the letters of the words of the verse. By wearing it, you have a reminder to memorize and rememorize the verse till it sticks stronger.

• This is my version of 1 Peter 3:15

  

• APPS:

• There are multiple apps that can help you memorize verses. 5 Best Bible Memory Apps for 2025

We are all different and have different learning styles. Pick the version that works best for you, but be intentional. For so long I wasn’t. Having a child with Down Syndrome in Awana who needed help led me to finding ways to help him and me to memorize the hundreds (or thousands) of verses that are required to finish the program. Keep in mind that you need to keep reviewing them or the memories will fade. The more times you memorize the verse, the longer it will stick with you. You just never know when you will need a Scripture verse and you may not have your Bible or phone (with Bible app) handy.

APPLY:

Knowing the Bible is critical for the Christian life, but knowing the Bible and God’s commands is not enough. We have to live according to this knowledge. We have to apply it in our lives. It needs to change the way we view the world and change the way we live our lives and interact with others.

for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. (Romans 2:13) {emphasis mine}

Our faith needs to be exhibited through action.

But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” (James 2:18) {emphasis mine}

There is nothing we need to do to be saved besides believe, but if we have saving faith, we should desire God’s word like the author of Psalm 119. Our lives should also change to be conformed to Jesus.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. (Romans 12:12) {emphasis mine}

There must be works as evidence of our faith.

You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; (James 2:19-22) {emphasis mine}

The disciples heard Jesus tell them what was going to happen to Him. They knew what He had said because they reacted to it negatively. The problem was they didn’t believe it and didn’t live according to Jesus’s plain words. As important as it is to read and understand the Bible, none of that matters if we don’t believe it and live it.

But I Can’t Do It Myself:

Jesus knew that we could not know and do what we were commanded to know and do, at least not in our own power.

Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.” (Luke 24:45-49)

Jesus not only sent the disciples (and all believers) out into the world to tell of what He has done for us, but He told the disciples to “stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.” Jesus told them to wait until they had received the Holy Spirit to guide and empower them in the work He had designed them to complete. We also have the Holy Spirit to change our hearts and minds, so we can fulfill the commandments and plans He has for us.

I’m sorry if this post had a little too much overlap with my last post, but knowing God’s word has become a passion of mine and it is where I felt led to go.

May the God of Heaven give you a hunger for His word, help you to understand His word, believe His word, and live His word. May your understanding of the word of God guide you in everything you think, speak, and do. May you never doubt God’s word or discount God’s word because it isn’t according to your preference. God bless you and keep you.

Trust Jesus.

@ eb5f61d0:24cdd490

Com o avanço da tecnologia e a popularização dos jogos online, os brasileiros têm buscado plataformas modernas, seguras e completas para se divertir e tentar a sorte. Entre as opções que vêm ganhando destaque no cenário nacional, a 9993Bet se consolida como uma das principais escolhas. Reunindo inovação, variedade de jogos e uma experiência de usuário diferenciada, a plataforma é ideal para quem busca entretenimento de alta qualidade, sem complicações.

Plataforma moderna e acessível Um dos grandes diferenciais da 9993Bet é sua interface intuitiva e responsiva, pensada para oferecer uma navegação fluida tanto em computadores quanto em dispositivos móveis. O site conta com um design moderno e bem estruturado, que facilita o acesso às diferentes seções e jogos disponíveis. Desde o primeiro acesso, é possível perceber o cuidado da plataforma em proporcionar uma experiência agradável, mesmo para os iniciantes.

Além disso, o processo de cadastro é rápido e descomplicado. Com apenas alguns cliques, o jogador já pode criar sua conta e começar a explorar o universo de possibilidades que a 9993betoferece. A segurança dos dados também é levada a sério, utilizando criptografia de ponta e sistemas de proteção avançados.

Variedade de jogos para todos os gostos Outro ponto forte da 9993Bet é a ampla seleção de jogos. A plataforma conta com centenas de títulos das principais desenvolvedoras do mercado, garantindo qualidade gráfica, jogabilidade envolvente e mecânicas inovadoras. Entre os jogos mais populares, destacam-se:

Slots (Caça-níqueis): com temas variados, bônus emocionantes e recursos especiais, os slots são uma das atrações preferidas dos usuários. Há opções clássicas com 3 rolos e também versões modernas com animações incríveis.

Jogos de cartas: para os fãs de estratégia e emoção, a 9993Bet oferece versões virtuais de jogos consagrados como pôquer, blackjack e bacará.

Roleta online: com diferentes variações e estilos, é ideal para quem busca adrenalina e sorte em cada giro.

Jogos ao vivo com crupiês reais: proporcionando uma experiência imersiva e interativa, esses jogos permitem que o jogador se conecte com apresentadores reais e jogue em tempo real, como se estivesse em uma sala física.

Uma experiência pensada no jogador A 9993Bet investe constantemente em tecnologia e atendimento ao cliente para garantir a melhor experiência possível aos seus usuários. O suporte funciona 24 horas por dia, 7 dias por semana, com uma equipe preparada para responder dúvidas, resolver problemas e orientar os jogadores em qualquer situação.

Os métodos de pagamento também são variados e seguros. A plataforma aceita PIX, boletos bancários e carteiras digitais, proporcionando rapidez nas transações e total comodidade. Os saques são processados com agilidade, permitindo que os jogadores aproveitem seus ganhos sem longas esperas.

Além disso, a 9993Bet oferece promoções regulares, bônus de boas-vindas e recompensas exclusivas para usuários fiéis. Tudo isso contribui para um ambiente envolvente, competitivo e, acima de tudo, divertido.

Conclusão A 9993Bet chega ao mercado brasileiro como uma plataforma completa de entretenimento digital, aliando inovação, segurança e uma vasta gama de jogos que agradam desde os iniciantes até os jogadores mais experientes. Com foco no usuário e um compromisso com a excelência, a 9993Bet se firma como uma das principais opções para quem busca diversão de qualidade e oportunidades reais de ganhar.

Se você está em busca de emoção, variedade e confiabilidade, a 9993Bet é a escolha certa. Cadastre-se, explore os jogos e descubra um novo nível de entretenimento online.

@ 9e69e420:d12360c2

Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued new guidance halting spending on most foreign aid grants for 90 days, including military assistance to Ukraine. This immediate order shocked State Department officials and mandates “stop-work orders” on nearly all existing foreign assistance awards.

While it allows exceptions for military financing to Egypt and Israel, as well as emergency food assistance, it restricts aid to key allies like Ukraine, Jordan, and Taiwan. The guidance raises potential liability risks for the government due to unfulfilled contracts.

A report will be prepared within 85 days to recommend which programs to continue or discontinue.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Die «moralische Weltordnung» – eine Art Astrologie. Friedrich Nietzsche

Das Treffen der BRICS-Staaten beim Gipfel im russischen Kasan war sicher nicht irgendein politisches Event. Gastgeber Wladimir Putin habe «Hof gehalten», sagen die Einen, China und Russland hätten ihre Vorstellung einer multipolaren Weltordnung zelebriert, schreiben Andere.

In jedem Fall zeigt die Anwesenheit von über 30 Delegationen aus der ganzen Welt, dass von einer geostrategischen Isolation Russlands wohl keine Rede sein kann. Darüber hinaus haben sowohl die Anreise von UN-Generalsekretär António Guterres als auch die Meldungen und Dementis bezüglich der Beitrittsbemühungen des NATO-Staats Türkei für etwas Aufsehen gesorgt.

Im Spannungsfeld geopolitischer und wirtschaftlicher Umbrüche zeigt die neue Allianz zunehmendes Selbstbewusstsein. In Sachen gemeinsamer Finanzpolitik schmiedet man interessante Pläne. Größere Unabhängigkeit von der US-dominierten Finanzordnung ist dabei ein wichtiges Ziel.

Beim BRICS-Wirtschaftsforum in Moskau, wenige Tage vor dem Gipfel, zählte ein nachhaltiges System für Finanzabrechnungen und Zahlungsdienste zu den vorrangigen Themen. Während dieses Treffens ging der russische Staatsfonds eine Partnerschaft mit dem Rechenzentrumsbetreiber BitRiver ein, um Bitcoin-Mining-Anlagen für die BRICS-Länder zu errichten.

Die Initiative könnte ein Schritt sein, Bitcoin und andere Kryptowährungen als Alternativen zu traditionellen Finanzsystemen zu etablieren. Das Projekt könnte dazu führen, dass die BRICS-Staaten den globalen Handel in Bitcoin abwickeln. Vor dem Hintergrund der Diskussionen über eine «BRICS-Währung» wäre dies eine Alternative zu dem ursprünglich angedachten Korb lokaler Währungen und zu goldgedeckten Währungen sowie eine mögliche Ergänzung zum Zahlungssystem BRICS Pay.

Dient der Bitcoin also der Entdollarisierung? Oder droht er inzwischen, zum Gegenstand geopolitischer Machtspielchen zu werden? Angesichts der globalen Vernetzungen ist es oft schwer zu durchschauen, «was eine Show ist und was im Hintergrund von anderen Strippenziehern insgeheim gesteuert wird». Sicher können Strukturen wie Bitcoin auch so genutzt werden, dass sie den Herrschenden dienlich sind. Aber die Grundeigenschaft des dezentralisierten, unzensierbaren Peer-to-Peer Zahlungsnetzwerks ist ihm schließlich nicht zu nehmen.

Wenn es nach der EZB oder dem IWF geht, dann scheint statt Instrumentalisierung momentan eher der Kampf gegen Kryptowährungen angesagt. Jürgen Schaaf, Senior Manager bei der Europäischen Zentralbank, hat jedenfalls dazu aufgerufen, Bitcoin «zu eliminieren». Der Internationale Währungsfonds forderte El Salvador, das Bitcoin 2021 als gesetzliches Zahlungsmittel eingeführt hat, kürzlich zu begrenzenden Maßnahmen gegen das Kryptogeld auf.

Dass die BRICS-Staaten ein freiheitliches Ansinnen im Kopf haben, wenn sie Kryptowährungen ins Spiel bringen, darf indes auch bezweifelt werden. Im Abschlussdokument bekennen sich die Gipfel-Teilnehmer ausdrücklich zur UN, ihren Programmen und ihrer «Agenda 2030». Ernst Wolff nennt das «eine Bankrotterklärung korrupter Politiker, die sich dem digital-finanziellen Komplex zu 100 Prozent unterwerfen».

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 9e69e420:d12360c2

President Trump plans to withdraw 20,000 U.S. troops from Europe and expects European allies to contribute financially to the remaining military presence. Reported by ANSA, Trump aims to deliver this message to European leaders since taking office. A European diplomat noted, “the costs cannot be borne solely by American taxpayers.”

The Pentagon hasn't commented yet. Trump has previously sought lower troop levels in Europe and had ordered cuts during his first term. The U.S. currently maintains around 65,000 troops in Europe, with total forces reaching 100,000 since the Ukraine invasion. Trump's new approach may shift military focus to the Pacific amid growing concerns about China.

Sauce

@ eb5f61d0:24cdd490

No cenário atual do entretenimento online, o Brasil tem visto um crescimento notável de plataformas que oferecem experiências envolventes e seguras para os jogadores. Entre elas, a 59BRL se destaca como uma opção moderna, confiável e completa, proporcionando diversão, praticidade e uma ampla variedade de jogos para todos os perfis de usuários. Com uma interface amigável e suporte dedicado, a 59BRL se tornou referência no segmento de apostas e jogos virtuais.

Conheça a Plataforma 59BRL Desde o primeiro acesso, a plataforma 59BRL impressiona pela sua estrutura bem organizada e visual atraente. Desenvolvida para atender tanto iniciantes quanto jogadores experientes, ela oferece navegação rápida, menus intuitivos e total compatibilidade com dispositivos móveis e computadores. Isso significa que o usuário pode jogar de onde estiver, com total liberdade.

A segurança é outro ponto forte. A 59brlutiliza tecnologias avançadas de criptografia para garantir a proteção dos dados dos usuários, além de contar com um sistema de verificação para evitar fraudes e atividades suspeitas. O ambiente é totalmente transparente, com termos claros e atendimento eficiente.

Diversidade de Jogos para Todos os Gostos Um dos maiores diferenciais da 59BRL é a variedade de jogos disponíveis. A plataforma oferece opções que vão desde os clássicos jogos de mesa até experiências modernas com gráficos 3D e interatividade ao vivo. Entre os jogos mais populares estão:

Roleta Virtual: Uma experiência dinâmica e cheia de emoção, com várias versões para agradar desde os mais conservadores até os mais ousados.

Slots Interativos: Jogos com temas variados, desde aventura e fantasia até cultura pop, que oferecem rodadas bônus e grandes chances de premiação.

Jogos de Cartas: Modalidades como pôquer, blackjack e baccarat ganham espaço com versões modernas e fáceis de jogar, tanto em modo automático quanto com interações ao vivo.

Raspadinhas Digitais: Uma opção prática e divertida para quem quer testar a sorte rapidamente, com prêmios instantâneos e animações envolventes.

Experiência do Jogador: Praticidade e Suporte Total A 59BRL valoriza a experiência de seus usuários em todos os aspectos. O processo de cadastro é simples, pedindo apenas dados básicos e uma confirmação rápida por e-mail ou telefone. Já o sistema de depósito e saque é outro destaque: a plataforma aceita os principais métodos de pagamento, incluindo PIX, boleto bancário e carteiras digitais, com transações ágeis e seguras.

Outro ponto bastante elogiado pelos usuários é o suporte ao cliente. A equipe da 59BRL está disponível 24 horas por dia, todos os dias da semana, através de chat ao vivo e e-mail. As respostas são rápidas, claras e resolutivas, o que proporciona tranquilidade mesmo em situações de dúvida ou dificuldade.

Além disso, a plataforma costuma oferecer promoções e bônus para novos usuários e jogadores frequentes, como rodadas grátis, cashback e programas de fidelidade. Tudo isso é pensado para manter a diversão em alta e recompensar os jogadores mais engajados.

Conclusão A 59BRL é mais do que uma simples plataforma de jogos: é um verdadeiro ambiente de entretenimento digital, pensado para oferecer praticidade, segurança e diversão sem limites. Com uma interface moderna, grande variedade de jogos e suporte de qualidade, ela tem conquistado cada vez mais brasileiros que buscam uma alternativa confiável e empolgante para seu lazer online. Se você ainda não conhece, vale a pena explorar o que a 59BRL tem a oferecer.

@ 6be5cc06:5259daf0

A seguir, veja como instalar e configurar o Privoxy no Pop!_OS.

---

1. Instalar o Tor e o Privoxy

Abra o terminal e execute:

bash sudo apt update sudo apt install tor privoxy

Explicação:

• Tor: Roteia o tráfego pela rede Tor.
• Privoxy: Proxy avançado que intermedia a conexão entre aplicativos e o Tor.

---

2. Configurar o Privoxy

Abra o arquivo de configuração do Privoxy:

bash sudo nano /etc/privoxy/config

Navegue até a última linha (atalho: Ctrl + / depois Ctrl + V para navegar diretamente até a última linha) e insira:

bash forward-socks5 / 127.0.0.1:9050 .

Isso faz com que o Privoxy envie todo o tráfego para o Tor através da porta 9050.

Salve (CTRL + O e Enter) e feche (CTRL + X) o arquivo.

---

3. Iniciar o Tor e o Privoxy

Agora, inicie e habilite os serviços:

bash sudo systemctl start tor sudo systemctl start privoxy sudo systemctl enable tor sudo systemctl enable privoxy

Explicação:

• start: Inicia os serviços.
• enable: Faz com que iniciem automaticamente ao ligar o PC.

---

4. Configurar o Navegador Firefox

Para usar a rede Tor com o Firefox:

1. Abra o Firefox.
2. Acesse Configurações → Configurar conexão.
3. Selecione Configuração manual de proxy.
4. Configure assim:
   • Proxy HTTP: 127.0.0.1
   • Porta: 8118 (porta padrão do Privoxy)
   • Domínio SOCKS (v5): 127.0.0.1
   • Porta: 9050
5. Marque a opção "Usar este proxy também em HTTPS".
6. Clique em OK.

---

5. Verificar a Conexão com o Tor

Abra o navegador e acesse:

text https://check.torproject.org/

Se aparecer a mensagem "Congratulations. This browser is configured to use Tor.", a configuração está correta.

---

Dicas Extras

• Privoxy pode ser ajustado para bloquear anúncios e rastreadores.
• Outros aplicativos também podem ser configurados para usar o Privoxy.