@ b83a28b7:35919450

This article was originally part of the sermon of Plebchain Radio Episode 111 (May 2, 2025) that nostr:nprofile1qyxhwumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmvqyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnvv9hxgqpqtvqc82mv8cezhax5r34n4muc2c4pgjz8kaye2smj032nngg52clq7fgefr and I did with nostr:nprofile1qythwumn8ghj7ct5d3shxtnwdaehgu3wd3skuep0qyt8wumn8ghj7ct4w35zumn0wd68yvfwvdhk6tcqyzx4h2fv3n9r6hrnjtcrjw43t0g0cmmrgvjmg525rc8hexkxc0kd2rhtk62 and nostr:nprofile1qyxhwumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmvqyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnvv9hxgqpq4wxtsrj7g2jugh70pfkzjln43vgn4p7655pgky9j9w9d75u465pqahkzd0 of the nostr:nprofile1qythwumn8ghj7ct5d3shxtnwdaehgu3wd3skuep0qyt8wumn8ghj7etyv4hzumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgtcqyqwfvwrccp4j2xsuuvkwg0y6a20637t6f4cc5zzjkx030dkztt7t5hydajn

Listen to the full episode here:

<<https://fountain.fm/episode/Ln9Ej0zCZ5dEwfo8w2Ho>>

---

Bitcoin has always been a narrative revolution disguised as code. White paper, cypherpunk lore, pizza‑day legends - every block is a paragraph in the world’s most relentless epic. But code alone rarely converts the skeptic; it’s the camp‑fire myth that slips past the prefrontal cortex and shakes hands with the limbic system. People don’t adopt protocols first - they fall in love with protagonists.

Early adopters heard the white‑paper hymn, but most folks need characters first: a pizza‑day dreamer; a mother in a small country, crushed by the cost of remittance; a Warsaw street vendor swapping złoty for sats. When their arcs land, the brain releases a neurochemical OP_RETURN which says, “I belong in this plot.” That’s the sly roundabout orange pill: conviction smuggled inside catharsis.

That’s why, from 22–25 May in Warsaw’s Kinoteka, the Bitcoin Film Fest is loading its reels with rebellion. Each documentary, drama, and animated rabbit‑hole is a stealth wallet, zipping conviction straight into the feels of anyone still clasped within the cold claw of fiat. You come for the plot, you leave checking block heights.

---

Here's the clip of the sermon from the episode:

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzpwp69zm7fewjp0vkp306adnzt7249ytxhz7mq3w5yc629u6er9zsqqsy43fwz8es2wnn65rh0udc05tumdnx5xagvzd88ptncspmesdqhygcrvpf2

@ 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.

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

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

Optimism

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

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

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

Realism

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

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

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

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

The Status Quo

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

Nostr Requires Responsibility

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

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

Future Nostr Security Improvements

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

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

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

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

---

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

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ 88cc134b:5ae99079

content

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzpkygz22lv3pdey6gr7ygmk67wjh24hdvj3t797mm6z0x3ax4erdhqqsdxy48qm3tces0tu90shwltcg20zsprejkahklwftpzyhytcf32tc9sm779

@ 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.

@ 08f96856:ffe59a09

เมื่อพูดถึง Bitcoin Standard หลายคนมักนึกถึงภาพโลกอนาคตที่ทุกคนใช้บิตคอยน์ซื้อกาแฟหรือของใช้ในชีวิตประจำวัน ภาพแบบนั้นดูเหมือนไกลตัวและเป็นไปไม่ได้ในความเป็นจริง หลายคนถึงกับพูดว่า “คงไม่ทันเห็นในช่วงชีวิตนี้หรอก” แต่ในมุมมองของผม Bitcoin Standard อาจไม่ได้เริ่มต้นจากการที่เราจ่ายบิตคอยน์โดยตรงในร้านค้า แต่อาจเริ่มจากบางสิ่งที่เงียบกว่า ลึกกว่า และเกิดขึ้นแล้วในขณะนี้ นั่นคือ การล่มสลายทีละน้อยของระบบเฟียตที่เราใช้กันอยู่

ระบบเงินที่อิงกับอำนาจรัฐกำลังเข้าสู่ช่วงขาลง รัฐบาลทั่วโลกกำลังจมอยู่ในภาระหนี้ระดับประวัติการณ์ แม้แต่ประเทศมหาอำนาจก็เริ่มแสดงสัญญาณของภาวะเสี่ยงผิดนัดชำระหนี้ อัตราเงินเฟ้อกลายเป็นปัญหาเรื้อรังที่ไม่มีท่าทีจะหายไป ธนาคารที่เคยโอนฟรีเริ่มกลับมาคิดค่าธรรมเนียม และประชาชนก็เริ่มรู้สึกถึงการเสื่อมศรัทธาในระบบการเงินดั้งเดิม แม้จะยังพูดกันไม่เต็มเสียงก็ตาม

ในขณะเดียวกัน บิตคอยน์เองก็กำลังพัฒนาแบบเงียบ ๆ เงียบ... แต่ไม่เคยหยุด โดยเฉพาะในระดับ Layer 2 ที่เริ่มแสดงศักยภาพอย่างจริงจัง Lightning Network เป็น Layer 2 ที่เปิดใช้งานมาได้ระยะเวลสหนึ่ง และยังคงมีบทบาทสำคัญที่สุดในระบบนิเวศของบิตคอยน์ มันทำให้การชำระเงินเร็วขึ้น มีต้นทุนต่ำ และไม่ต้องบันทึกทุกธุรกรรมลงบล็อกเชน เครือข่ายนี้กำลังขยายตัวทั้งในแง่ของโหนดและการใช้งานจริงทั่วโลก

ขณะเดียวกัน Layer 2 ทางเลือกอื่นอย่าง Ark Protocol ก็กำลังพัฒนาเพื่อตอบโจทย์ด้านความเป็นส่วนตัวและประสบการณ์ใช้งานที่ง่าย BitVM เปิดแนวทางใหม่ให้บิตคอยน์รองรับ smart contract ได้ในระดับ Turing-complete ซึ่งทำให้เกิดความเป็นไปได้ในกรณีใช้งานอีกมากมาย และเทคโนโลยีที่น่าสนใจอย่าง Taproot Assets, Cashu และ Fedimint ก็ทำให้การออกโทเคนหรือสกุลเงินที่อิงกับบิตคอยน์เป็นจริงได้บนโครงสร้างของบิตคอยน์เอง

เทคโนโลยีเหล่านี้ไม่ใช่การเติบโตแบบปาฏิหาริย์ แต่มันคืบหน้าอย่างต่อเนื่องและมั่นคง และนั่นคือเหตุผลที่มันจะ “อยู่รอด” ได้ในระยะยาว เมื่อฐานของความน่าเชื่อถือไม่ใช่บริษัท รัฐบาล หรือทุน แต่คือสิ่งที่ตรวจสอบได้และเปลี่ยนกฎไม่ได้

แน่นอนว่าบิตคอยน์ต้องแข่งขันกับ stable coin, เงินดิจิทัลของรัฐ และ cryptocurrency อื่น ๆ แต่สิ่งที่ทำให้มันเหนือกว่านั้นไม่ใช่ฟีเจอร์ หากแต่เป็นความทนทาน และความมั่นคงของกฎที่ไม่มีใครเปลี่ยนได้ ไม่มีทีมพัฒนา ไม่มีบริษัท ไม่มีประตูปิด หรือการยึดบัญชี มันยืนอยู่บนคณิตศาสตร์ พลังงาน และเวลา

หลายกรณีใช้งานที่เคยถูกทดลองในโลกคริปโตจะค่อย ๆ เคลื่อนเข้ามาสู่บิตคอยน์ เพราะโครงสร้างของมันแข็งแกร่งกว่า ไม่ต้องการทีมพัฒนาแกนกลาง ไม่ต้องพึ่งกลไกเสี่ยงต่อการผูกขาด และไม่ต้องการ “ความเชื่อใจ” จากใครเลย

Bitcoin Standard ที่ผมพูดถึงจึงไม่ใช่การเปลี่ยนแปลงแบบพลิกหน้ามือเป็นหลังมือ แต่คือการ “เปลี่ยนฐานของระบบ” ทีละชั้น ระบบการเงินใหม่ที่อิงอยู่กับบิตคอยน์กำลังเกิดขึ้นแล้ว มันไม่ใช่โลกที่ทุกคนถือเหรียญบิตคอยน์ แต่มันคือโลกที่คนใช้อาจไม่รู้ตัวด้วยซ้ำว่า “สิ่งที่เขาใช้นั้นอิงอยู่กับบิตคอยน์”

ผู้คนอาจใช้เงินดิจิทัลที่สร้างบน Layer 3 หรือ Layer 4 ผ่านแอป ผ่านแพลตฟอร์ม หรือผ่านสกุลเงินใหม่ที่ดูไม่ต่างจากเดิม แต่เบื้องหลังของระบบจะผูกไว้กับบิตคอยน์

และถ้ามองในเชิงพัฒนาการ บิตคอยน์ก็เหมือนกับอินเทอร์เน็ต ครั้งหนึ่งอินเทอร์เน็ตก็ถูกมองว่าเข้าใจยาก ต้องพิมพ์ http ต้องรู้จัก TCP/IP ต้องตั้ง proxy เอง แต่ปัจจุบันผู้คนใช้งานอินเทอร์เน็ตโดยไม่รู้ว่าเบื้องหลังมีอะไรเลย บิตคอยน์กำลังเดินตามเส้นทางเดียวกัน โปรโตคอลกำลังถอยออกจากสายตา และวันหนึ่งเราจะ “ใช้มัน” โดยไม่ต้องรู้ว่ามันคืออะไร

หากนับจากช่วงเริ่มต้นของอินเทอร์เน็ตในยุค 1990 จนกลายเป็นโครงสร้างหลักของโลกในสองทศวรรษ เส้นเวลาของบิตคอยน์ก็กำลังเดินตามรอยเท้าของอินเทอร์เน็ต และถ้าเราเชื่อว่าวัฏจักรของเทคโนโลยีมีจังหวะของมันเอง เราก็จะรู้ว่า Bitcoin Standard นั้นไม่ใช่เรื่องของอนาคตไกลโพ้น แต่มันเกิดขึ้นแล้ว

siamstr

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Abstract

This document proposes a novel architecture that decouples the peer-to-peer (P2P) communication layer from the Bitcoin protocol and replaces or augments it with the Nostr protocol. The goal is to improve censorship resistance, performance, modularity, and maintainability by migrating transaction propagation and block distribution to the Nostr relay network.

Introduction

Bitcoin’s current architecture relies heavily on its P2P network to propagate transactions and blocks. While robust, it has limitations in terms of flexibility, scalability, and censorship resistance in certain environments. Nostr, a decentralized event-publishing protocol, offers a multi-star topology and a censorship-resistant infrastructure for message relay.

This proposal outlines how Bitcoin communication could be ported to Nostr while maintaining consensus and verification through standard Bitcoin clients.

Motivation

• Enhanced Censorship Resistance: Nostr’s architecture enables better relay redundancy and obfuscation of transaction origin.
• Simplified Lightweight Nodes: Removing the full P2P stack allows for lightweight nodes that only verify blockchain data and communicate over Nostr.
• Architectural Modularity: Clean separation between validation and communication enables easier auditing, upgrades, and parallel innovation.
• Faster Propagation: Nostr’s multi-star network may provide faster propagation of transactions and blocks compared to the mesh-like Bitcoin P2P network.

Architecture Overview

Components

1. Bitcoin Minimal Node (BMN):

   • Verifies blockchain and block validity.
   • Maintains UTXO set and handles mempool logic.
   • Connects to Nostr relays instead of P2P Bitcoin peers.

2. Bridge Node:

   • Bridges Bitcoin P2P traffic to and from Nostr relays.
   • Posts new transactions and blocks to Nostr.
   • Downloads mempool content and block headers from Nostr.

3. Nostr Relays:

   • Accept Bitcoin-specific event kinds (transactions and blocks).
   • Store mempool entries and block messages.
   • Optionally broadcast fee estimation summaries and tipsets.

Event Format

Proposed reserved Nostr kind numbers for Bitcoin content (NIP/BIP TBD):

| Nostr Kind | Purpose | |------------|------------------------| | 210000 | Bitcoin Transaction | | 210001 | Bitcoin Block Header | | 210002 | Bitcoin Block | | 210003 | Mempool Fee Estimates | | 210004 | Filter/UTXO summary |

Transaction Lifecycle

1. Wallet creates a Bitcoin transaction.
2. Wallet sends it to a set of configured Nostr relays.
3. Relays accept and cache the transaction (based on fee policies).
4. Mining nodes or bridge nodes fetch mempool contents from Nostr.
5. Once mined, a block is submitted over Nostr.
6. Nodes confirm inclusion and update their UTXO set.

Security Considerations

• Sybil Resistance: Consensus remains based on proof-of-work. The communication path (Nostr) is not involved in consensus.
• Relay Discoverability: Optionally bootstrap via DNS, Bitcoin P2P, or signed relay lists.
• Spam Protection: Relay-side policy, rate limiting, proof-of-work challenges, or Lightning payments.
• Block Authenticity: Nodes must verify all received blocks and reject invalid chains.

Compatibility and Migration

• Fully compatible with current Bitcoin consensus rules.
• Bridge nodes preserve interoperability with legacy full nodes.
• Nodes can run in hybrid mode, fetching from both P2P and Nostr.

Future Work

• Integration with watch-only wallets and SPV clients using verified headers via Nostr.
• Use of Nostr’s social graph for partial trust assumptions and relay reputation.
• Dynamic relay discovery using Nostr itself (relay list events).

Conclusion

This proposal lays out a new architecture for Bitcoin communication using Nostr to replace or augment the P2P network. This improves decentralization, censorship resistance, modularity, and speed, while preserving consensus integrity. It encourages innovation by enabling smaller, purpose-built Bitcoin nodes and offloading networking complexity.

---

This document may become both a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP-XXX) and a Nostr Improvement Proposal (NIP-XXX). Event kind range reserved: 210000–219999.

@ a296b972:e5a7a2e8

Die Natur strebt nach einem Gleichgewicht durch Ausgleich von nicht zueinander passenden Verhältnissen. Die Gesellschaft ist ein sozialer Organismus, der ebenso nach Ausgleich und einer Stimmigkeit der Verhältnisse strebt. Das sind Naturgesetze, die keine Regierung auf Dauer imstande ist, außer Kraft zu setzen.

Weder oppositionelle Kräfte, noch Kräfte innerhalb des Souveräns haben die Absicht, die Demokratie abzuschaffen. Es geht vielmehr darum, sie wieder in der Form herzustellen, in der sie ihren Namen auch verdient. Dazu gehört, dass alle Macht vom Volke ausgeht, was derzeit nicht der Fall ist.

Ein durch den Staat vorgegebenes Bildungssystem hat Menschen vor allem zu gefügigen Rädchen im Wirtschaftsgetriebe und nicht zu alles kritisch hinterfragenden Bürgern erzogen, die ständig der Regierung auf die Finger schauen.

Wenn die Bürger, der Souverän, eine Regierung immer mehr „machen lässt“ und glaubt, es sei genug, alle 4 Jahre sein Wahl-Kreuzchen zu machen, entfernt er sich immer mehr von der Kontrolle der durch ihn beauftragten Vertreter, und diese entfernen sich so immer mehr vom Alltag der Bürger.

Zu wenig Gegenrede des Souveräns führt zu immer mehr Übermut der Regierung, die sich immer sicherer wird, mit jedem Unsinn durchzukommen.

Ist dann die Schmerzgrenze des Souveräns erreicht, beginnt er, die Opposition zu stärken. In einer funktionierenden Demokratie würde das dazu führen, dass die Opposition die Regierung bildet, die dann die Chance hat, Fehlentwicklungen abzustellen und ausgleichend tätig zu werden.

Derzeit findet sowohl beim Souverän, als auch bei den Parteien, die bisher Regierungen zusammengestellt haben, ein Erwachen statt.

Da die ehemaligen Volks-Parteien unbedingt an der Macht festhalten wollen, seitens des Souveräns auf zu wenig Widerstand stoßen, wird mit der Macht, einer Demokratie nicht würdig, umgegangen. Dem sollte dringend Einhalt geboten werden.

Der Missbrauch äußert sich in brutalen (Lieblingswort der Ex-Außen-Dings) Einschränkungen der Grundrechte (Corona-Zeit), in der Einschränkung der Meinungsfreiheit (D S A), in Tendenzen zunehmender Kontrolle und Überwachung, Förderung von Denunzianten-Portalen, Kapern des öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunks, Förderung von NGOs, die als Sprechpuppen genutzt werden. Besetzt von Menschen, die entweder tatsächlich überzeugt sind von dem, was sie ideologisch vertreten, oder die über Charaktereigenschaften verfügen, die noch sehr viel Optimierungspotenzial in sich bergen. Gepaart mit fachlicher Inkompetenz ist das ein gefährlicher Cocktail.

Erst jüngst sogar durch Ausreiseverbote, wie in einem Staat, mit dem man das derzeitige Deutschland nicht vergleichen darf. So groß ist inzwischen schon die Angst geworden, die Kontrolle über die Macht zu verlieren. Alles, was an Kritik geäußert werden will, gilt als Delegitimierung des Staates. Auf keinen Fall darf sie im Ausland geäußert werden, damit es ja nichts davon mitbekommt, was in Deutschland abgeht. Das ist so wie ein Kind, dass sich die Hände vor die Augen hält und meint, es würde nicht gesehen werden.

Die Regierung ist übergriffig geworden. Je lauter sie Demokratie schreit, desto totalitärer wird sie.

Durch fehlende Kontrolle des Souveräns sind charakterlich und fachlich ungeeignete Personen in die Politik gelangt, deren ständige Überforderung dazu führt, dass sich deren Entscheidungen immer weiter von der Lebensrealität des Souveräns entfernen.

Bislang haben rund 25% des Souveräns diese Schieflage erkannt und wollen einer Opposition, die so stark geworden ist, weil die Alt-Parteien über Jahre Fehler an Fehler aneinandergereiht haben, die Gelegenheit geben, diese Fehler zu beheben und auszugleichen. Offen bleibt die Frage, ob sie dazu wirklich in der Lage sind, oder ob die Gefahr besteht, dass sie von einem möglicherweise grundsätzlich kranken System vereinnahmt werden.

Da es seitens der Alt-Parteien keine Einsicht gibt, dass sie in der Regierung nicht mehr den Willen des Souveräns vertreten, derzeit auch besonders gut zu sehen an dem Friedenswillen des Souveräns im Vergleich zur Kriegstreiberei der Regierung, bleibt nur, der Opposition zumindest die Chance zu geben, es besser zu machen und den Willen des Souveräns umzusetzen. Gelänge das nicht, ist die Demokratie, wie wir sie bislang verstanden haben, gescheitert.

Eine daraus resultierende Staatsform stünde dem Freiheitsgedanken diametral gegenüber.

Die Verteidigung von Unseredemokratie seitens der Regierung entlarvt das eigentliche, was damit gemeint ist, nämlich die Erhaltung der eigenen Macht, verbunden mit allen Vorzügen und Privilegien. Sie richtet sich gegen das eigene Volk, das mit einer ganz normal funktionierenden Demokratie schon sehr zufrieden wäre. Unseredemokratie ist nicht unsere Demokratie!

In Anlehnung an die berühmt gewordene Lüge Walter Ulbrichs: „Niemand hat die Absicht eine Mauer zu errichten“, hat derzeit niemand die Absicht, die sogenannte Brandmauer einzureißen, bzw. sie so lange stehen zu lassen, wie es eben geht, um die herrschenden Machtverhältnisse so lange wie möglich aufrechtzuerhalten. Die Geschichte hat jedoch zum Glück gezeigt, dass selbst eine Berliner Mauer nicht ewig hält.

Wie sich aus dem absurd-lächerlichen Gutachten, einer der Regierung gegenüber weisungsgebundenen Behörde herausgestellt hat, gibt es keinerlei Anzeichen dafür, dass die Opposition die demokratische Grundordnung weder gefährden noch beseitigen will.

Da die ehemaligen Volksparteien augenscheinlich nicht in der Lage sind, politische, wirtschaftliche und gesellschaftliche Verhältnisse zum Wohle des Deutschen Volkes herzustellen, ist der demokratische Weg, die Opposition hierzu zu ermächtigen.

Wird das weiterhin verhindert, wird der Unmut des Souveräns weiter zunehmen, und spätestens, wenn die zunehmenden Schikanen die Schmerzgrenze überschritten haben, wird der Souverän nach geeigneten Mitteln und Möglichkeiten suchen, diese Schieflage zu beheben und auszugleichen.

Derzeit stehen sich ein in der Zahl und im Befinden zunehmend unzufrieden werdender Souverän und eine immer absurdere Entscheidungen treffende Regierung im lebendigen Tauziehen um Interessen gegenüber. Je mehr Bockmist die Alt-Parteien bauen, um so stärker wird die Opposition.

Aufgrund der jetzt schon vorhandenen Anzahl wacher Bürger und der Anzahl der in der Politik Unfähigen, ist eigentlich schon jetzt klar, wer in diesem Tauziehen die größere Kraft hat und wer das „Spiel“ nach demokratischen Regeln am Ende gewinnen wird. Das ist eindeutig der Souverän. Verliert er, wider Erwarten, verliert auch die Demokratie.

Dem Souverän fehlt nur noch ein wenig mehr Selbstvertrauen und ein Bewusstsein für die Macht, über die er tatsächlich verfügt.

Je mehr absurde Entscheidungen seitens der Regierung getroffen werden, und man arbeitet ja sehr fleißig daran, besonders, wenn es um Frieden geht, desto stärker wird das Selbstbewusstsein des Souveräns werden und ein natürlicher, friedlicher Ausgleich der Schieflage kann stattfinden. Der Start der neuen Regierung war jedenfalls schon einmal sehr "Keine-4-Jahre".

Wer sich in die steile und eisglatte Abfahrtspiste Deutschlands vertiefen will, hier eine Rezension zu dem Buch „Im Taumel des Niedergangs“ von dem von mir sehr geschätzten und akribisch arbeitenden Uwe Froschauer:

https://www.manova.news/artikel/abwarts

oder

https://wassersaege.com/blogbeitraege/abwaerts-rezension-des-buches-im-taumel-des-niedergangs-von-uwe-froschauer/

Dieser Artikel wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben

* *

(Bild von pixabay)

@ 91bea5cd:1df4451c

Contexto e início

O precursor direto do avivamento foi William J. Seymour, um pregador afro-americano filho de ex-escravos, influenciado pelos ensinamentos de Charles Parham, que pregava o "batismo no Espírito Santo" com evidência do falar em línguas.

Em 1906, Seymour foi convidado para pregar em uma igreja em Los Angeles. Após ser rejeitado por alguns por sua pregação sobre o batismo com o Espírito Santo, ele começou a liderar reuniões de oração na casa da família Asberry. Em abril de 1906, durante uma dessas reuniões, os participantes começaram a experimentar manifestações intensas do Espírito Santo, incluindo glossolalia (falar em línguas), curas e profecias.

A Rua Azusa

Logo, o número de participantes cresceu tanto que foi necessário mudar para um antigo prédio da Igreja Metodista Africana Episcopal, no número 312 da Rua Azusa, no centro de Los Angeles. Esse local se tornou o epicentro do avivamento.

Características marcantes

Cultos espontâneos e fervorosos, muitas vezes sem ordem pré-definida.

Diversidade étnica e social: negros, brancos, latinos, asiáticos, ricos e pobres adoravam juntos — algo radical para os padrões da época.

Ênfase nas manifestações espirituais, como línguas, curas, visões e profecias.

Igualdade de gênero e raça no ministério, com mulheres e homens de diversas origens pregando e liderando.

Impacto

O avivamento da Rua Azusa marcou o nascimento e expansão global do pentecostalismo, hoje uma das maiores forças do cristianismo mundial. Missionários saíram de Azusa para várias partes do mundo, levando a mensagem pentecostal. Movimentos como as Assembleias de Deus e Igreja do Evangelho Quadrangular têm raízes nesse avivamento.

Tensão e Interpretação entre Reformistas e Pentecostalistas

Evangelhos e Atos

João Batista profetiza: “Ele vos batizará com o Espírito Santo e com fogo” (Mateus 3:11).

Em Atos 2, no Pentecostes, os discípulos falam em línguas e recebem poder (Atos 1:8; 2:4).

Outros episódios: Atos 10 (Casa de Cornélio) e Atos 19 (Éfeso).

Cartas Paulinas

Paulo não relaciona diretamente o “batismo com o Espírito” ao falar em línguas. Em 1 Coríntios 12:13 ele diz: “Pois em um só Espírito todos nós fomos batizados em um corpo”.

A glossolalia aparece como um dom entre outros, mas não como evidência obrigatória (1 Coríntios 12:30).

Tensão

Pentecostais veem o batismo com o Espírito como uma segunda experiência após a conversão, evidenciada por línguas. Reformados geralmente interpretam que o batismo com o Espírito ocorre na conversão e que línguas não são obrigatórias ou cessaram com os apóstolos.

Reformadores e o Batismo com o Espírito Santo

Martinho Lutero, João Calvino e outros reformadores não falavam em línguas nem davam ênfase a experiências carismáticas.

Cessacionismo: Doutrina comum entre reformados que diz que os dons sobrenaturais (línguas, profecias, curas) cessaram com a era apostólica.

Continuação (posição pentecostal): Os dons continuam hoje.

Filmes / Documentários

“Azusa Street: The Origins of Pentecostalism” (2006) – Documentário com imagens históricas e entrevistas.

“Wesley” (2009) – Biografia de John Wesley, precursor do metodismo e influência indireta no pentecostalismo.

“The Cross and the Switchblade” (1970) – História de David Wilkerson e a conversão de Nicky Cruz; enfatiza a obra do Espírito.

Série “God in America” (PBS) – Episódio sobre o pentecostalismo (não só Azusa, mas seu impacto cultural).

@ e4950c93:1b99eccd

Contenu à venir.

En savoir plus sur Wikipedia

@ 56f27915:5fee3024

Buchbeschreibung:\ \ Dieses Buch ist ein Appell. 

Es richtet sich nicht nur an den Kopf des Lesers, sondern auch an seinen Willen.\ \ Es ist ein Appell an Volk und Leser, die Lenkung der Geschicke direkt selbst in die Hand zu nehmen. Nicht nur: "Was ist?" sondern vor allem: "Was können wir tun?" ist in diesem Buch die große Frage.\ \ Mit dem Blick auf diese Frage wird das Grundgesetz betrachtet und gezeigt, dass es absolut noch nicht der gediegene Glockenguss ist, als der es uns von "oben" immer vorgestellt wurde, sondern dass in ihm auch extrem gegenläufige, bemessen an seinen freiheitlich-demokratischen Idealen sogar als extrem verfassungs-widrig zu bezeichnende Tendenzen wirken, die heute in seine Zerstörung führen.\ \ Vor allem die unselige Übermacht des Parteienwesens und die damit verbundene systemische Entmündigung des Souveräns, des Volkes, ist das Ergebnis dieser verfassungs-widrigen Tendenzen.\ \ Es wird aber auch gezeigt, wo in den Idealen des Grundgesetzes und in den Entscheidungen der Mütter und Väter dieses Grundgesetzes die Ansatzpunkte liegen, durch die der Zerstörung des Grundgesetzes wirkungsvoll begegnet werden kann. Und diese Ansatzpunkte werden im Buch allseits zur Entfaltung gebracht.\ \ "Wer die Demokratie verteidigen will, der muss sie weiter entwickeln." Im Sinne dieses Wortes wird dem Leser ein praktikabler Weg gewiesen, auf dem er unmittelbar helfen kann, das Grundgesetz den wirkenden Zerstörungskräften zu entwinden, durch Einrichtung der direkten Bürgerbeteiligung an den entscheidenden Fragen unserer Republik die Position des Souveräns gegenüber der Parteienmacht zu stärken, Freiheitsrechte, Demokratie und Rechtsstaat auf eine wesentlich höhere Stufe als bisher zu bringen und sich durch eine verfassungs-klärende Versammlung seine Basis selbst und neu zu geben.

Buch bestellen: https://great-reset-von-unten.de/

\ Und nicht vergessen, abzustimmen! Die Zeit ist reif. Packen wir's an.\  

@ 2f29aa33:38ac6f13

The Myth and the Magic

Picture this: a group of investors, huddled around a glowing computer screen, nervously watching Bitcoin’s price. Suddenly, someone produces a stick-no ordinary stick, but a magical one. With a mischievous grin, they poke the Bitcoin. The price leaps upward. Cheers erupt. The legend of the Bitcoin stick is born.

But why does poking Bitcoin with a stick make the price go up? Why does it only work for a lucky few? And what does the data say about this mysterious phenomenon? Let’s dig in, laugh a little, and maybe learn the secret to market-moving magic.

The Statistical Side of Stick-Poking

Bitcoin’s Price: The Wild Ride

Bitcoin’s price is famous for its unpredictability. In the past year, it’s soared, dipped, and soared again, sometimes gaining more than 50% in just a few months. On a good day, billions of dollars flow through Bitcoin trades, and the price can jump thousands in a matter of hours. Clearly, something is making this happen-and it’s not just spreadsheets and financial news.

What Actually Moves the Price?

• Scarcity: Only 21 million Bitcoins will ever exist. When more people want in, the price jumps.

• Big News: Announcements, rumors, and meme-worthy moments can send the price flying.

• FOMO: When people see Bitcoin rising, they rush to buy, pushing it even higher.

• Liquidations: When traders betting against Bitcoin get squeezed, it triggers a chain reaction of buying.

But let’s be honest: none of this is as fun as poking Bitcoin with a stick.

---

The Magical Stick: Not Your Average Twig

Why Not Every Stick Works

You can’t just grab any old branch and expect Bitcoin to dance. The magical stick is a rare artifact, forged in the fires of internet memes and blessed by the spirit of Satoshi. Only a chosen few possess it-and when they poke, the market listens.

Signs You Have the Magical Stick

• When you poke, Bitcoin’s price immediately jumps a few percent.

• Your stick glows with meme energy and possibly sparkles with digital dust.

• You have a knack for timing your poke right after a big event, like a halving or a celebrity tweet.

• Your stick is rumored to have been whittled from the original blockchain itself.

Why Most Sticks Fail

• No Meme Power: If your stick isn’t funny, Bitcoin ignores you.

• Bad Timing: Poking during a bear market just annoys the blockchain.

• Not Enough Hype: If the bitcoin community isn’t watching, your poke is just a poke.

• Lack of Magic: Some sticks are just sticks. Sad, but true.

---

The Data: When the Stick Strikes

Let’s look at some numbers:

• In the last month, Bitcoin’s price jumped over 20% right after a flurry of memes and stick-poking jokes.

• Over the past year, every major price surge was accompanied by a wave of internet hype, stick memes, or wild speculation.

• In the past five years, Bitcoin’s biggest leaps always seemed to follow some kind of magical event-whether a halving, a viral tweet, or a mysterious poke.

Coincidence? Maybe. But the pattern is clear: the stick works-at least when it’s magical.

---

The Role of Memes, Magic, and Mayhem

Bitcoin’s price is like a cat: unpredictable, easily startled, and sometimes it just wants to be left alone. But when the right meme pops up, or the right stick pokes at just the right time, the price can leap in ways that defy logic.

The bitcoin community knows this. That’s why, when Bitcoin’s stuck in a rut, you’ll see a flood of stick memes, GIFs, and magical thinking. Sometimes, it actually works.

---

The Secret’s in the Stick (and the Laughs)

So, does poking Bitcoin with a stick really make the price go up? If your stick is magical-blessed by memes, timed perfectly, and watched by millions-absolutely. The statistics show that hype, humor, and a little bit of luck can move markets as much as any financial report.

Next time you see Bitcoin stalling, don’t just sit there. Grab your stick, channel your inner meme wizard, and give it a poke. Who knows? You might just be the next legend in the world of bitcoin magic.

And if your stick doesn’t work, don’t worry. Sometimes, the real magic is in the laughter along the way.

-aco

@block height: 897,104

---

---

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

If you're an engineer stepping into the Bitcoin space from the broader crypto ecosystem, you're probably carrying a mental model shaped by speed, flexibility, and rapid innovation. That makes sense—most blockchain platforms pride themselves on throughput, programmability, and dev agility.

But Bitcoin operates from a different set of first principles. It’s not competing to be the fastest network or the most expressive smart contract platform. It’s aiming to be the most credible, neutral, and globally accessible value layer in human history.

Here’s why that matters—and why Bitcoin is not just an alternative crypto asset, but a structural necessity in the global financial system.

1. Bitcoin Fixes the Triffin Dilemma—Not With Policy, But Protocol

The Triffin Dilemma shows us that any country issuing the global reserve currency must run persistent deficits to supply that currency to the world. That’s not a flaw of bad leadership—it’s an inherent contradiction. The U.S. must debase its own monetary integrity to meet global dollar demand. That’s a self-terminating system.

Bitcoin sidesteps this entirely by being:

• Non-sovereign – no single nation owns it
• Hard-capped – no central authority can inflate it
• Verifiable and neutral – anyone with a full node can enforce the rules

In other words, Bitcoin turns global liquidity into an engineering problem, not a political one. No other system, fiat or crypto, has achieved that.

2. Bitcoin’s “Ossification” Is Intentional—and It's a Feature

From the outside, Bitcoin development may look sluggish. Features are slow to roll out. Code changes are conservative. Consensus rules are treated as sacred.

That’s the point.

When you’re building the global monetary base layer, stability is not a weakness. It’s a prerequisite. Every other financial instrument, app, or protocol that builds on Bitcoin depends on one thing: assurance that the base layer won’t change underneath them without extreme scrutiny.

So-called “ossification” is just another term for predictability and integrity. And when the market does demand change (SegWit, Taproot), Bitcoin’s soft-fork governance process has proven capable of deploying it safely—without coercive central control.

3. Layered Architecture: Throughput Is Not a Base Layer Concern

You don’t scale settlement at the base layer. You build layered systems. Just as TCP/IP doesn't need to carry YouTube traffic directly, Bitcoin doesn’t need to process every microtransaction.

Instead, it anchors:

• Lightning (fast payments)
• Fedimint (community custody)
• Ark (privacy + UTXO compression)
• Statechains, sidechains, and covenants (coming evolution)

All of these inherit Bitcoin’s security and scarcity, while handling volume off-chain, in ways that maintain auditability and self-custody.

4. Universal Assayability Requires Minimalism at the Base Layer

A core design constraint of Bitcoin is that any participant, anywhere in the world, must be able to independently verify the validity of every transaction and block—past and present—without needing permission or relying on third parties.

This property is called assayability—the ability to “test” or verify the authenticity and integrity of received bitcoin, much like verifying the weight and purity of a gold coin.

To preserve this:

• The base layer must remain resource-light, so running a full node stays accessible on commodity hardware.
• Block sizes must remain small enough to prevent centralization of verification.
• Historical data must remain consistent and tamper-evident, enabling proof chains across time and jurisdiction.

Any base layer that scales by increasing throughput or complexity undermines this fundamental guarantee, making the network more dependent on trust and surveillance infrastructure.

Bitcoin prioritizes global verifiability over throughput—because trustless money requires that every user can check the money they receive.

5. Governance: Not Captured, Just Resistant to Coercion

The current controversy around OP_RETURN and proposals to limit inscriptions is instructive. Some prominent devs have advocated for changes to block content filtering. Others see it as overreach.

Here's what matters:

• No single dev, or team, can force changes into the network. Period.
• Bitcoin Core is not “the source of truth.” It’s one implementation. If it deviates from market consensus, it gets forked, sidelined, or replaced.
• The economic majority—miners, users, businesses—enforce Bitcoin’s rules, not GitHub maintainers.

In fact, recent community resistance to perceived Core overreach only reinforces Bitcoin’s resilience. Engineers who posture with narcissistic certainty, dismiss dissent, or attempt to capture influence are routinely neutralized by the market’s refusal to upgrade or adopt forks that undermine neutrality or openness.

This is governance via credible neutrality and negative feedback loops. Power doesn’t accumulate in one place. It’s constantly checked by the network’s distributed incentives.

6. Bitcoin Is Still in Its Infancy—And That’s a Good Thing

You’re not too late. The ecosystem around Bitcoin—especially L2 protocols, privacy tools, custody innovation, and zero-knowledge integrations—is just beginning.

If you're an engineer looking for:

• Systems with global scale constraints
• Architectures that optimize for integrity, not speed
• Consensus mechanisms that resist coercion
• A base layer with predictable monetary policy

Then Bitcoin is where serious systems engineers go when they’ve outgrown crypto theater.

Take-away

Under realistic, market-aware assumptions—where:

• Bitcoin’s ossification is seen as a stability feature, not inertia,
• Market forces can and do demand and implement change via tested, non-coercive mechanisms,
• Proof-of-work is recognized as the only consensus mechanism resistant to fiat capture,
• Wealth concentration is understood as a temporary distribution effect during early monetization,
• Low base layer throughput is a deliberate design constraint to preserve verifiability and neutrality,
• And innovation is layered by design, with the base chain providing integrity, not complexity...

Then Bitcoin is not a fragile or inflexible system—it is a deliberately minimal, modular, and resilient protocol.

Its governance is not leaderless chaos; it's a negative-feedback structure that minimizes the power of individuals or institutions to coerce change. The very fact that proposals—like controversial OP_RETURN restrictions—can be resisted, forked around, or ignored by the market without breaking the system is proof of decentralized control, not dysfunction.

Bitcoin is an adversarially robust monetary foundation. Its value lies not in how fast it changes, but in how reliably it doesn't—unless change is forced by real, bottom-up demand and implemented through consensus-tested soft forks.

In this framing, Bitcoin isn't a slower crypto. It's the engineering benchmark for systems that must endure, not entertain.

Final Word

Bitcoin isn’t moving slowly because it’s dying. It’s moving carefully because it’s winning. It’s not an app platform or a sandbox. It’s a protocol layer for the future of money.

If you're here because you want to help build that future, you’re in the right place.

nostr:nevent1qqswr7sla434duatjp4m89grvs3zanxug05pzj04asxmv4rngvyv04sppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qgs9tc6ruevfqu7nzt72kvq8te95dqfkndj5t8hlx6n79lj03q9v6xcrqsqqqqqp0n8wc2

nostr:nevent1qqsd5hfkqgskpjjq5zlfyyv9nmmela5q67tgu9640v7r8t828u73rdqpr4mhxue69uhkymmnw3ezucnfw33k76tww3ux76m09e3k7mf0qgsvr6dt8ft292mv5jlt7382vje0mfq2ccc3azrt4p45v5sknj6kkscrqsqqqqqp02vjk5

nostr:nevent1qqstrszamvffh72wr20euhrwa0fhzd3hhpedm30ys4ct8dpelwz3nuqpr4mhxue69uhkymmnw3ezucnfw33k76tww3ux76m09e3k7mf0qgs8a474cw4lqmapcq8hr7res4nknar2ey34fsffk0k42cjsdyn7yqqrqsqqqqqpnn3znl

@ cae03c48:2a7d6671

Bitcoin Magazine

Ben Allen Receives Maelstrom Bitcoin Developer Grant to Advance Payjoin Tech

Ben Allen has been named the third recipient of the Maelstrom Bitcoin Developer Grant, the family office of Arthur Hayes announced in a recent press release sent to Bitcoin Magazine. Over the next year, Allen will focus on enhancing the Payjoin Dev Kit project, a privacy-focused Bitcoin transaction tool designed to improve user anonymity and network scalability.

Payjoin, first introduced in 2019 by Nicolas Dorier in BIP 78, allows both the sender and receiver to contribute inputs to a single Bitcoin transaction. This disrupts common assumptions used by financial surveillance firms, namely the idea that multiple transaction inputs must come from a single entity. By breaking this assumption, even limited adoption of Payjoin can bolster privacy across the Bitcoin network.

“Maelstrom would like to congratulate Ben Allen on this grant,” said Arthur Hayes, Chief Investment Officer of Maelstrom. “The great thing about Payjoin, is that if only a small amount of adoption is achieved, it breaks a key assumption used by financial surveillance companies. The assumption they have is that if a Bitcoin transaction has multiple inputs, all the inputs must all belong to the same entity. Therefore, Payjoin adoption improves the privacy of even the people who don’t use it. We are excited to support Ben Allen’s work on open-source tools and software to increase Payjoin adoption.” 

Allen, who will be working alongside Dan Gould, aims to expand the implementation of Payjoin so it can be integrated into more Bitcoin wallets. He acknowledged the technical complexities of the project—including the requirement for receivers to be online—but expressed optimism about overcoming these challenges.

“I’m deeply grateful to Arthur Hayes and Maelstrom for generously providing me with this grant to support my work on the Payjoin Dev Kit project,” said Allen. “With this funding, I can dedicate myself full-time to enhancing the Payjoin implementation, improving testing, and ensuring that the dev kit remains robust, well-documented, and maintainable for the future.”

Allen also emphasized the broader mission of his work: “Improving privacy for bitcoin is an area where continued improvement allows for a better experience by empowering users to control their financial data and foster greater peace of mind when using bitcoin day to day. This is an exciting opportunity to contribute to Bitcoin’s privacy and scalability, and I’m looking forward to continuing to collaborate with the community to make Payjoin more widely adopted.”

Maelstrom, which is focused on supporting digital asset infrastructure, is led by Arthur Hayes, co-founder of BitMEX. Through grants like this one, the firm is investing in the foundational tools that promote a more private, scalable, and decentralized Bitcoin ecosystem.

This post Ben Allen Receives Maelstrom Bitcoin Developer Grant to Advance Payjoin Tech first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Jenna Montgomery.

@ cae03c48:2a7d6671

Bitcoin Magazine

Proof of Reserves Should Be the Standard for Bitcoin Treasury Companies

“The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that’s required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve.”
— Satoshi Nakamoto (2009)

---

Bitcoin was created to eliminate the need for trusted intermediaries. It replaced opaque, permissioned systems with transparency, auditability, and decentralized verification. The ethos was clear from day one: don’t trust—verify.

And yet, many of the institutions now holding Bitcoin—custodians, exchanges, ETFs, even public companies—continue to rely on trust-based assumptions, the very problem Bitcoin was designed to solve.

For Bitcoin treasury companies, this contradiction is especially glaring. These are firms that claim to operate on a Bitcoin standard—yet without verifiable Proof of Reserves (PoR), there’s no way for shareholders to know whether the Bitcoin is actually there.

The Problem: Unproven Bitcoin Is Just Another IOU

Bitcoin is designed to be verifiable—but most corporate disclosures aren’t. When companies report BTC holdings without public wallet visibility or on-chain proof, investors are left to trust balance sheets, auditors, and custodians.

That opens the door to systemic risks:

• Rehypothecation: BTC pledged or lent behind the scenes
• Custodial failure: Centralized services operating without 1:1 backing
• “Paper Bitcoin”: Multiple claims on the same BTC, echoing legacy financial opacity

The mere presence of Bitcoin on a balance sheet is not a guarantee. Without verification, it’s no different than a fiat-denominated claim—an IOU dressed up in BTC terms.

What We Learned from Gold: The Paper Problem

Bitcoin is not the first hard asset to face this challenge. The gold market offers a cautionary tale.

For decades, gold investors have dealt with “paper gold” systems—unallocated accounts, synthetic ETFs, and derivatives with little or no linkage to actual metal. These claims often outnumber real reserves many times over, leading to widespread suspicion of price distortion and systemic misrepresentation.

Most gold investors don’t own gold—they own a claim to gold. And they have no way to prove it.

Bitcoin gives us the tools to break this cycle. But only if companies choose to use them.

Bitcoin Is Built for Proof—and Companies Should Use It

Unlike legacy assets, Bitcoin is designed to make proof of ownership and solvency a native function of the asset itself. Through public key cryptography, on-chain auditability, and permissionless transparency, Bitcoin enables real-time, trust-minimized verification.

This isn’t just a technical capability—it’s a governance feature. Bitcoin allows companies to demonstrate, cryptographically and without intermediaries, that their reserves exist, are intact, and are unencumbered. No bank statements. No opaque custodial claims. Just data, on-chain.

That’s a radical shift—and it’s one that Bitcoin treasury companies are uniquely positioned to take advantage of. In doing so, they can reduce audit complexity, strengthen shareholder communication, and align their internal capital practices with the trustless architecture of the asset they’re holding.

And it’s already happening. Metaplanet, Premiere Member of Bitcoin For Corporations, publicly discloses its BTC reserve addresses and transaction history. Anyone in the world—including shareholders, analysts, and regulators—can independently verify the existence and movement of their treasury. That’s not just compliance. That’s Bitcoin, applied. View the snapshot of Metaplanet’s proof of reserves dashboard below.

Public Companies Face the Greatest Responsibility

Public companies don’t operate in a vacuum. Their disclosures shape market perception, influence investor behavior, and—especially when Bitcoin is involved—serve as a proxy for the maturity of the asset class itself.

When a publicly traded company holds Bitcoin but offers no visibility into how that Bitcoin is held or verified, it exposes itself to multiple levels of risk: legal, reputational, operational, and strategic. It undermines trust at the very moment it claims to be embracing a trustless system.

More importantly, public companies send signals. Whether they like it or not, they become de facto representatives of the Bitcoin strategy they’ve adopted. Their behavior becomes part of the playbook for others considering similar moves.

That’s why the responsibility is higher. Transparency isn’t optional for companies who lead with Bitcoin. It’s a duty. And companies that choose opacity not only take on unnecessary risk—they weaken the credibility of the entire movement.e.

What Proof of Reserves Should Actually Include

For Proof of Reserves to have real integrity, it must go beyond vague references to “custody partners” or internal assurance statements. The key is verifiability—independent, data-driven, and actionable by any shareholder or auditor.

At a minimum, Bitcoin treasury companies should provide:

• Custody model clarity: Is the company using self-custody, shared multisig, or third-party solutions? Who controls the keys, and under what governance?
• On-chain transparency: Whether through view-only wallet addresses or cryptographic attestations (like Merkle tree proofs), companies must make it possible to verify balances against public disclosures.
• Encumbrance disclosure: Reserves that are pledged, lent out, or locked in yield strategies should be disclosed clearly, with timelines and risk parameters attached.
• Routine updates: Proof should be refreshed regularly—not once per year in an audit footnote, but as part of ongoing financial communication.
• Reconciliation framework: Companies should explain how on-chain data maps to reported BTC NAV in filings or investor materials.

For boards and CFOs, this doesn’t need to introduce operational risk. Tools already exist—xpub view-only wallets, custody APIs, third-party validators—to provide assurance without compromising security. The obstacle isn’t capability. It’s willingness.

Setting the Industry Benchmark: Where Bitcoin Treasury Companies Must Lead

Bitcoin treasury companies are not just financial outliers—they are structural pioneers. Their decision to hold BTC signals not only a belief in long-term value, but a rejection of legacy capital inefficiency. That’s why they must also lead on standards of integrity.

By adopting PoR voluntarily and early, companies can position themselves as trustworthy, sophisticated, and future-ready. This will matter more as institutional capital rotates into Bitcoin, as index inclusion expands, and as regulators begin asking sharper questions about crypto asset disclosures on balance sheets.

PoR isn’t just a way to comply with future standards—it’s a way to shape them. The companies that lead now will not only avoid future scrutiny—they’ll attract capital from allocators who are seeking transparency but don’t yet know where to find it.

At BFC, we believe the market rewards clarity. Bitcoin treasury companies have a chance to bake transparency into their structure, not as an afterthought, but as a strategic differentiator.

Shareholders Must Demand It

Proof of Reserves isn’t just a company initiative—it’s a shareholder obligation. When a public company holds Bitcoin on its balance sheet, it is acting as a fiduciary for shareholder capital denominated in one of the hardest, most transparent assets in history. To accept opacity in that context is to forfeit the very advantage Bitcoin offers.

If you’re an investor in a Bitcoin treasury company and you can’t verify the Bitcoin, you don’t own a monetary reserve—you own a narrative. You’re trusting that someone else is telling the truth, rather than requiring the proof Bitcoin makes possible.

That’s not aligned with the principles of sound capital stewardship.

Institutional allocators, activist shareholders, and governance professionals have a growing role to play here. Just as proxy advisors and investor coalitions have pushed for climate disclosures, board transparency, and ESG clarity in the past decade, it’s time to apply that same rigor to Bitcoin disclosures—especially for companies who claim to operate on a Bitcoin standard.

Demand direct answers:

• Can we verify the holdings on-chain?
• Are reserves fully collateralized and unencumbered?
• Has manageme

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Introduction: The Power of Fiction and the Shaping of Collective Morality

Stories define the moral landscape of a civilization. From the earliest mythologies to the modern spectacle of global cinema, the tales a society tells its youth shape the parameters of acceptable behavior, the cost of transgression, and the meaning of justice, power, and redemption. Among the most globally influential narratives of the past half-century is the Star Wars saga, a sprawling science fiction mythology that has transcended genre to become a cultural religion for many. Central to this mythos is the arc of Anakin Skywalker, the fallen Jedi Knight who becomes Darth Vader. In Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith, Anakin commits what is arguably the most morally abhorrent act depicted in mainstream popular cinema: the mass murder of children. And yet, by the end of the saga, he is redeemed.

This chapter introduces the uninitiated to the events surrounding this narrative turn and explores the deep structural and ethical concerns it raises. We argue that the cultural treatment of Darth Vader as an anti-hero, even a role model, reveals a deep perversion in the collective moral grammar of the modern West. In doing so, we consider the implications this mythology may have on young adults navigating identity, masculinity, and agency in a world increasingly shaped by spectacle and symbolic narrative.

Part I: The Scene and Its Context

In Revenge of the Sith (2005), the third episode of the Star Wars prequel trilogy, the protagonist Anakin Skywalker succumbs to fear, ambition, and manipulation. Convinced that the Jedi Council is plotting against the Republic and desperate to save his pregnant wife from a vision of death, Anakin pledges allegiance to Chancellor Palpatine, secretly the Sith Lord Darth Sidious. Upon doing so, he is given a new name—Darth Vader—and tasked with a critical mission: to eliminate all Jedi in the temple, including its youngest members.

In one of the most harrowing scenes in the film, Anakin enters the Jedi Temple. A group of young children, known as "younglings," emerge from hiding and plead for help. One steps forward, calling him "Master Skywalker," and asks what they are to do. Anakin responds by igniting his lightsaber. The screen cuts away, but the implication is unambiguous. Later, it is confirmed through dialogue and visual allusion that he slaughtered them all.

There is no ambiguity in the storytelling. The man who will become the galaxy’s most feared enforcer begins his descent by murdering defenseless children.

Part II: A New Kind of Evil in Youth-Oriented Media

For decades, cinema avoided certain taboos. Even films depicting war, genocide, or psychological horror rarely crossed the line into showing children as victims of deliberate violence by the protagonist. When children were harmed, it was by monstrous antagonists, supernatural forces, or offscreen implications. The killing of children was culturally reserved for historical atrocities and horror tales.

In Revenge of the Sith, this boundary was broken. While the film does not show the violence explicitly, the implication is so clear and so central to the character arc that its omission from visual depiction does not blunt the narrative weight. What makes this scene especially jarring is the tonal dissonance between the gravity of the act and the broader cultural treatment of Star Wars as a family-friendly saga. The juxtaposition of child-targeted marketing with a central plot involving child murder is not accidental—it reflects a deeper narrative and commercial structure.

This scene was not a deviation from the arc. It was the intended turning point.

Part III: Masculinity, Militarism, and the Appeal of the Anti-Hero

Darth Vader has long been idolized as a masculine icon. His towering presence, emotionless control, and mechanical voice exude power and discipline. Military institutions have quoted him. He is celebrated in memes, posters, and merchandise. Within the cultural imagination, he embodies dominance, command, and strategic ruthlessness.

For many young men, particularly those struggling with identity, agency, and perceived weakness, Vader becomes more than a character. He becomes an archetype: the man who reclaims power by embracing discipline, forsaking emotion, and exacting vengeance against those who betrayed him. The emotional pain that leads to his fall mirrors the experiences of isolation and perceived emasculation that many young men internalize in a fractured society.

The symbolism becomes dangerous. Anakin's descent into mass murder is portrayed not as the outcome of unchecked cruelty, but as a tragic mistake rooted in love and desperation. The implication is that under enough pressure, even the most horrific act can be framed as a step toward a noble end.

Part IV: Redemption as Narrative Alchemy

By the end of the original trilogy (Return of the Jedi, 1983), Darth Vader kills the Emperor to save his son Luke and dies shortly thereafter. Luke mourns him, honors him, and burns his body in reverence. In the final scene, Vader's ghost appears alongside Obi-Wan Kenobi and Yoda—the very men who once considered him the greatest betrayal of their order. He is welcomed back.

There is no reckoning. No mention of the younglings. No memorial to the dead. No consequence beyond his own internal torment.

This model of redemption is not uncommon in Western storytelling. In Christian doctrine, the concept of grace allows for any sin to be forgiven if the sinner repents sincerely. But in the context of secular mass culture, such redemption without justice becomes deeply troubling. The cultural message is clear: even the worst crimes can be erased if one makes a grand enough gesture at the end. It is the erasure of moral debt by narrative fiat.

The implication is not only that evil can be undone by good, but that power and legacy matter more than the victims. Vader is not just forgiven—he is exalted.

Part V: Real-World Reflections and Dangerous Scripts

In recent decades, the rise of mass violence in schools and public places has revealed a disturbing pattern: young men who feel alienated, betrayed, or powerless adopt mythic narratives of vengeance and transformation. They often see themselves as tragic figures forced into violence by a cruel world. Some explicitly reference pop culture, quoting films, invoking fictional characters, or modeling their identities after cinematic anti-heroes.

It would be reductive to claim Star Wars causes such events. But it is equally naive to believe that such narratives play no role in shaping the symbolic frameworks through which vulnerable individuals understand their lives. The story of Anakin Skywalker offers a dangerous script:

• You are betrayed.
• You suffer.
• You kill.
• You become powerful.
• You are redeemed.

When combined with militarized masculinity, institutional failure, and cultural nihilism, this script can validate the darkest impulses. It becomes a myth of sacrificial violence, with the perpetrator as misunderstood hero.

Part VI: Cultural Responsibility and Narrative Ethics

The problem is not that Star Wars tells a tragic story. Tragedy is essential to moral understanding. The problem is how the culture treats that story. Darth Vader is not treated as a warning, a cautionary tale, or a fallen angel. He is merchandised, celebrated, and decontextualized.

By separating his image from his actions, society rebrands him as a figure of cool dominance rather than ethical failure. The younglings are forgotten. The victims vanish. Only the redemption remains. The merchandise continues to sell.

Cultural institutions bear responsibility for how such narratives are presented and consumed. Filmmakers may intend nuance, but marketing departments, military institutions, and fan cultures often reduce that nuance to symbol and slogan.

Conclusion: Reckoning with the Stories We Tell

The story of Anakin Skywalker is not morally neutral. It is a tale of systemic failure, emotional collapse, and unchecked violence. When presented in full, it can serve as a powerful warning. But when reduced to aesthetic dominance and easy redemption, it becomes a tool of moral decay.

The glorification of Darth Vader as a cultural icon—divorced from the horrific acts that define his transformation—is not just misguided. It is dangerous. It trains a generation to believe that power erases guilt, that violence is a path to recognition, and that final acts of loyalty can overwrite the deliberate murder of the innocent.

To the uninitiated, Star Wars may seem like harmless fantasy. But its deepest myth—the redemption of the child-killer through familial love and posthumous honor—deserves scrutiny. Not because fiction causes violence, but because fiction defines the possibilities of how we understand evil, forgiveness, and what it means to be a hero.

We must ask: What kind of redemption erases the cries of murdered children? And what kind of culture finds peace in that forgetting?

@ 52b4a076:e7fad8bd

Introduction

Me and Fishcake have been working on infrastructure for Noswhere and Nostr.build. Part of this involves processing a large amount of Nostr events for features such as search, analytics, and feeds.

I have been recently developing nosdex v3, a newer version of the Noswhere scraper that is designed for maximum performance and fault tolerance using FoundationDB (FDB).

Fishcake has been working on a processing system for Nostr events to use with NB, based off of Cloudflare (CF) Pipelines, which is a relatively new beta product. This evening, we put it all to the test.

First preparations

We set up a new CF Pipelines endpoint, and I implemented a basic importer that took data from the nosdex database. This was quite slow, as it did HTTP requests synchronously, but worked as a good smoke test.

Asynchronous indexing

I implemented a high-contention queue system designed for highly parallel indexing operations, built using FDB, that supports: - Fully customizable batch sizes - Per-index queues - Hundreds of parallel consumers - Automatic retry logic using lease expiration

When the scraper first gets an event, it will process it and eventually write it to the blob store and FDB. Each new event is appended to the event log.

On the indexing side, a Queuer will read the event log, and batch events (usually 2K-5K events) into one work job. This work job contains: - A range in the log to index - Which target this job is intended for - The size of the job and some other metadata

Each job has an associated leasing state, which is used to handle retries and prioritization, and ensure no duplication of work.

Several Workers monitor the index queue (up to 128) and wait for new jobs that are available to lease.

Once a suitable job is found, the worker acquires a lease on the job and reads the relevant events from FDB and the blob store.

Depending on the indexing type, the job will be processed in one of a number of ways, and then marked as completed or returned for retries.

In this case, the event is also forwarded to CF Pipelines.

Trying it out

The first attempt did not go well. I found a bug in the high-contention indexer that led to frequent transaction conflicts. This was easily solved by correcting an incorrectly set parameter.

We also found there were other issues in the indexer, such as an insufficient amount of threads, and a suspicious decrease in the speed of the Queuer during processing of queued jobs.

Along with fixing these issues, I also implemented other optimizations, such as deprioritizing Worker DB accesses, and increasing the batch size.

To fix the degraded Queuer performance, I ran the backfill job by itself, and then started indexing after it had completed.

Bottlenecks, bottlenecks everywhere

After implementing these fixes, there was an interesting problem: The DB couldn't go over 80K reads per second. I had encountered this limit during load testing for the scraper and other FDB benchmarks.

As I suspected, this was a client thread limitation, as one thread seemed to be using high amounts of CPU. To overcome this, I created a new client instance for each Worker.

After investigating, I discovered that the Go FoundationDB client cached the database connection. This meant all attempts to create separate DB connections ended up being useless.

Using OpenWithConnectionString partially resolved this issue. (This also had benefits for service-discovery based connection configuration.)

To be able to fully support multi-threading, I needed to enabled the FDB multi-client feature. Enabling it also allowed easier upgrades across DB versions, as FDB clients are incompatible across versions:

FDB_NETWORK_OPTION_EXTERNAL_CLIENT_LIBRARY="/lib/libfdb_c.so" FDB_NETWORK_OPTION_CLIENT_THREADS_PER_VERSION="16"

Breaking the 100K/s reads barrier

After implementing support for the multi-threaded client, we were able to get over 100K reads per second.

You may notice after the restart (gap) the performance dropped. This was caused by several bugs: 1. When creating the CF Pipelines endpoint, we did not specify a region. The automatically selected region was far away from the server. 2. The amount of shards were not sufficient, so we increased them. 3. The client overloaded a few HTTP/2 connections with too many requests.

I implemented a feature to assign each Worker its own HTTP client, fixing the 3rd issue. We also moved the entire storage region to West Europe to be closer to the servers.

After these changes, we were able to easily push over 200K reads/s, mostly limited by missing optimizations:

It's shards all the way down

While testing, we also noticed another issue: At certain times, a pipeline would get overloaded, stalling requests for seconds at a time. This prevented all forward progress on the Workers.

We solved this by having multiple pipelines: A primary pipeline meant to be for standard load, with moderate batching duration and less shards, and high-throughput pipelines with more shards.

Each Worker is assigned a pipeline on startup, and if one pipeline stalls, other workers can continue making progress and saturate the DB.

The stress test

After making sure everything was ready for the import, we cleared all data, and started the import.

The entire import lasted 20 minutes between 01:44 UTC and 02:04 UTC, reaching a peak of: - 0.25M requests per second - 0.6M keys read per second - 140MB/s reads from DB - 2Gbps of network throughput

FoundationDB ran smoothly during this test, with: - Read times under 2ms - Zero conflicting transactions - No overloaded servers

CF Pipelines held up well, delivering batches to R2 without any issues, while reaching its maximum possible throughput.

Finishing notes

Me and Fishcake have been building infrastructure around scaling Nostr, from media, to relays, to content indexing. We consistently work on improving scalability, resiliency and stability, even outside these posts.

Many things, including what you see here, are already a part of Nostr.build, Noswhere and NFDB, and many other changes are being implemented every day.

If you like what you are seeing, and want to integrate it, get in touch. :)

If you want to support our work, you can zap this post, or register for nostr.land and nostr.build today.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

High-Level Overview

Bitcoin developers are currently debating a proposed change to how Bitcoin Core handles the OP_RETURN opcode — a mechanism that allows users to insert small amounts of data into the blockchain. Specifically, the controversy revolves around removing built-in filters that limit how much data can be stored using this feature (currently capped at 80 bytes).

Summary of Both Sides

Position A: Remove OP_RETURN Filters

Advocates: nostr:npub1ej493cmun8y9h3082spg5uvt63jgtewneve526g7e2urca2afrxqm3ndrm, nostr:npub12rv5lskctqxxs2c8rf2zlzc7xx3qpvzs3w4etgemauy9thegr43sf485vg, nostr:npub17u5dneh8qjp43ecfxr6u5e9sjamsmxyuekrg2nlxrrk6nj9rsyrqywt4tp, others

Arguments: - Ineffectiveness of filters: Filters are easily bypassed and do not stop spam effectively. - Code simplification: Removing arbitrary limits reduces code complexity. - Permissionless innovation: Enables new use cases like cross-chain bridges and timestamping without protocol-level barriers. - Economic regulation: Fees should determine what data gets added to the blockchain, not protocol rules.

Position B: Keep OP_RETURN Filters

Advocates: nostr:npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk, nostr:npub1s33sw6y2p8kpz2t8avz5feu2n6yvfr6swykrnm2frletd7spnt5qew252p, nostr:npub1wnlu28xrq9gv77dkevck6ws4euej4v568rlvn66gf2c428tdrptqq3n3wr, others

Arguments: - Historical intent: Satoshi included filters to keep Bitcoin focused on monetary transactions. - Resource protection: Helps prevent blockchain bloat and abuse from non-financial uses. - Network preservation: Protects the network from being overwhelmed by low-value or malicious data. - Social governance: Maintains conservative changes to ensure long-term robustness.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths of Removing Filters

• Encourages decentralized innovation.
• Simplifies development and maintenance.
• Maintains ideological purity of a permissionless system.

Weaknesses of Removing Filters

• Opens the door to increased non-financial data and potential spam.
• May dilute Bitcoin’s core purpose as sound money.
• Risks short-term exploitation before economic filters adapt.

Strengths of Keeping Filters

• Preserves Bitcoin’s identity and original purpose.
• Provides a simple protective mechanism against abuse.
• Aligns with conservative development philosophy of Bitcoin Core.

Weaknesses of Keeping Filters

• Encourages central decision-making on allowed use cases.
• Leads to workarounds that may be less efficient or obscure.
• Discourages novel but legitimate applications.

Long-Term Consequences

If Filters Are Removed

• Positive: Potential boom in new applications, better interoperability, cleaner architecture.
• Negative: Risk of increased blockchain size, more bandwidth/storage costs, spam wars.

If Filters Are Retained

• Positive: Preserves monetary focus and operational discipline.
• Negative: Alienates developers seeking broader use cases, may ossify the protocol.

Conclusion

The debate highlights a core philosophical split in Bitcoin: whether it should remain a narrow monetary system or evolve into a broader data layer for decentralized applications. Both paths carry risks and tradeoffs. The outcome will shape not just Bitcoin's technical direction but its social contract and future role in the broader crypto ecosystem.

@ 52b4a076:e7fad8bd

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

Regular relays have challenges

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

NFDB: A scalable database for large relays

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

Search

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

Personalization

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

Other

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

Calcite: A local microrelay database

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

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

For zero-downtime, NFDB is recommended.

Noswhere SmartCache

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

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

routerd

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

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

Ending notes

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

A lot more is to come. 👀️️️️️️

@ 39cc53c9:27168656

Read the original blog post

The new website is finally live! I put in a lot of hard work over the past months on it. I'm proud to say that it's out now and it looks pretty cool, at least to me!

Why rewrite it all?

The old kycnot.me site was built using Python with Flask about two years ago. Since then, I've gained a lot more experience with Golang and coding in general. Trying to update that old codebase, which had a lot of design flaws, would have been a bad idea. It would have been like building on an unstable foundation.

That's why I made the decision to rewrite the entire application. Initially, I chose to use SvelteKit with JavaScript. I did manage to create a stable site that looked similar to the new one, but it required Jav aScript to work. As I kept coding, I started feeling like I was repeating "the Python mistake". I was writing the app in a language I wasn't very familiar with (just like when I was learning Python at that mom ent), and I wasn't happy with the code. It felt like spaghetti code all the time.

So, I made a complete U-turn and started over, this time using Golang. While I'm not as proficient in Golang as I am in Python now, I find it to be a very enjoyable language to code with. Most aof my recent pr ojects have been written in Golang, and I'm getting the hang of it. I tried to make the best decisions I could and structure the code as well as possible. Of course, there's still room for improvement, which I'll address in future updates.

Now I have a more maintainable website that can scale much better. It uses a real database instead of a JSON file like the old site, and I can add many more features. Since I chose to go with Golang, I mad e the "tradeoff" of not using JavaScript at all, so all the rendering load falls on the server. But I believe it's a tradeoff that's worth it.

What's new

• UI/UX - I've designed a new logo and color palette for kycnot.me. I think it looks pretty cool and cypherpunk. I am not a graphic designer, but I think I did a decent work and I put a lot of thinking on it to make it pleasant!
• Point system - The new point system provides more detailed information about the listings, and can be expanded to cover additional features across all services. Anyone can request a new point!
• ToS Scrapper: I've implemented a powerful automated terms-of-service scrapper that collects all the ToS pages from the listings. It saves you from the hassle of reading the ToS by listing the lines that are suspiciously related to KYC/AML practices. This is still in development and it will improve for sure, but it works pretty fine right now!
• Search bar - The new search bar allows you to easily filter services. It performs a full-text search on the Title, Description, Category, and Tags of all the services. Looking for VPN services? Just search for "vpn"!
• Transparency - To be more transparent, all discussions about services now take place publicly on GitLab. I won't be answering any e-mails (an auto-reply will prompt to write to the corresponding Gitlab issue). This ensures that all service-related matters are publicly accessible and recorded. Additionally, there's a real-time audits page that displays database changes.
• Listing Requests - I have upgraded the request system. The new form allows you to directly request services or points without any extra steps. In the future, I plan to enable requests for specific changes to parts of the website.
• Lightweight and fast - The new site is lighter and faster than its predecessor!
• Tor and I2P - At last! kycnot.me is now officially on Tor and I2P!

How?

This rewrite has been a labor of love, in the end, I've been working on this for more than 3 months now. I don't have a team, so I work by myself on my free time, but I find great joy in helping people on their private journey with cryptocurrencies. Making it easier for individuals to use cryptocurrencies without KYC is a goal I am proud of!

If you appreciate my work, you can support me through the methods listed here. Alternatively, feel free to send me an email with a kind message!

Technical details

All the code is written in Golang, the website makes use of the chi router for the routing part. I also make use of BigCache for caching database requests. There is 0 JavaScript, so all the rendering load falls on the server, this means it needed to be efficient enough to not drawn with a few users since the old site was reporting about 2M requests per month on average (note that this are not unique users).

The database is running with mariadb, using gorm as the ORM. This is more than enough for this project. I started working with an sqlite database, but I ended up migrating to mariadb since it works better with JSON.

The scraper is using chromedp combined with a series of keywords, regex and other logic. It runs every 24h and scraps all the services. You can find the scraper code here.

The frontend is written using Golang Templates for the HTML, and TailwindCSS plus DaisyUI for the CSS classes framework. I also use some plain CSS, but it's minimal.

The requests forms is the only part of the project that requires JavaScript to be enabled. It is needed for parsing some from fields that are a bit complex and for the "captcha", which is a simple Proof of Work that runs on your browser, destinated to avoid spam. For this, I use mCaptcha.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

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

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

Surveillance and Control

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

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

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

Manipulation of Information

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

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

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

Economic Domination

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

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

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

Perpetual Warfare

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

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

Parallel: War becomes policy, not a last resort.

Predictive Policing and Censorship

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

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

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

Conclusion: Systemic Inhumanity

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

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

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

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

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

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

I. A World at the Crossroads

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

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

II. The Coming of the Vulcans

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

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

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

III. Betazed and the Trial of Truth

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

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

IV. Confronting Marauders and Empires

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

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

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

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

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

V. Enlightenment Through Preparedness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ efcb5fc5:5680aa8e

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

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

The Psychological Warfare of Traditional Social Media

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

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

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

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

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

NOSTR: A Sanctuary in the Digital Wasteland

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

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

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

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

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

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

Building a Healthier Digital Future

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Time for Action is Now

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

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

Join the NOSTR movement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 39cc53c9:27168656

Read the original blog post

Know Your Customer is a regulation that requires companies of all sizes to verify the identity, suitability, and risks involved with maintaining a business relationship with a customer. Such procedures fit within the broader scope of anti-money laundering (AML) and counterterrorism financing (CTF) regulations.

Banks, exchanges, online business, mail providers, domain registrars... Everyone wants to know who you are before you can even opt for their service. Your personal information is flowing around the internet in the hands of "god-knows-who" and secured by "trust-me-bro military-grade encryption". Once your account is linked to your personal (and verified) identity, tracking you is just as easy as keeping logs on all these platforms.

Rights for Illusions

KYC processes aim to combat terrorist financing, money laundering, and other illicit activities. On the surface, KYC seems like a commendable initiative. I mean, who wouldn't want to halt terrorists and criminals in their tracks?

The logic behind KYC is: "If we mandate every financial service provider to identify their users, it becomes easier to pinpoint and apprehend the malicious actors."

However, terrorists and criminals are not precisely lining up to be identified. They're crafty. They may adopt false identities or find alternative strategies to continue their operations. Far from being outwitted, many times they're several steps ahead of regulations. Realistically, KYC might deter a small fraction – let's say about 1% ^1 – of these malefactors. Yet, the cost? All of us are saddled with the inconvenient process of identification just to use a service.

Under the rhetoric of "ensuring our safety", governments and institutions enact regulations that seem more out of a dystopian novel, gradually taking away our right to privacy.

To illustrate, consider a city where the mayor has rolled out facial recognition cameras in every nook and cranny. A band of criminals, intent on robbing a local store, rolls in with a stolen car, their faces obscured by masks and their bodies cloaked in all-black clothes. Once they've committed the crime and exited the city's boundaries, they switch vehicles and clothes out of the cameras' watchful eyes. The high-tech surveillance? It didn’t manage to identify or trace them. Yet, for every law-abiding citizen who merely wants to drive through the city or do some shopping, their movements and identities are constantly logged. The irony? This invasive tracking impacts all of us, just to catch the 1% ^1 of less-than-careful criminals.

KYC? Not you.

KYC creates barriers to participation in normal economic activity, to supposedly stop criminals. ^2

KYC puts barriers between many users and businesses. One of these comes from the fact that the process often requires multiple forms of identification, proof of address, and sometimes even financial records. For individuals in areas with poor record-keeping, non-recognized legal documents, or those who are unbanked, homeless or transient, obtaining these documents can be challenging, if not impossible.

For people who are not skilled with technology or just don't have access to it, there's also a barrier since KYC procedures are mostly online, leaving them inadvertently excluded.

Another barrier goes for the casual or one-time user, where they might not see the value in undergoing a rigorous KYC process, and these requirements can deter them from using the service altogether.

It also wipes some businesses out of the equation, since for smaller businesses, the costs associated with complying with KYC norms—from the actual process of gathering and submitting documents to potential delays in operations—can be prohibitive in economical and/or technical terms.

You're not welcome

Imagine a swanky new club in town with a strict "members only" sign. You hear the music, you see the lights, and you want in. You step up, ready to join, but suddenly there's a long list of criteria you must meet. After some time, you are finally checking all the boxes. But then the club rejects your membership with no clear reason why. You just weren't accepted. Frustrating, right?

This club scenario isn't too different from the fact that KYC is being used by many businesses as a convenient gatekeeping tool. A perfect excuse based on a "legal" procedure they are obliged to.

Even some exchanges may randomly use this to freeze and block funds from users, claiming these were "flagged" by a cryptic system that inspects the transactions. You are left hostage to their arbitrary decision to let you successfully pass the KYC procedure. If you choose to sidestep their invasive process, they might just hold onto your funds indefinitely.

Your identity has been stolen

KYC data has been found to be for sale on many dark net markets^3. Exchanges may have leaks or hacks, and such leaks contain very sensitive data. We're talking about the full monty: passport or ID scans, proof of address, and even those awkward selfies where you're holding up your ID next to your face. All this data is being left to the mercy of the (mostly) "trust-me-bro" security systems of such companies. Quite scary, isn't it?

As cheap as $10 for 100 documents, with discounts applying for those who buy in bulk, the personal identities of innocent users who passed KYC procedures are for sale. ^3

In short, if you have ever passed the KYC/AML process of a crypto exchange, your privacy is at risk of being compromised, or it might even have already been compromised.

(they) Know Your Coins

You may already know that Bitcoin and most cryptocurrencies have a transparent public blockchain, meaning that all data is shown unencrypted for everyone to see and recorded forever. If you link an address you own to your identity through KYC, for example, by sending an amount from a KYC exchange to it, your Bitcoin is no longer pseudonymous and can then be traced.

If, for instance, you send Bitcoin from such an identified address to another KYC'ed address (say, from a friend), everyone having access to that address-identity link information (exchanges, governments, hackers, etc.) will be able to associate that transaction and know who you are transacting with.

Conclusions

To sum up, KYC does not protect individuals; rather, it's a threat to our privacy, freedom, security and integrity. Sensible information flowing through the internet is thrown into chaos by dubious security measures. It puts borders between many potential customers and businesses, and it helps governments and companies track innocent users. That's the chaos KYC has stirred.

The criminals are using stolen identities from companies that gathered them thanks to these very same regulations that were supposed to combat them. Criminals always know how to circumvent such regulations. In the end, normal people are the most affected by these policies.

The threat that KYC poses to individuals in terms of privacy, security and freedom is not to be neglected. And if we don’t start challenging these systems and questioning their efficacy, we are just one step closer to the dystopian future that is now foreseeable.

Edited 20/03/2024 * Add reference to the 1% statement on Rights for Illusions section to an article where Chainalysis found that only 0.34% of the transaction volume with cryptocurrencies in 2023 was attributable to criminal activity ^1

@ 39cc53c9:27168656

Read the original blog post

Over the past few months, I've dedicated my time to a complete rewrite of the kycnot.me website. The technology stack remains unchanged; Golang paired with TailwindCSS. However, I've made some design choices in this iteration that I believe significantly enhance the site. Particularly to backend code.

UI Improvements

You'll notice a refreshed UI that retains the original concept but has some notable enhancements. The service list view is now more visually engaging, it displays additional information in a more aesthetically pleasing manner. Both filtering and searching functionalities have been optimized for speed and user experience.

Service pages have been also redesigned to highlight key information at the top, with the KYC Level box always accessible. The display of service attributes is now more visually intuitive.

The request form, especially the Captcha, has undergone substantial improvements. The new self-made Captcha is robust, addressing the reliability issues encountered with the previous version.

Terms of Service Summarizer

A significant upgrade is the Terms of Service summarizer/reviewer, now powered by AI (GPT-4-turbo). It efficiently condenses each service's ToS, extracting and presenting critical points, including any warnings. Summaries are updated monthly, processing over 40 ToS pages via the OpenAI API using a self-crafted and thoroughly tested prompt.

Nostr Comments

I've integrated a comment section for each service using Nostr. For guidance on using this feature, visit the dedicated how-to page.

Database

The backend database has transitioned to pocketbase, an open-source Golang backend that has been a pleasure to work with. I maintain an updated fork of the Golang SDK for pocketbase at pluja/pocketbase.

Scoring

The scoring algorithm has also been refined to be more fair. Despite I had considered its removal due to the complexity it adds (it is very difficult to design a fair scoring system), some users highlighted its value, so I kept it. The updated algorithm is available open source.

Listings

Each listing has been re-evaluated, and the ones that were no longer operational were removed. New additions are included, and the backlog of pending services will be addressed progressively, since I still have access to the old database.

API

The API now offers more comprehensive data. For more details, check here.

About Page

The About page has been restructured for brevity and clarity.

Other Changes

Extensive changes have been implemented in the server-side logic, since the whole code base was re-written from the ground up. I may discuss these in a future post, but for now, I consider the current version to be just a bit beyond beta, and additional updates are planned in the coming weeks.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Esteemed representatives of Risa,

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

Love as a Foundation, Strength as a Shield

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

The Lessons of a Failed Experiment

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

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

The Age of Ricin and the Reawakening of Discipline

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

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

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

A Call for Balance, Not Extremes

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

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

Conclusion: Guarding the Flame

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

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

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

This is the Risan way.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

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

Honored members of the Council,

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

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

The Hidden Roots of Our Tranquility

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

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

The Birth of Ricin Doctrine

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

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

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

Why I Speak to You Now

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

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

No, Councilors. It is discipline that protects peace.

The Call to Action

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Thank you.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Hear this, warriors of the Empire!

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

Cowardice Masquerading as Concern

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

Indoctrination by Silence

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

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

Weakness Taught as Virtue

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

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

A Plan of Subjugation

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

Stand and Resist

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

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

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

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

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

The Cultural Lever of Language

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

The Role of Teachers in Social Programming

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

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

Fear as a Policy Catalyst

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

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

Policy and Practice: The Zero-Tolerance Feedback Loop

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

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

Long-Term Consequences: A Nation Re-Socialized

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

@ 846ebf79:fe4e39a4

The next iteration is coming

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

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

The biggest projects this iteration have been:

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

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

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

On the frontend:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project management is very busy

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

Next up are:

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

Thank you for reading and may your morning be good.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

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

Introduction

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

The Pyramid as an Ammonia Generator

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

Theoretical System Components:

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

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

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

Power Requirements and Energy Calculations

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

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

Feasibility of a 25GW Breeder Reactor within the Pyramid

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

Fuel Requirements:

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

Reactor Physical Dimensions (Pebble Bed Design):

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

Steam Generation and Scaling Management

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

Conclusion and Practical Considerations

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

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

See also: nostr:naddr1qqxnzde5xymrgvekxycrswfeqy2hwumn8ghj7am0deejucmpd3mxztnyv4mz7q3qc856kwjk524kef97hazw5e9jlkjq4333r6yxh2rtgefpd894ddpsxpqqqp65wun9c08

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Assumptions

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

---

Performance Comparison

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

---

Strategic Role Summary

1. Coal (Clean & Integrated)

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

2. Natural Gas (CCGT)

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

3. Nuclear (Gen IV SMRs)

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

---

Adjusted Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE)

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

---

Final Verdict (Under Optimized Assumptions)

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

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

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

A follow-up to nostr:naddr1qqgxxwtyxe3kvc3jvvuxywtyxs6rjq3qc856kwjk524kef97hazw5e9jlkjq4333r6yxh2rtgefpd894ddpsxpqqqp65wuaydz8

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

---

1. Context and Strategic Opportunity

Current Nuclear Cost Challenges

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

The Promise of SMRs

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

---

2. National Security as a Catalyst

Strategic Benefits

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

Policy Implications

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

---

3. Publicly Chartered Utilities: A New Operating Model

Utility Framework

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

Cost Advantages

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

---

4. Competitive Manufacturing: The Aviation Analogy

Model Characteristics

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

Benefits

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

---

5. Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) Impact

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

Estimated Resulting LCOE: $40–55/MWh

---

6. Strategic Outcomes

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

---

7. Recommendations

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

---

Conclusion

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

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

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

Why Electricity is the Keystone of Innovation

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

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

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

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

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

---

The Nuclear Case: Clean, Scalable, Strategic

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

But traditional nuclear has problems:

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

Enter Gen IV SMRs:

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

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

---

The Argument for National Strategy

Let’s paint a vision:

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

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

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

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

---

Step 1: Treat SMRs as a National Security Asset

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

Nuclear power is inherently a strategic asset:

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

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

---

Step 2: Create Public-Chartered Operating Companies

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

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

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

---

Step 3: Build a Competitive SMR Industry Like Aerospace

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

This is how we build:

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

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

---

Step 4: Anchor SMRs to the Coming Fourth Industrial Revolution

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

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

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

---

Step 5: Pair Energy Sovereignty with Economic Reform

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

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

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

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

---

Conclusion: A Moral and Strategic Imperative

We can either:

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

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

What we need now is will.

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

It’s time.

---

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

---

Further reading:

nostr:naddr1qqgrjv33xenx2drpve3kxvrp8quxgqgcwaehxw309anxjmr5v4ezumn0wd68ytnhd9hx2tczyrq7n2e62632km9yh6l5f6nykt76gzkxxy0gs6agddr9y95uk445xqcyqqq823cdzc99s

@ ee6ea13a:959b6e74

Chef's notes

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

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

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

Serve with chopped cilantro and lime wedges.

Details

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

Ingredients

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

Directions

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

@ 39cc53c9:27168656

Read the original blog post

I'm launching a new service review section on this blog in collaboration with OrangeFren. These reviews are sponsored, yet the sponsorship does not influence the outcome of the evaluations. Reviews are done in advance, then, the service provider has the discretion to approve publication without modifications.

Sponsored reviews are independent from the kycnot.me list, being only part of the blog. The reviews have no impact on the scores of the listings or their continued presence on the list. Should any issues arise, I will not hesitate to remove any listing.

---

The review

WizardSwap is an instant exchange centred around privacy coins. It was launched in 2020 making it old enough to have weathered the 2021 bull run and the subsequent bearish year.

| Pros | Cons | |------|------| | Tor-friendly | Limited liquidity | | Guarantee of no KYC | Overly simplistic design | | Earn by providing liquidity | |

Rating: ★★★★★ Service Website: wizardswap.io

Liquidity

Right off the bat, we'll start off by pointing out that WizardSwap relies on its own liquidity reserves, meaning they aren't just a reseller of Binance or another exchange. They're also committed to a no-KYC policy, when asking them, they even promised they would rather refund a user their original coins, than force them to undergo any sort of verification.

On the one hand, full control over all their infrastructure gives users the most privacy and conviction about the KYC policies remaining in place.

On the other hand, this means the liquidity available for swapping isn't huge. At the time of testing we could only purchase at most about 0.73 BTC with XMR.

It's clear the team behind WizardSwap is aware of this shortfall and so they've come up with a solution unique among instant exchanges. They let you, the user, deposit any of the currencies they support into your account and earn a profit on the trades made using your liquidity.

Trading

Fees on WizardSwap are middle-of-the-pack. The normal fee is 2.2%. That's more than some exchanges that reserve the right to suddenly demand you undergo verification, yet less than half the fees on some other privacy-first exchanges. However as we mentioned in the section above you can earn almost all of that fee (2%) if you provide liquidity to WizardSwap.

It's good that with the current Bitcoin fee market their fees are constant regardless of how much, or how little, you send. This is in stark contrast with some of the alternative swap providers that will charge you a massive premium when attempting to swap small amounts of BTC away.

Test trades

Test trades are always performed without previous notice to the service provider.

During our testing we performed a few test trades and found that every single time WizardSwap immediately detected the incoming transaction and the amount we received was exactly what was quoted before depositing. The fees were inline with what WizardSwap advertises.

• Monero payment proof
• Bitcoin received
• Wizardswap TX link - it's possible that this link may cease to be valid at some point in the future.

ToS and KYC

WizardSwap does not have a Terms of Service or a Privacy Policy page, at least none that can be found by users. Instead, they offer a FAQ section where they addresses some basic questions.

The site does not mention any KYC or AML practices. It also does not specify how refunds are handled in case of failure. However, based on the FAQ section "What if I send funds after the offer expires?" it can be inferred that contacting support is necessary and network fees will be deducted from any refund.

UI & Tor

WizardSwap can be visited both via your usual browser and Tor Browser. Should you decide on the latter you'll find that the website works even with the most strict settings available in the Tor Browser (meaning no JavaScript).

However, when disabling Javascript you'll miss the live support chat, as well as automatic refreshing of the trade page. The lack of the first means that you will have no way to contact support from the trade page if anything goes wrong during your swap, although you can do so by mail.

One important thing to have in mind is that if you were to accidentally close the browser during the swap, and you did not save the swap ID or your browser history is disabled, you'll have no easy way to return to the trade. For this reason we suggest when you begin a trade to copy the url or ID to someplace safe, before sending any coins to WizardSwap.

The UI you'll be greeted by is simple, minimalist, and easy to navigate. It works well not just across browsers, but also across devices. You won't have any issues using this exchange on your phone.

Getting in touch

The team behind WizardSwap appears to be most active on X (formerly Twitter): https://twitter.com/WizardSwap_io

If you have any comments or suggestions about the exchange make sure to reach out to them. In the past they've been very receptive to user feedback, for instance a few months back WizardSwap was planning on removing DeepOnion, but the community behind that project got together ^1 and after reaching out WizardSwap reversed their decision ^2.

You can also contact them via email at: support @ wizardswap . io

Disclaimer

None of the above should be understood as investment or financial advice. The views are our own only and constitute a faithful representation of our experience in using and investigating this exchange. This review is not a guarantee of any kind on the services rendered by the exchange. Do your own research before using any service.

@ 39cc53c9:27168656

Read the original blog post

Bitcoin enthusiasts frequently and correctly remark how much value it adds to Bitcoin not to have a face, a leader, or a central authority behind it. This particularity means there isn't a single person to exert control over, or a single human point of failure who could become corrupt or harmful to the project.

Because of this, it is said that no other coin can be equally valuable as Bitcoin in terms of decentralization and trustworthiness. Bitcoin is unique not just for being first, but also because of how the events behind its inception developed. This implies that, from Bitcoin onwards, any coin created would have been created by someone, consequently having an authority behind it. For this and some other reasons, some people refer to Bitcoin as "The Immaculate Conception".

While other coins may have their own unique features and advantages, they may not be able to replicate Bitcoin's community-driven nature. However, one other cryptocurrency shares a similar story of mystery behind its creation: Monero.

History of Monero

Bytecoin and CryptoNote

In March 2014, a Bitcointalk thread titled "Bytecoin. Secure, private, untraceable since 2012" was initiated by a user under the nickname "DStrange"^1^. DStrange presented Bytecoin (BCN) as a unique cryptocurrency, in operation since July 2012. Unlike Bitcoin, it employed a new algorithm known as CryptoNote.

DStrange apparently stumbled upon the Bytecoin website by chance while mining a dying bitcoin fork, and decided to create a thread on Bitcointalk^1^. This sparked curiosity among some users, who wondered how could Bytecoin remain unnoticed since its alleged launch in 2012 until then^2^.

Some time after, a user brought up the "CryptoNote v2.0" whitepaper for the first time, underlining its innovative features^4^. Authored by the pseudonymous Nicolas van Saberhagen in October 2013, the CryptoNote v2 whitepaper^5^ highlighted the traceability and privacy problems in Bitcoin. Saberhagen argued that these flaws could not be quickly fixed, suggesting it would be more efficient to start a new project rather than trying to patch the original^5^, an statement simmilar to the one from Satoshi Nakamoto^6^.

Checking with Saberhagen's digital signature, the release date of the whitepaper seemed correct, which would mean that Cryptonote (v1) was created in 2012^7^, although there's an important detail: "Signing time is from the clock on the signer's computer" ^9^.

Moreover, the whitepaper v1 contains a footnote link to a Bitcointalk post dated May 5, 2013^10^, making it impossible for the whitepaper to have been signed and released on December 12, 2012.

As the narrative developed, users discovered that a significant 80% portion of Bytecoin had been pre-mined^11^ and blockchain dates seemed to be faked to make it look like it had been operating since 2012, leading to controversy surrounding the project.

The origins of CryptoNote and Bytecoin remain mysterious, leaving suspicions of a possible scam attempt, although the whitepaper had a good amount of work and thought on it.

The fork

In April 2014, the Bitcointalk user thankful_for_today, who had also participated in the Bytecoin thread^12^, announced plans to launch a Bytecoin fork named Bitmonero^13^.

The primary motivation behind this fork was "Because there is a number of technical and marketing issues I wanted to do differently. And also because I like ideas and technology and I want it to succeed"^14^. This time Bitmonero did things different from Bytecoin: there was no premine or instamine, and no portion of the block reward went to development.

However, thankful_for_today proposed controversial changes that the community disagreed with. Johnny Mnemonic relates the events surrounding Bitmonero and thankful_for_today in a Bitcointalk comment^15^:

When thankful_for_today launched BitMonero [...] he ignored everything that was discussed and just did what he wanted. The block reward was considerably steeper than what everyone was expecting. He also moved forward with 1-minute block times despite everyone's concerns about the increase of orphan blocks. He also didn't address the tail emission concern that should've (in my opinion) been in the code at launch time. Basically, he messed everything up. Then, he disappeared.

After disappearing for a while, thankful_for_today returned to find that the community had taken over the project. Johnny Mnemonic continues:

I, and others, started working on new forks that were closer to what everyone else was hoping for. [...] it was decided that the BitMonero project should just be taken over. There were like 9 or 10 interested parties at the time if my memory is correct. We voted on IRC to drop the "bit" from BitMonero and move forward with the project. Thankful_for_today suddenly resurfaced, and wasn't happy to learn the community had assumed control of the coin. He attempted to maintain his own fork (still calling it "BitMonero") for a while, but that quickly fell into obscurity.

The unfolding of these events show us the roots of Monero. Much like Satoshi Nakamoto, the creators behind CryptoNote/Bytecoin and thankful_for_today remain a mystery^17^, having disappeared without a trace. This enigma only adds to Monero's value.

Since community took over development, believing in the project's potential and its ability to be guided in a better direction, Monero was given one of Bitcoin's most important qualities: a leaderless nature. With no single face or entity directing its path, Monero is safe from potential corruption or harm from a "central authority".

The community continued developing Monero until today. Since then, Monero has undergone a lot of technological improvements, migrations and achievements such as RingCT and RandomX. It also has developed its own Community Crowdfundinc System, conferences such as MoneroKon and Monerotopia are taking place every year, and has a very active community around it.

Monero continues to develop with goals of privacy and security first, ease of use and efficiency second. ^16^

This stands as a testament to the power of a dedicated community operating without a central figure of authority. This decentralized approach aligns with the original ethos of cryptocurrency, making Monero a prime example of community-driven innovation. For this, I thank all the people involved in Monero, that lead it to where it is today.

If you find any information that seems incorrect, unclear or any missing important events, please contact me and I will make the necessary changes.

Sources of interest

• https://forum.getmonero.org/20/general-discussion/211/history-of-monero
• https://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/852/what-is-the-origin-of-monero-and-its-relationship-to-bytecoin
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monero
• https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.0
• https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563821.0
• https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=233561
• https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=512747.0
• https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=740112.0
• https://monero.stackexchange.com/a/1024
• https://inspec2t-project.eu/cryptocurrency-with-a-focus-on-anonymity-these-facts-are-known-about-monero/
• https://medium.com/coin-story/coin-perspective-13-riccardo-spagni-69ef82907bd1
• https://www.getmonero.org/resources/about/
• https://www.wired.com/2017/01/monero-drug-dealers-cryptocurrency-choice-fire/
• https://www.monero.how/why-monero-vs-bitcoin
• https://old.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/u8e5yr/satoshi_nakamoto_talked_about_privacy_features/

@ fd208ee8:0fd927c1

Markdown: Syntax

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

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

---

Overview

Philosophy

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

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

Block Elements

Paragraphs and Line Breaks

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

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

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

Headers

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

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

Blockquotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the first level of quoting.

This is nested blockquote.

Back to the first level.

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

This is a header.

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

Here's some example code:

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

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

Lists

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

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

• Red
• Green
• Blue

is equivalent to:

• Red
• Green
• Blue

and:

• Red
• Green
• Blue

Ordered lists use numbers followed by periods:

1. Bird
2. McHale
3. Parish

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

If you instead wrote the list in Markdown like this:

1. Bird
2. McHale
3. Parish

or even:

1. Bird
2. McHale
3. Parish

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Suspendisse id sem consectetuer libero luctus adipiscing.

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

• This is a list item with two paragraphs.

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

• Another item in the same list.

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

• A list item with a blockquote:

  This is a blockquote inside a list item.

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

• A list item with a code block:

  <code goes here>
  

Code Blocks

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

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

This is a normal paragraph:

This is a code block.

Here is an example of AppleScript:

tell application "Foo"
    beep
end tell

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

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

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

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

tell application "Foo" beep end tell

Span Elements

Links

Markdown supports two style of links: inline and reference.

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

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

This is an example inline link.

This link has no title attribute.

Emphasis

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

single asterisks

single underscores

double asterisks

double underscores

Code

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

Use the printf() function.

@ c8adf82a:7265ee75

What is knowledge? Why do we need it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seize the day

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

I. Introduction

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

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

II. The Nature of Tongues as Spiritual Utterance

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

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

III. Paul and the Hidden Wisdom of God

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

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

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

IV. Peter at Pentecost: Many Tongues, One Spirit

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

V. John and the Prophetic Language of Revelation

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

VI. The Apostolic Fathers on Inspired Speech

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

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

VII. Interpretation: The Gift of Spiritual Discernment

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

VIII. Conclusion: Tongues as a Veil and a Revelation

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

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

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

@ 39cc53c9:27168656

Read the original blog post

“The future is there... staring back at us. Trying to make sense of the fiction we will have become.” — William Gibson.

This month is the 4th anniversary of kycnot.me. Thank you for being here.

Fifteen years ago, Satoshi Nakamoto introduced Bitcoin, a peer-to-peer electronic cash system: a decentralized currency free from government and institutional control. Nakamoto's whitepaper showed a vision for a financial system based on trustless transactions, secured by cryptography. Some time forward and KYC (Know Your Customer), AML (Anti-Money Laundering), and CTF (Counter-Terrorism Financing) regulations started to come into play.

What a paradox: to engage with a system designed for decentralization, privacy, and independence, we are forced to give away our personal details. Using Bitcoin in the economy requires revealing your identity, not just to the party you interact with, but also to third parties who must track and report the interaction. You are forced to give sensitive data to entities you don't, can't, and shouldn't trust. Information can never be kept 100% safe; there's always a risk. Information is power, who knows about you has control over you.

Information asymmetry creates imbalances of power. When entities have detailed knowledge about individuals, they can manipulate, influence, or exploit this information to their advantage. The accumulation of personal data by corporations and governments enables extensive surveillances.

Such practices, moreover, exclude individuals from traditional economic systems if their documentation doesn't meet arbitrary standards, reinforcing a dystopian divide. Small businesses are similarly burdened by the costs of implementing these regulations, hindering free market competition^1:

How will they keep this information safe? Why do they need my identity? Why do they force businesses to enforce such regulations? It's always for your safety, to protect you from the "bad". Your life is perpetually in danger: terrorists, money launderers, villains... so the government steps in to save us.

‟Hush now, baby, baby, don't you cry Mamma's gonna make all of your nightmares come true Mamma's gonna put all of her fears into you Mamma's gonna keep you right here, under her wing She won't let you fly, but she might let you sing Mamma's gonna keep baby cosy and warm” — Mother, Pink Floyd

We must resist any attack on our privacy and freedom. To do this, we must collaborate.

If you have a service, refuse to ask for KYC; find a way. Accept cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Monero. Commit to circular economies. Remove the need to go through the FIAT system. People need fiat money to use most services, but we can change that.

If you're a user, donate to and prefer using services that accept such currencies. Encourage your friends to accept cryptocurrencies as well. Boycott FIAT system to the greatest extent you possibly can.

This may sound utopian, but it can be achieved. This movement can't be stopped. Go kick the hornet's nest.

“We must defend our own privacy if we expect to have any. We must come together and create systems which allow anonymous transactions to take place. People have been defending their own privacy for centuries with whispers, darkness, envelopes, closed doors, secret handshakes, and couriers. The technologies of the past did not allow for strong privacy, but electronic technologies do.” — Eric Hughes, A Cypherpunk's Manifesto

The anniversary

Four years ago, I began exploring ways to use crypto without KYC. I bookmarked a few favorite services and thought sharing them to the world might be useful. That was the first version of kycnot.me — a simple list of about 15 services. Since then, I've added services, rewritten it three times, and improved it to what it is now.

kycnot.me has remained 100% independent and 100% open source^2 all these years. I've received offers to buy the site, all of which I have declined and will continue to decline. It has been DDoS attacked many times, but we made it through. I have also rewritten the whole site almost once per year (three times in four years).

The code and scoring algorithm are open source (contributions are welcome) and I can't arbitrarly change a service's score without adding or removing attributes, making any arbitrary alterations obvious if they were fake. You can even see the score summary for any service's score.

I'm a one-person team, dedicating my free time to this project. I hope to keep doing so for many more years. Again, thank you for being part of this.

@ a93d7cd3:ae5ce5dd

Test Nostr

@ cd17b2d6:8cc53332

🚀 Instantly Send Spendable Flash BTC, ETH, & USDT — Fully Blockchain-Verifiable!

Welcome to the cutting edge of crypto innovation: the ultimate tool for sending spendable Flash Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), and USDT transactions. Our advanced blockchain simulation technology employs 🔥 Race/Finney-style mechanisms, producing coins indistinguishable from authentic blockchain-confirmed tokens. Your transactions are instantly trackable and fully spendable for durations from 60 to 360 days!

🌐 Visit cryptoflashingtool.com for complete details.

🌟 Why Choose Our Crypto Flashing Service? Crypto Flashing is perfect for crypto enthusiasts, blockchain developers, ethical hackers, security professionals, and digital entrepreneurs looking for authenticity combined with unparalleled flexibility.

🎯 Our Crypto Flashing Features: ✅ Instant Blockchain Verification: Transactions appear completely authentic, complete with real blockchain confirmations, transaction IDs, and wallet addresses.

🔒 Maximum Security & Privacy: Fully compatible with VPNs, TOR, and proxy servers, ensuring absolute anonymity and protection.

🖥️ Easy-to-Use Software: Designed for Windows, our intuitive platform suits both beginners and experts, with detailed, step-by-step instructions provided.

📅 Customizable Flash Durations: Control your transaction lifespan precisely, from 60 to 360 days.

🔄 Universal Wallet Compatibility: Instantly flash BTC, ETH, and USDT tokens to SegWit, Legacy, or BCH32 wallets.

💱 Spendable on Top Exchanges: Flash coins seamlessly accepted on leading exchanges like Kraken and Huobi.

📊 Proven Track Record: ✅ Over 79 Billion flash transactions completed. ✅ 3000+ satisfied customers worldwide. ✅ 42 active blockchain nodes for fast, reliable transactions. 📌 Simple Step-by-Step Flashing Process: Step 1️⃣: Enter Transaction Details

Choose coin (BTC, ETH, USDT: TRC-20, ERC-20, BEP-20) Specify amount & flash duration Provide wallet address (validated automatically) Step 2️⃣: Complete Payment & Verification

Pay using the cryptocurrency you wish to flash Scan the QR code or paste the payment address Upload payment proof (transaction hash & screenshot) Step 3️⃣: Initiate Flash Transaction

Our technology simulates blockchain confirmations instantly Flash transaction appears authentic within seconds Step 4️⃣: Verify & Spend Immediately

Access your flashed crypto instantly Easily verify transactions via provided blockchain explorer links 🛡️ Why Our Technology is Trusted: 🔗 Race/Finney Attack Logic: Creates realistic blockchain headers. 🖥️ Private iNode Cluster: Guarantees fast synchronization and reliable transactions. ⏰ Live Timer System: Ensures fresh wallet addresses and transaction legitimacy. 🔍 Genuine Blockchain TX IDs: Authentic transaction IDs included with every flash ❓ Frequently Asked Questions: Is flashing secure? ✅ Yes, encrypted with full VPN/proxy support. Can I flash from multiple devices? ✅ Yes, up to 5 Windows PCs per license. Are chargebacks possible? ❌ No, flash transactions are irreversible. How long are flash coins spendable? ✅ From 60–360 days, based on your chosen plan. Verification after expiry? ❌ Transactions can’t be verified after the expiry. Support available? ✅ Yes, 24/7 support via Telegram & WhatsApp.

🔐 Transparent, Reliable & Highly Reviewed:

CryptoFlashingTool.com operates independently, providing unmatched transparency and reliability. Check out our glowing reviews on ScamAdvisor and leading crypto forums!

📲 Get in Touch Now: 📞 WhatsApp: +1 770 666 2531 ✈️ Telegram: @cryptoflashingtool

🎉 Ready to Start?

💰 Buy Flash Coins Now 🖥️ Get Your Flashing Software

Experience the smartest, safest, and most powerful crypto flashing solution on the market today!

CryptoFlashingTool.com — Flash Crypto Like a Pro.

 Instantly Send Spendable Flash BTC, ETH, & USDT — Fully Blockchain-Verifiable!

Welcome to the cutting edge of crypto innovation: the ultimate tool for sending spendable Flash Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), and USDT transactions. Our advanced blockchain simulation technology employs 

 Race/Finney-style mechanisms, producing coins indistinguishable from authentic blockchain-confirmed tokens. Your transactions are instantly trackable and fully spendable for durations from 60 to 360 days!

 Visit cryptoflashingtool.com for complete details.

Why Choose Our Crypto Flashing Service?

Crypto Flashing is perfect for crypto enthusiasts, blockchain developers, ethical hackers, security professionals, and digital entrepreneurs looking for authenticity combined with unparalleled flexibility.

Our Crypto Flashing Features:

 Instant Blockchain Verification: Transactions appear completely authentic, complete with real blockchain confirmations, transaction IDs, and wallet addresses.

 Maximum Security & Privacy: Fully compatible with VPNs, TOR, and proxy servers, ensuring absolute anonymity and protection.

 Easy-to-Use Software: Designed for Windows, our intuitive platform suits both beginners and experts, with detailed, step-by-step instructions provided.

 Customizable Flash Durations: Control your transaction lifespan precisely, from 60 to 360 days.

 Universal Wallet Compatibility: Instantly flash BTC, ETH, and USDT tokens to SegWit, Legacy, or BCH32 wallets.

 Spendable on Top Exchanges: Flash coins seamlessly accepted on leading exchanges like Kraken and Huobi.

Proven Track Record:

• Over 79 Billion flash transactions completed.
• 3000+ satisfied customers worldwide.
• 42 active blockchain nodes for fast, reliable transactions.

Simple Step-by-Step Flashing Process:

Step : Enter Transaction Details

• Choose coin (BTC, ETH, USDT: TRC-20, ERC-20, BEP-20)
• Specify amount & flash duration
• Provide wallet address (validated automatically)

Step : Complete Payment & Verification

• Pay using the cryptocurrency you wish to flash
• Scan the QR code or paste the payment address
• Upload payment proof (transaction hash & screenshot)

Step : Initiate Flash Transaction

• Our technology simulates blockchain confirmations instantly
• Flash transaction appears authentic within seconds

Step : Verify & Spend Immediately

• Access your flashed crypto instantly
• Easily verify transactions via provided blockchain explorer links

Why Our Technology is Trusted:

• Race/Finney Attack Logic: Creates realistic blockchain headers.
• Private iNode Cluster: Guarantees fast synchronization and reliable transactions.
• Live Timer System: Ensures fresh wallet addresses and transaction legitimacy.
• Genuine Blockchain TX IDs: Authentic transaction IDs included with every flash

Frequently Asked Questions:

• Is flashing secure? 

 Yes, encrypted with full VPN/proxy support. - Can I flash from multiple devices? 

 Yes, up to 5 Windows PCs per license. - Are chargebacks possible? 

 No, flash transactions are irreversible. - How long are flash coins spendable? 

 From 60–360 days, based on your chosen plan. - Verification after expiry? 

 Transactions can’t be verified after the expiry.

Support available? 

 Yes, 24/7 support via Telegram & WhatsApp.

 Transparent, Reliable & Highly Reviewed:

CryptoFlashingTool.com operates independently, providing unmatched transparency and reliability. Check out our glowing reviews on ScamAdvisor and leading crypto forums!

Get in Touch Now:

 WhatsApp: +1 770 666 2531

 Telegram: @cryptoflashingtool

 Ready to Start?

 Buy Flash Coins Now

 Get Your Flashing Software

Experience the smartest, safest, and most powerful crypto flashing solution on the market today!

CryptoFlashingTool.com — Flash Crypto Like a Pro.

@ dfc7c785:4c3c6174

![[0B745064-2D34-4A3C-8393-AD033910E6D7.jpeg]]![[0C3FA837-E1BA-497F-8D44-9EC1CD723970.jpeg]]

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Introduction

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

At its core, Nutsax introduces:

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

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

Motivation

Nostr relays currently have limited tools for abuse prevention and access control. Options like IP banning, whitelisting, or monetized access are coarse and often centralized.

Nutsax introduces:

• Fine-grained, operation-specific access control using cryptographic tokens.
• Blind signature protocols to issue tokens anonymously, preserving user privacy.
• A native way to store and recover tokens using Nostr’s encrypted event system.

This allows relays to offer:

• Optional access policies (e.g., “3 posts per hour unless you redeem a token”)
• Paid or invite-based features (e.g., long-term subscriptions, advanced filters)
• Temporary elevation of privileges (e.g., bypass slow mode for one message)

All without requiring accounts, emails, or linking identity beyond the user’s npub.

Core Components

1. Operation Tokens

Tokens are blind-signed blobs issued by the relay, scoped to a specific operation type (e.g., "write", "filter-subscribe", "broadcast").

• Issued anonymously: using a blind signature protocol.
• Validated on redemption: at message submission or interaction time.
• Optional and redeemable: the relay decides when to enforce token redemption.

Each token encodes:

• Operation type (string)
• Relay ID (to scope the token)
• Expiration (optional)
• Usage count or burn-on-use flag
• Random nonce (blindness)

Example (before blinding):

json { "relay": "wss://relay.example", "operation": "write", "expires": 1720000000, "nonce": "b2a8c3..." }

This is then blinded and signed by the relay.

2. Token Redemption

Clients include tokens when submitting events or requests to the relay.

Token included via event tag:

json ["token", "<base64-encoded-token>", "write"]

Redemption can happen:

• Inline with any event (kind 1, etc.)
• As a standalone event (e.g., ephemeral kind 20000)
• During session initiation (optional AUTH extension)

The relay validates the token:

• Is it well-formed?
• Is it valid for this relay and operation?
• Is it unexpired?
• Has it been used already? (for burn-on-use)

If valid, the relay accepts the event or upgrades the rate/permission scope.

3. Nutsax: Private Token Storage on Nostr

Tokens are stored securely in the client’s Nutsax, a persistent, private archive built on Nostr’s encrypted event system.

Each token is stored in a kind 4 or kind 44/24 event, encrypted with the client’s own npub.

Example:

json { "kind": 4, "tags": [ ["p", "<your npub>"], ["token-type", "write"], ["relay", "wss://relay.example"] ], "content": "<encrypted token blob>", "created_at": 1234567890 }

This allows clients to:

• Persist tokens across restarts or device changes.
• Restore tokens after reinstalling or reauthenticating.
• Port tokens between devices.

All without exposing the tokens to the public or requiring external storage infrastructure.

Client Lifecycle

1. Requesting Tokens

• Client authenticates to relay (e.g., via NIP-42).
• Requests blind-signed tokens:
• Sends blinded token requests.
• Receives blind signatures.
• Unblinds and verifies.

2. Storing Tokens

• Each token is encrypted to the user’s own npub.
• Stored as a DM (kind 4 or compatible encrypted event).
• Optional tagging for organization.

3. Redeeming Tokens

• When performing a token-gated operation (e.g., posting to a limited relay), client includes the appropriate token in the event.
• Relay validates and logs/consumes the token.

4. Restoring the Nutsax

• On device reinstallation or session reset, the client:
• Reconnects to relays.
• Scans encrypted DMs.
• Decrypts and reimports available tokens.

Privacy Model

• Relays issuing tokens do not know which tokens were redeemed (blind signing).
• Tokens do not encode sender identity unless the client opts to do so.
• Only the recipient (npub) can decrypt their Nutsax.
• Redemption is pseudonymous — tied to a key, not to external identity.

Optional Enhancements

• Token index tag: to allow fast search and categorization.
• Multiple token types: read, write, boost, subscribe, etc.
• Token delegation: future support for transferring tokens via encrypted DM to another npub.
• Token revocation: relays can publish blacklists or expiration feeds if needed.

Compatibility

• Fully compatible with NIP-01, NIP-04 (encrypted DMs), and NIP-42 (authentication).
• Non-disruptive: relays and clients can ignore tokens if not supported.
• Ideal for layering on top of existing infrastructure and monetization strategies.

Conclusion

Nutsax offers a privacy-respecting, decentralized way to manage access and rate limits in the Nostr ecosystem. With blind-signed, operation-specific tokens and encrypted, persistent storage using native Nostr mechanisms, it gives relays and clients new powers without sacrificing Nostr’s core principles: simplicity, openness, and cryptographic self-sovereignty.

@ b7cf9f42:ecb93e78

Der Verstand im Fluss der Information

Das Informationszeitalter ist wie ein monströser Fluss, der unseren Verstand umgibt

Fundament erbauen

Der Verstand kann sich eine Insel in diesem Fluss bauen. Dabei können wir eine eigene Insel erbauen oder eine bestehende insel anvisieren um stabilität zu finden

Je robuster das Baumaterial, desto standhafter unsere Insel. (Stärke der Argumente, Qualität des Informationsgehalts, Verständlichkeit der Information)

Je grossflächiger die Insel, desto mehr Menschen haben Platz (Reichweite).

Je höher wir die Insel bauen, desto sicherer ist sie bei einem Anstieg des Informationsflusses (Diversität der Interesse und Kompetenzen der Inselbewohner).

Robustes Baumaterial

Primäre Wahrnehmung (robuster):

Realität -> meine Sinne -> meine Meinung/Interpretation

Sekundäre Wahrnehmung (weniger Robust):

Realität -> Sinne eines anderen -> dessen Meinung/Interpretation -> dessen Kommunikation -> meine Sinne -> meine Meinung/Interpretation

Wie kann ich zur Insel beitragen?

Ich investiere meine Zeit, um zu lernen. Ich bin bestrebt, Ideen zu verstehen, um sicherzugehen, dass ich robustes Baumaterial verwende.

Ich teile vermehrt Informationen, welche ich verstehe, damit auch meine Mitbewohner der Insel mit robustem Material die Insel vergrössern können. So können wir mehr Platz schaffen, wo Treibende Halt finden können.

Was könnte diese Insel sein?

• Freie Wissenschaft
• Freie Software
• Regeln
• Funktionierende Justiz
• Werkzeug
• und vieles weiteres

@ dd664d5e:5633d319

Men tend to find women attractive, that remind them of the average women they already know, but with more-averaged features. The mid of mids is kween.👸

But, in contradiction to that, they won't consider her highly attractive, unless she has some spectacular, unusual feature. They'll sacrifice some averageness to acquire that novelty. This is why wealthy men (who tend to be highly intelligent -- and therefore particularly inclined to crave novelty because they are easily bored) -- are more likely to have striking-looking wives and girlfriends, rather than conventionally-attractive ones. They are also more-likely to cross ethnic and racial lines, when dating.

Men also seem to each be particularly attracted to specific facial expressions or mimics, which might be an intelligence-similarity test, as persons with higher intelligence tend to have a more-expressive mimic. So, people with similar expressions tend to be on the same wavelength. Facial expessions also give men some sense of perception into womens' inner life, which they otherwise find inscrutable.

Hair color is a big deal (logic says: always go blonde), as is breast-size (bigger is better), and WHR (smaller is better).

@ 8fb140b4:f948000c

As many of you know, https://nostr.build has recently launched a new compatibility layer for the Blossom protocol blossom.band. You can find all the details about what it supports and its limitations by visiting the URL.

I wanted to cover some of the technical details about how it works here. One key difference you may notice is that the service acts as a linker, redirecting requests for the media hash to the actual source of the media—specifically, the nostr.build URL. This allows us to maintain a unified CDN cache and ensure that your media is served as quickly as possible.

Another difference is that each uploaded media/blob is served under its own subdomain (e.g., npub1[...].blossom.band), ensuring that your association with the blob is controlled by you. If you decide to delete the media for any reason, we ensure that the link is broken, even if someone else has duplicated it using the same hash.

To comply with the Blossom protocol, we also link the same hash under the main (apex) domain (blossom.band) and collect all associations under it. This ensures that Blossom clients can fetch media based on users’ Blossom server settings. If you are the sole owner of the hash and there are no duplicates, deleting the media removes the link from the main domain as well.

Lastly, in line with our mission to protect users’ privacy, we reject any media that contains private metadata (such as GPS coordinates, user comments, or camera serial numbers) or strip it if you use the /media/ endpoint for upload.

As always, your feedback is welcome and appreciated. Thank you!

@ 46fcbe30:6bd8ce4d

MEMORANDUM OF CONVERSATION

SUBJECT: Meeting with Russian President Yeltsin

PARTICIPANTS: - U.S. - President Clinton - Secretary Albright - National Security Advisor Berger - Deputy National Security Advisor Steinberg - Ambassador Sestanovich - Carlos Pascual

• Russia
• Russian President Yeltsin
• Foreign Minister Ivanov
• Kremlin Foreign Policy Advisor Prihodko
• Defense Minister Sergeyev
• Interpreter: Peter Afansenko
• Notetaker: Carlos Pascual

DATE, TIME AND PLACE: November 19, 1999, 10:45 a.m. - 11:40 a.m. Istanbul, Turkey

President Yeltsin: We are in neutral territory here. I welcome you.

The President: Neither of us has a stake here. It's good to see you.

President Yeltsin: Well, Bill, what about those camps here in Turkey that are preparing troops to go into Chechnya? Aren't you in charge of those? I have the details. Minister Ivanov, give me the map. I want to show you where the mercenaries are being trained and then being sent into Chechnya. They are armed to the teeth. (Note: Yeltsin pulls out map of Turkey and circulates it.) Bill, this is your fault. I told Demirel yesterday that I will send the head of the SRV tomorrow and we will show him where the camps are located. These are not state-sanctioned camps. They are sponsored by NGOs and religious organizations. But let me tell you if this were in Russia and there were but one camp, I would throw them all out and put the bandits in the electric chair.

The President: Perhaps Demirel could help you.

President Yeltsin: Well, he ought to. Tomorrow after I get back, I will send the head of the Foreign Intelligence Service here. Bill, did you hurt your leg?

The President: Yes, but it is not bad.

President Yeltsin: When one leg of the President hurts, that is a bad thing.

The President: It lets me know I am alive.

President Yeltsin: I know we are not upset at each other. We were just throwing some jabs. I'm still waiting for you to visit. Bill. I've said to you come to visit in May, then June, then July and then August. Now it's past October and you're still not there.

The President: You're right, Boris, I owe you a visit.

President Yeltsin: Last time I went to the U.S., Bill.

The President: Well, I better set it up. I'll look at the calendar and find a time that's good for you and me.

President Yeltsin: Call me and tell me the month and date. Unless I have another visit, I will do the maximum amount I can to do everything around your schedule. The main things I have are to go to China and India.

The President: Boris, we still have lots to do together.

President Yeltsin: You heard my statement on nuclear arms and on banning nuclear tests. I just signed a law on ratification of a new agreement on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Isn't that right, Minister Ivanov?

Minister Ivanov: You signed the documents that sent the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the Duma for review.

President Yeltsin: Well, in any case, I still approved it.

The President: Maybe I can get the Congress to agree still. They kept the Treaty even after they rejected it. So perhaps, there is still a chance.

President Yeltsin: Or perhaps it's just the bureaucrats working and they haven't had a chance to send it back to you yet. I'm upset that you signed the law to change the ABM Treaty.

The President: I signed no such law. People in Congress don't like the ABM Treaty. If Congress had its way, they would undermine the treaty. I'm trying to uphold it. But we need a national missile defense to protect against rogue states. We can't have a national missile defense that works without changing the ABM Treaty. But I want to do this cooperatively. I want to persuade you that this is good for both of us. The primary purpose is to protect against terrorists and rogue states. It would be ineffective against Russia. The system we're looking at would operate against just 20 missiles. And, Boris I want to figure out how to share the benefits. For all I know, in twenty years terrorists could have access to nuclear weapons. I know your people don't agree with me, but I'm not trying to overthrow the ABM Treaty. We're still trying to discover what's technically possible with national missile defense, but there are people in America who want to throw over the ABM Treaty. I have made no decisions yet.

President Yeltsin: Bill, Bill. I got your note. It went into all these things in incredible detail. I read it and I was satisfied. I've not yet ceased to believe in you. I ask you one thing. Just give Europe to Russia. The U.S. is not in Europe. Europe should be the business of Europeans. Russia is half European and half Asian.

The President: So you want Asia too?

President Yeltsin: Sure, sure. Bill. Eventually, we will have to agree on all of this.

The President: I don't think the Europeans would like this very much.

President Yeltsin: Not all. But I am a European. I live in Moscow. Moscow is in Europe and I like it. You can take all the other states and provide security to them. I will take Europe and provide them security. Well, not I. Russia will. We will end this conflict in Chechnya. I didn't say all the things I was thinking (in his speech). I listened to you carefully. I took a break just beforehand. Then I listened to you from beginning to end. I can even repeat what you said. Bill, I'm serious. Give Europe to Europe itself. Europe never felt as close to Russia as it does now. We have no difference of opinion with Europe, except maybe on Afganistan and Pakistan—which, by the way, is training Chechens. These are bandits, headhunters and killers. They're raping American women. They're cutting off ears and other parts of their hostages. We're fighting these types of terrorists. Let's not accuse Russia that we are too rough with these kinds of people. There are only two options: kill them or put them on trial. There's no third option, but we can put them on trial, and sentence them to 20-25 years. How many Americans, French, British and Germans have I freed that were there in Chechnya under the OSCE? The Chechen killers don't like the language of the OSCE. Here's my Minister of Defense. Stand up. We have not lost one soldier down there. Tell them.

Minister Sergeyev: We did not lose one soldier in Gudermes.

President Yeltsin: You see, Gudermes was cleansed without one military or civilian killed. We killed 200 bandits. The Minister of Defense is fulfilling the plan as I have said it should be. He's doing this thoughtfully. The soldiers only ask: don't stop the campaign. I promised these guys—I told every soldier, marshal and general—I will bring the campaign to fruition. We have these Chechens under lock and key. We have the key. They can't get in, they can't get out. Except maybe through Georgia; that's Shevardnadze's big mistake. And through Azerbaijan; that's Aliyev's mistake. They're shuttling in under the name of Islam. We're for freedom of religion, but not for fundamentalist Islam. These extremists are against you and against me.

We have the power in Russia to protect all of Europe, including those with missiles. We'll make all the appropriate treaties with China. We're not going to provide nuclear weapons to India. If we give them submarines, it will be only conventional diesel submarines, not nuclear. They would be from the 935 generation. You're going in that direction too. I'm thinking about your proposal—well, what your armed forces are doing—getting rid of fissile materials, particularly plutonium. We should just get rid of it. As soon as it's there, people start thinking of how to make bombs. Look, Russia has the power and intellect to know what to do with Europe. If Ivanov stays here, he will initial the CFE Treaty and I'll sign it under him. But under the OSCE Charter, there is one thing I cannot agree—which is that, based on humanitarian causes, one state can interfere in the affairs of another state.

National Security Advisor Berger: Mr. President, there's nothing in the Charter on one state's interference in the affairs of another.

Secretary Albright: That's right. What the Charter says is that affairs within a state will affect the other states around it.

President Yeltsin: Russia agrees to take out its property and equipment from Georgia in accordance with the new CFE Treaty. I have a statement on this. (looking toward Ivanov) Give it to me. I signed it today. Actually, it was late last night. I like to work late.

The President: Me, too.

President Yeltsin: I know you like to work late, Bill. When you call me, I calculate the time and I tell myself it's 4 a.m. and he's calling me. It lets you cleanse your brain and you feel great. I am not criticizing you, Bill. The President should be encouraged to work hard.

The President: So, we will get an agreement on CFE.

President Yeltsin: Yes.

The President: That's very important, seven years. We've worked on this for a long time.

President Yeltsin: Look, Ivanov has lost the statement in his own bag. He can't find the paper in his own bag. On the Charter, we have to look at it from the beginning. The Charter's ready. However, when states begin to tie in the Charter with the final declaration that has wording unacceptable to us, that's when we'll say no. And responsibility for this will fall fully on the West. (Looking at Ivanov) Give me this thing. It is written on paper. Bill. I am ready to sign it. It is a declaration about what we're talking about.

Secretary Albright: Some states want to record in the declaration your willingness to have an OSCE mission.

President Yeltsin: No, not at all. We will finish this with our own forces. Chechnya is the business of the internal affairs of Russia. We have to decide what to do. After we cleansed Gudermes, the muslim mufti came and asked for help, said I hate Basayev and he should be banned. These are the kinds of leaders we will put forward. I have thought this through carefully.

The President: On the Chechen problem. I have been less critical than others. Even today, I asked the others how they would deal with this if it were their country. This is a political issue. It may be the best thing for you within Russia to tell the Europeans to go to hell. But the best thing for your relations with Europe for the long term is to figure out the policy that you want to have with Europe and to keep that in mind as you deal with Chechnya.

President Yeltsin: (Gets up rapidly) Bill, the meeting is up. We said 20 minutes and it has now been more than 35 minutes.

The President: That's fine. We can say the meeting is over.

President Yeltsin: This meeting has gone on too long. You should come to visit, Bill.

The President: Who will win the election?

President Yeltsin: Putin, of course. He will be the successor to Boris Yeltsin. He's a democrat, and he knows the West.

The President: He's very smart.

President Yeltsin: He's tough. He has an internal ramrod. He's tough internally, and I will do everything possible for him to win—legally, of course. And he will win. You'll do business together. He will continue the Yeltsin line on democracy and economics and widen Russia's contacts. He has the energy and the brains to succeed. Thank you, Bill.

The President: Thank you, Boris. It was good to see you.

End of Conversation

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Introduction

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

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

The Pyramid’s Function as a Nitrogen Fertilizer Generator

The hypothesized system involves several key processes:

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

Power Requirements for Continuous Operation

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

Total Energy Required Over 10,000 Years

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

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

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

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

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

Using a Self-Regulating Breeder Reactor

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

Pebble Bed Reactor Design

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

Fissile Material Requirements

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

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

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

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

Impact of a Breeding Ratio

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

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

Reactor Size and Fuel Replenishment

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

Managing Scaling in the Steam Generation System

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

1. Natural Water Softening Using Limestone

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

2. Chemical Additives for Scaling Prevention

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

3. Superheating and Pre-Evaporation

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

4. Electrostatic Control for Scaling Mitigation

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Introduction

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

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

The Battle of Epistemologies: Experts vs. Tradition

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

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

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

The Consequences of Non-Overlapping Overton Windows

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

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

Conclusion: Two Nations on One Land

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

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

@ 291c75d9:37f1bfbe

In 1727, a 21-year-old Benjamin Franklin gathered a dozen men in Philadelphia for a bold experiment in intellectual and civic growth. Every Friday night, this group—known as the Junto, from the Spanish juntar ("to join")—met in a tavern or private home to discuss "Morals, Politics, or Natural Philosophy (science)." Far from a casual social club, the Junto was a secret society dedicated to mutual improvement, respectful discourse, and community betterment. What began as a small gathering of tradesmen and thinkers would leave a lasting mark on Franklin’s life and colonial America.

Printers are educated in the belief that when men differ in opinion, both sides ought equally to have the advantage of being heard by the public, and that when Truth and Error have fair play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter.

- Benjamin Franklin

The Junto operated under a clear set of rules, detailed by Franklin in his Autobiography:

"The rules that I drew up required that every member, in his turn, should produce one or more queries on any point of Morals, Politics, or Natural Philosophy, to be discuss’d by the company; and once in three months produce and read an essay of his own writing, on any subject he pleased. Our debates were to be under the direction of a president, and to be conducted in the sincere spirit of inquiry after truth, without fondness for dispute, or desire of victory; and, to prevent warmth [heatedness], all expressions of positiveness in opinions, or direct contradiction, were after some time made contraband and prohibited under small pecuniary penalties [monetary fines]."

These guidelines emphasized collaboration over competition. Members were expected to contribute questions or essays, sparking discussions that prioritized truth over ego. To keep debates civil, the group even imposed small fines for overly assertive or contradictory behavior—a practical nudge toward humility and open-mindedness. (Yes, I believe that is an ass tax!)

Rather than admitting new members, Franklin encouraged existing ones to form their own discussion groups. This created a decentralized network of groups ("private relays," as I think of them), echoing the structure of modern platforms like NOSTR—while preserving the Junto’s exclusivity and privacy.

From the beginning, they made it a rule to keep these meetings secret, without applications or admittance of new members. Instead, Franklin encouraged members to form their own groups—in a way acting as private relays of sorts. (I say "private" because they continued to keep the Junto secret, even with these new groups.)

Membership: A Diverse Circle United by Values

The Junto’s twelve founding members came from varied walks of life—printers, surveyors, shoemakers, and clerks—yet shared a commitment to self-improvement. Franklin, though the youngest (around 21 when the group formed), led the Junto with a vision of collective growth. To join, candidates faced a simple vetting process, answering four key questions:

1. Have you any particular disrespect for any present members? Answer: I have not.
2. Do you sincerely declare that you love mankind in general, of what profession or religion soever? Answer: I do.
3. Do you think any person ought to be harmed in his body, name, or goods, for mere speculative opinions, or his external way of worship? Answer: No.
4. Do you love truth for truth’s sake, and will you endeavor impartially to find and receive it yourself and communicate it to others? Answer: Yes.

These criteria reveal the Junto’s core values: respect, tolerance, and an unwavering pursuit of truth. They ensured that members brought not just intellect but also character to the table—placing dialogue as the priority.

One should also note the inspiration from the "Dry Club" of John Locke, William Popple, and Benjamin Furly in the 1690s. They too required affirmation to:

1. Whether he loves all men, of what profession or religion soever?
2. Whether he thinks no person ought to be harmed in his body, name, or goods, for mere speculative opinions, or his external way of worship?
3. Whether he loves and seeks truth for truth’s sake; and will endeavor impartially to find and receive it himself, and to communicate it to others?

And they agreed: "That no person or opinion be unhandsomely reflected on; but every member behave himself with all the temper, judgment, modesty, and discretion he is master of."

The Discussions: 24 Questions to Spark Insight

Franklin crafted a list of 24 questions to guide the Junto’s conversations, ranging from personal anecdotes to civic concerns. These prompts showcase the group’s intellectual breadth. Here are some of my favorites:

Hath any citizen in your knowledge failed in his business lately, and what have you heard of the cause?

Have you lately heard of any citizen’s thriving well, and by what means?

Do you know of any fellow citizen who has lately done a worthy action, deserving praise and imitation?

Do you think of anything at present in which the Junto may be serviceable to mankind, their country, friends, or themselves?

Have you lately observed any defect in the laws of your country, which it would be proper to move the legislature for an amendment?

Do you know of any deserving young beginner lately set up, whom it lies in the power of the Junto any way to encourage?

(Read them all here.)

Note the keen attention to success and failure, and the reflection on both. Attention was often placed on the community and individual improvement beyond the members of the group. These questions encouraged members to share knowledge, reflect on virtues and vices, and propose solutions to real-world problems. The result? Discussions that didn’t just end at the tavern door but inspired tangible community improvements.

The Junto’s Legacy: America’s First Lending Library

One of the Junto’s most enduring contributions to Philadelphia—and indeed, to the American colonies—was the creation of the first lending library in 1731. Born from the group’s commitment to mutual improvement and knowledge-sharing, this library became a cornerstone of public education and intellectual life in the community.

The idea for the library emerged naturally from the Junto’s discussions. Members, who came from diverse backgrounds but shared a passion for learning, recognized that their own access to books was often limited and costly—and they referred to them often. To address this, they proposed pooling their personal collections to create a shared resource. This collaborative effort allowed them—and eventually the broader public—to access a wider range of books than any individual could afford alone.

The library operated on a simple yet revolutionary principle: knowledge should be available to all, regardless of wealth or status. By creating a lending system, the Junto democratized access to information, fostering a culture of self-education and curiosity. This was especially significant at a time when books were scarce and formal education was not universally accessible.

The success of the Junto’s library inspired similar initiatives across the colonies, laying the groundwork for the public library system we know today. It also reflected the group’s broader mission: to serve not just its members but the entire community. The library became a symbol of the Junto’s belief in the power of education to uplift individuals and society alike.

With roots extending back to the founding of the Society in 1743, the Library of the American Philosophical Society houses over thirteen million manuscripts, 350,000 volumes and bound periodicals, 250,000 images, and thousands of hours of audiotape. The Library’s holdings make it one of the premier institutions for documenting the history of the American Revolution and Founding, the study of natural history in the 18th and 19th centuries, the study of evolution and genetics, quantum mechanics, and the development of cultural anthropology, among others.

The American Philosophical Society Library continues today. I hope to visit it myself in the future.

Freedom, for Community

Comparing the Junto to Nostr shows how the tools of community and debate evolve with time. Both prove that people crave spaces to connect, share, and grow—whether in a colonial tavern or a digital relay. Yet their differences reveal trade-offs: the Junto’s structure offered depth and focus but capped its reach, while Nostr’s openness promises scale at the cost of order.

In a sense, Nostr feels like the Junto’s modern echo—faster, bigger, and unbound by gates or rules. Franklin might admire its ambition, even if he’d raise an eyebrow at its messiness. For us, the comparison underscores a timeless truth: no matter the medium, the drive to seek truth and build community endures.

---

The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin (1771–1790, pub. 1791)

http://www.benjamin-franklin-history.org/junto-club/

Benjamin Franklin, Political, Miscellaneous, and Philosophical Pieces, ed. Benjamin Vaughan (London: 1779), pp. 533–536.

"Rules of a Society" in The Remains of John Locke, Esq. (1714), p. 113

npubpro

@ c48e29f0:26e14c11

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STRATEGIC BITCOIN RESERVE AND UNITED STATES DIGITAL ASSET STOCKPILE EXECUTIVE ORDER March 6, 2025

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Background.

Bitcoin is the original cryptocurrency. The Bitcoin protocol permanently caps the total supply of bitcoin (BTC) at 21 million coins, and has never been hacked. As a result of its scarcity and security, Bitcoin is often referred to as “digital gold”. Because there is a fixed supply of BTC, there is a strategic advantage to being among the first nations to create a strategic bitcoin reserve. The United States Government currently holds a significant amount of BTC, but has not implemented a policy to maximize BTC’s strategic position as a unique store of value in the global financial system. Just as it is in our country’s interest to thoughtfully manage national ownership and control of any other resource, our Nation must harness, not limit, the power of digital assets for our prosperity.

Sec. 2. Policy.

It is the policy of the United States to establish a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. It is further the policy of the United States to establish a United States Digital Asset Stockpile that can serve as a secure account for orderly and strategic management of the United States’ other digital asset holdings.

Sec. 3. Creation and Administration of the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and United States Digital Asset Stockpile.

(a) The Secretary of the Treasury shall establish an office to administer and maintain control of custodial accounts collectively known as the “Strategic Bitcoin Reserve,” capitalized with all BTC held by the Department of the Treasury that was finally forfeited as part of criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings or in satisfaction of any civil money penalty imposed by any executive department or agency (agency) and that is not needed to satisfy requirements under 31 U.S.C. 9705 or released pursuant to subsection (d) of this section (Government BTC). Within 30 days of the date of this order, each agency shall review its authorities to transfer any Government BTC held by it to the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and shall submit a report reflecting the result of that review to the Secretary of the Treasury. Government BTC deposited into the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve shall not be sold and shall be maintained as reserve assets of the United States utilized to meet governmental objectives in accordance with applicable law.

(b) The Secretary of the Treasury shall establish an office to administer and maintain control of custodial accounts collectively known as the “United States Digital Asset Stockpile,” capitalized with all digital assets owned by the Department of the Treasury, other than BTC, that were finally forfeited as part of criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings and that are not needed to satisfy requirements under 31 U.S.C. 9705 or released pursuant to subsection (d) of this section (Stockpile Assets). Within 30 days of the date of this order, each agency shall review its authorities to transfer any Stockpile Assets held by it to the United States Digital Asset Stockpile and shall submit a report reflecting the result of that review to the Secretary of the Treasury. The Secretary of the Treasury shall determine strategies for responsible stewardship of the United States Digital Asset Stockpile in accordance with applicable law.

(c) The Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Commerce shall develop strategies for acquiring additional Government BTC provided that such strategies are budget neutral and do not impose incremental costs on United States taxpayers. However, the United States Government shall not acquire additional Stockpile Assets other than in connection with criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings or in satisfaction of any civil money penalty imposed by any agency without further executive or legislative action.

(d) “Government Digital Assets” means all Government BTC and all Stockpile Assets. The head of each agency shall not sell or otherwise dispose of any Government Digital Assets, except in connection with the Secretary of the Treasury’s exercise of his lawful authority and responsible stewardship of the United States Digital Asset Stockpile pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, or pursuant to an order from a court of competent jurisdiction, as required by law, or in cases where the Attorney General or other relevant agency head determines that the Government Digital Assets (or the proceeds from the sale or disposition thereof) can and should: (i) be returned to identifiable and verifiable victims of crime; (ii) be used for law enforcement operations;
(iii) be equitably shared with State and local law enforcement partners; or (iv) be released to satisfy requirements under 31 U.S.C. 9705, 28 U.S.C. 524(c), 18 U.S.C. 981, or 21 U.S.C. 881.

(e) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury shall deliver an evaluation of the legal and investment considerations for establishing and managing the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and United States Digital Asset Stockpile going forward, including the accounts in which the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and United States Digital Asset Stockpile should be located and the need for any legislation to operationalize any aspect of this order or the proper management and administration of such accounts.

Sec. 4. Accounting.

Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall provide the Secretary of the Treasury and the President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets with a full accounting of all Government Digital Assets in such agency’s possession, including any information regarding the custodial accounts in which such Government Digital Assets are currently held that would be necessary to facilitate a transfer of the Government Digital Assets to the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve or the United States Digital Asset Stockpile. If such agency holds no Government Digital Assets, such agency shall confirm such fact to the Secretary of the Treasury and the President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets within 30 days of the date of this order.

Sec. 5. General Provisions.

(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

THE WHITE HOUSE, March 6, 2025

@ 90c656ff:9383fd4e

Since its creation in 2008, Bitcoin has been seen as a direct challenge to the traditional banking system. Developed as a decentralized alternative to fiat money, Bitcoin offers a way to store and transfer value without relying on banks, governments, or other financial institutions. This characteristic has made it a symbol of resistance against a financial system that, over time, has been marked by crises, manipulation, and restrictions imposed on citizens.

The 2008 financial crisis and the birth of Bitcoin

Bitcoin emerged in response to the 2008 financial crisis—a collapse that exposed the flaws of the global banking system. Central banks printed massive amounts of money to bail out irresponsible financial institutions, while millions of people lost their homes, savings, and jobs. In this context, Bitcoin was created as an alternative financial system, where no central authority could manipulate the economy for its own benefit.

In the first block of the Bitcoin blockchain or timechain, Satoshi Nakamoto included the following message:

“The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks.”

This phrase, taken from a newspaper headline of the time, symbolizes Bitcoin’s intent to offer a financial system beyond the control of banks and governments.

• Key reasons why Bitcoin resists the banking system

01 - Decentralization: Unlike money issued by central banks, Bitcoin cannot be created or controlled by any single entity. The network of users validates transactions transparently and independently.

02 - Limited Supply: While central banks can print money without limit—causing inflation and currency devaluation—Bitcoin has a fixed supply of 21 million units, making it resistant to artificial depreciation.

03 - Censorship Resistance: Banks can freeze accounts and block transactions at any time. With Bitcoin, anyone can send and receive funds without needing permission from third parties.

04 - Self-Custody: Instead of entrusting funds to a bank, Bitcoin users can store their own coins without the risk of account freezes or bank failures.

• Conflict between banks and Bitcoin

01 - Media Attacks: Large financial institutions often label Bitcoin as risky, volatile, or useless, attempting to discourage its adoption.

02 - Regulation and Crackdowns: Some governments, influenced by the banking sector, have implemented restrictions on Bitcoin usage, making it harder to buy and sell.

03 - Creation of Centralized Alternatives: Many central banks are developing digital currencies (CBDCs) that maintain control over digital money but do not offer Bitcoin’s freedom and decentralization.

In summary, Bitcoin is not just a digital currency—it is a movement of resistance against a financial system that has repeatedly failed to protect ordinary citizens. By offering a decentralized, transparent, and censorship-resistant alternative, Bitcoin represents financial freedom and challenges the banking monopoly over money. As long as the traditional banking system continues to impose restrictions and control the flow of capital, Bitcoin will remain a symbol of independence and financial sovereignty.

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

@ bd4ae3e6:1dfb81f5

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

The financial system has long relied on traditional banking methods, but emerging technologies like Bitcoin and Nostr are paving the way for a new era of financial interactions.

Secure Savings with Bitcoin:

Bitcoin wallets can act as secure savings accounts, offering users control and ownership over their funds without relying on third parties.

Instant Settlements with the Lightning Network:

The Lightning Network can replace traditional settlement systems, such as ACH or wire transfers, by enabling instant, low-cost transactions.

Face-to-Face Transactions with Ecash:

Ecash could offer a fee-free option for smaller, everyday transactions, complementing the Lightning Network for larger payments.

Automated Billing with Nostr Wallet Connect:

Nostr Wallet Connect could revolutionize automated billing, allowing users to set payment limits and offering more control over subscriptions and recurring expenses.

Conclusion:

Combining Bitcoin and Nostr technologies could create a more efficient, user-centric financial system that empowers individuals and businesses alike.

@ bd4ae3e6:1dfb81f5

@ c8383d81:f9139549

Project is still in early stages but now it is split into 2 different domain entities. 
Everything is opened sourced under one github https://github.com/Nsite-Info

So what’s new ?

Project #1 https://Nsite.info

A basic website with main info regarding what an Nsite is how it works and a list of tools and repo’s you can use to start building and debugging.
99% Finished, needs some extra translations and the Nsite Debugger can use a small upgrade.



Project #2 https://Nsite.cloud

This project isn’t finished, it currently is at a 40% finished stage. This contains the Nsite Gateway for all sites (still a work in progress) and the final stage the Nsite editor & template deployment.

If you are interested in Nsite’s join: 

https://chachi.chat/groups.hzrd149.com/e23891

Big thanks to nostr:npub1elta7cneng3w8p9y4dw633qzdjr4kyvaparuyuttyrx6e8xp7xnq32cume nostr:npub1ye5ptcxfyyxl5vjvdjar2ua3f0hynkjzpx552mu5snj3qmx5pzjscpknpr nostr:npub1klr0dy2ul2dx9llk58czvpx73rprcmrvd5dc7ck8esg8f8es06qs427gxc for all the tooling & code.

!(image)[https://i.nostr.build/AkUvk7R2h9cVEMLB.png]

@ 98912a0b:c1f46ab6

Jo, blomster kommer i alle farger og fasonger. Her har du to eksempler:

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Election Authority (EA) Platform

1.1 EA Administration Interface (Web-Based)

• Purpose: Gives authorized personnel (e.g., election officials) a user-friendly way to administer the election.
• Key Tasks:
• Voter Registration Oversight: Mark which voters have proven their identity (via in-person KYC or some legal process).
• Blind Signature Issuance: Approve or deny blind signature requests from registered voters (each corresponding to one ephemeral key).
• Tracking Voter Slots: Keep a minimal registry of who is allowed one ephemeral key signature, and mark it “used” once a signature is issued.
• Election Configuration: Set start/end times, provide encryption parameters (public keys), manage threshold cryptography setup.
• Monitor Tallying: After the election, collaborate with trustees to decrypt final results and release them.

1.2 EA Backend Services

• Blind Signature Service:
• An API endpoint or internal module that receives a blinded ephemeral key from a voter, checks if they are authorized (one signature per voter), and returns the blind-signed result.

• Typically requires secure storage of the EA’s blind signing private key.

• Voter Roll Database:

• Stores minimal info: “Voter #12345 is authorized to request one ephemeral key signature,” plus status flags.

• Does not store ephemeral keys themselves (to preserve anonymity).

• (Optional) Mix-Net or Homomorphic Tally Service:

• Coordinates with trustees for threshold decryption or re-encryption.
• Alternatively, a separate “Tally Authority” service can handle this.

---

2. Auditor Interface

2.1 Auditor Web-Based Portal

• Purpose: Allows independent auditors (or the public) to:
• Fetch All Ballots from the relays (or from an aggregator).
• Verify Proofs: Check each ballot’s signature, blind signature from the EA, OTS proof, zero-knowledge proofs, etc.
• Check Double-Usage: Confirm that each ephemeral key is used only once (or final re-vote is the only valid instance).

• Observe Tally Process: Possibly see partial decryptions or shuffle steps, verify the final result matches the posted ballots.

• Key Tasks:

• Provide a dashboard showing the election’s real-time status or final results, after cryptographic verification.
• Offer open data downloads so third parties can run independent checks.

2.2 (Optional) Trustee Dashboard

• If the election uses threshold cryptography (multiple parties must decrypt), each trustee (candidate rep, official, etc.) might have an interface for:
• Uploading partial decryption shares or re-encryption proofs.
• Checking that other trustees did their steps correctly (zero-knowledge proofs for correct shuffling, etc.).

---

3. Voter Application

3.1 Voter Client (Mobile App or Web Interface)

• Purpose: The main tool voters use to participate—before, during, and after the election.

• Functionalities:

• Registration Linking:
  • Voter goes in-person to an election office or uses an online KYC process.
  • Voter obtains or confirms their long-term (“KYC-bound”) key. The client can store it securely (or the voter just logs in to a “voter account”).
• Ephemeral Key Generation:
  • Create an ephemeral key pair ((nsec_e, npub_e)) locally.
  • Blind (\npub_e) and send it to the EA for signing.
  • Unblind the returned signature.
  • Store (\npub_e) + EA’s signature for use during voting.
• Ballot Composition:
  • Display candidates/offices to the voter.
  • Let them select choices.
  • Possibly generate zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs) behind the scenes to confirm “exactly one choice per race.”
• Encryption & OTS Timestamp:
  • Encrypt the ballot under the election’s public (threshold) key or produce a format suitable for a mix-net.
  • Obtain an OpenTimestamps proof for the ballot’s hash.
• Publish Ballot:
  • Sign the entire “timestamped ballot” with the ephemeral key.
  • Include the EA’s blind signature on (\npub_e).
  • Post to the Nostr relays (or any chosen decentralized channel).
• Re-Voting:
  • If the user needs to change their vote, the client repeats the encryption + OTS step, publishes a new ballot with a strictly later OTS anchor.
• Verification:
  • After the election, the voter can check that their final ballot is present in the tally set.

3.2 Local Storage / Security

• The app must securely store:
• Ephemeral private key ((nsec_e)) until voting is complete.
• Potential backup/recovery mechanism if the phone is lost.
• Blind signature from the EA on (\npub_e).
• Potentially uses hardware security modules (HSM) or secure enclaves on the device.

---

4. Nostr Relays (or Equivalent Decentralized Layer)

• Purpose: Store and replicate voter-submitted ballots (events).
• Key Properties:
• Redundancy: Voters can post to multiple relays to mitigate censorship or downtime.
• Public Accessibility: Auditors, the EA, and the public can fetch all events to verify or tally.
• Event Filtering: By design, watchers can filter events with certain tags, e.g. “election: 2025 County Race,” ensuring they gather all ballots.

---

5. Threshold Cryptography Setup

5.1 Multi-Seg (Multi-Party) Key Generation

• Participants: Possibly the EA + major candidates + accredited observers.
• Process: A Distributed Key Generation (DKG) protocol that yields a single public encryption key.
• Private Key Shares: Each trustee holds a piece of the decryption key; no single party can decrypt alone.

5.2 Decryption / Tally Mechanism

• Homomorphic Approach:
• Ballots are additively encrypted.
• Summation of ciphertexts is done publicly.
• Trustees provide partial decryptions for the final sum.
• Mix-Net Approach:
• Ballots are collected.
• Multiple servers shuffle and re-encrypt them (each trustee verifies correctness).
• Final set is decrypted, but the link to each ephemeral key is lost.

5.3 Trustee Interfaces

• Separate or integrated into the auditor interface—each trustee logs in and provides their partial key share for decrypting the final result.
• Possibly combined with ZK proofs to confirm correct partial decryption or shuffling.

---

6. OpenTimestamps (OTS) or External Time Anchor

6.1 Aggregator Service

• Purpose: Receives a hash from the voter’s app, anchors it into a blockchain or alternative time-stamping system.
• Result: Returns a proof object that can later be used by any auditor to confirm the time/block height at which the hash was included.

6.2 Verifier Interface

• Could be part of the auditor tool or the voter client.
• Checks that each ballot’s OTS proof is valid and references a block/time prior to the election’s closing.

---

7. Registration Process (In-Person or Hybrid)

1. Voter presents ID physically at a polling station or a designated office (or an online KYC approach, if legally allowed).
2. EA official:
3. Confirms identity.
4. Links the voter to a “voter record” (Voter #12345).
5. Authorizes them for “1 ephemeral key blind-sign.”
6. Voter obtains or logs into the voter client:
7. The app or website might show “You are now cleared to request a blind signature from the EA.”
8. Voter later (or immediately) generates the ephemeral key and requests the blind signature.

---

8. Putting It All Together (High-Level Flow)

1. Key Setup
2. The EA + trustees run a DKG to produce the election public key.
3. Voter Registration
4. Voter is validated (ID check).
5. Marked as eligible in the EA database.
6. Blind-Signed Ephemeral Key
7. Voter’s client generates a key, blinds (\npub_e), obtains EA’s signature, unblinds.
8. Voting
9. Voter composes ballot, encrypts with the election public key.
10. Gets OTS proof for the ballot hash.
11. Voter’s ephemeral key signs the entire package (including EA’s signature on (\npub_e)).
12. Publishes to Nostr.
13. Re-Voting (Optional)
14. Same ephemeral key, new OTS timestamp.
15. Final ballot is whichever has the latest valid timestamp before closing.
16. Close of Election & Tally
17. EA announces closing.
18. Tally software (admin + auditors) collects ballots from Nostr, discards invalid duplicates.
19. Threshold decryption or mix-net to reveal final counts.
20. Publish final results and let auditors verify everything.

---

9. Summary of Major Components

Below is a succinct list:

1. EA Admin Platform
2. Web UI for officials (registration, blind signature issuing, final tally management).
3. Backend DB for voter records & authorized ephemeral keys.
4. Auditor/Trustee Platforms
5. Web interface for verifying ballots, partial decryption, and final results.
6. Voter Application (Mobile / Web)
7. Generating ephemeral keys, getting blind-signed, casting encrypted ballots, re-voting, verifying included ballots.
8. Nostr Relays (Decentralized Storage)
9. Where ballots (events) are published, replicated, and fetched for final tally.
10. Threshold Cryptography System
11. Multi-party DKG for the election key.
12. Protocols or services for partial decryption, mix-net, or homomorphic summation.
13. OpenTimestamps Aggregator
14. Service that returns a blockchain-anchored timestamp proof for each ballot’s hash.

Additional Implementation Considerations

• Security Hardening:
• Using hardware security modules (HSM) for the EA’s blind-signing key, for trustee shares, etc.
• Scalability:
• Handling large numbers of concurrent voters, large data flows to relays.
• User Experience:
• Minimizing cryptographic complexity for non-technical voters.
• Legal and Procedural:
• Compliance with local laws for in-person ID checks, mandatory paper backups (if any), etc.

---

Final Note

While each functional block can be designed and deployed independently (e.g., multiple aggregator services, multiple relays, separate tally servers), the key to a successful system is interoperability and careful orchestration of these components—ensuring strong security, a straightforward voter experience, and transparent auditing.

nostr:naddr1qqxnzde5xq6nzv348yunvv35qy28wue69uhnzv3h9cczuvpwxyargwpk8yhsygxpax4n544z4dk2f04lgn4xfvha5s9vvvg73p46s66x2gtfedttgvpsgqqqw4rs0rcnsu

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

1. Introduction

Modern election systems must balance privacy (no one sees how individuals vote) with public verifiability (everyone can confirm the correctness of the tally). Achieving this in a decentralized, tamper-resistant manner remains a challenge. Nostr (a lightweight protocol for censorship-resistant communication) offers a promising platform for distributing and archiving election data (ballots) without relying on a single central server.

This paper presents a design where:

1. Each voter generates a new ephemeral Nostr keypair for an election.
2. The election authority (EA) blind-signs this ephemeral public key (npub) to prove the voter is authorized, without revealing which voter owns which ephemeral key.
3. Voters cast encrypted ballots to Nostr relays, each carrying an OpenTimestamps proof to confirm the ballot’s time anchor.
4. Re-voting is allowed: a voter can replace a previously cast ballot by publishing a new ballot with a newer timestamp.
5. Only the latest valid ballot (per ephemeral key) is counted.

We combine well-known cryptographic primitives—blind signatures, homomorphic or mix-net encryption, threshold key management, and time anchoring—into an end-to-end system that preserves anonymity, assures correctness, and prevents double-voting.

---

2. Roles and Components

2.1 Voters

• Long-Term (“KYC-bound”) Key: Each voter has some identity-verified Nostr public key used only for official communication with the EA (not for voting).
• Ephemeral Voting Key: For each election, the voter locally generates a new Nostr keypair ((nsec_e, npub_e)).
• This is the “one-time” identity used to sign ballots.
• The EA never learns the real identity behind (\npub_e) because of blinding.

2.2 Election Authority (EA)

• Maintains the official voter registry: who is entitled to vote.
• Blind-Signs each valid voter’s ephemeral public key to authorize exactly one ephemeral key per voter.
• Publishes a minimal voter roll: e.g., “Voter #12345 has been issued a valid ephemeral key,” without revealing which ephemeral key.

2.3 Nostr Relays

• Decentralized servers that store and forward events.
• Voters post their ballots to relays, which replicate them.
• No single relay is critical; the same ballot can be posted to multiple relays for redundancy.

2.4 Cryptographic Framework

1. Blind Signatures: The EA signs a blinded version of (\npub_e).
2. Homomorphic or Mix-Net Encryption: Ensures the content of each ballot remains private; only aggregate results or a shuffled set are ever decrypted.
3. Threshold / General Access Structure: Multiple trustees (EA plus candidate representatives, for example) must collaborate to produce a final decryption.
4. OpenTimestamps (OTS): Attaches a verifiable timestamp proof to each ballot, anchoring it to a blockchain or other tamper-resistant time reference.

---

3. Protocol Lifecycle

This section walks through voter registration, ephemeral key authorization, casting (and re-casting) ballots, and finally the tally.

3.1 Registration & Minimal Voter Roll

1. Legal/KYC Verification
2. Each real-world voter proves their identity to the EA (per legal procedures).

3. The EA records that the voter is eligible to cast one ballot, referencing their long-term identity key ((\npub_{\mathrm{KYC}})).

4. Issue Authorization “Slot”

5. The EA’s voter roll notes “this person can receive exactly one blind signature for an ephemeral key.”
6. The roll does not store an ephemeral key—just notes that it can be requested.

3.2 Generating and Blinding the Ephemeral Key

1. Voter Creates Ephemeral Key
2. Locally, the voter’s client generates a fresh ((nsec_e, npub_e)).
3. Blinding

4. The client blinds (\npub_e) to produce (\npub_{e,\mathrm{blinded}}). This ensures the EA cannot learn the real (\npub_e).

5. Blind Signature Request

6. The voter, using their KYC-bound key ((\npub_{\mathrm{KYC}})), sends (\npub_{e,\mathrm{blinded}}) to the EA (perhaps via a secure direct message or a “giftwrapped DM”).
7. The EA checks that this voter has not already been issued a blind signature.

8. If authorized, the EA signs (\npub_{e,\mathrm{blinded}}) with its private key and returns the blinded signature.

9. Unblinding

10. The voter’s client unblinds the signature, obtaining a valid signature on (\npub_e).

11. Now (\npub_e) is a blinded ephemeral public key that the EA has effectively “authorized,” without knowing which voter it belongs to.

12. Roll Update

13. The EA updates its minimal roll to note that “Voter #12345 received a signature,” but does not publish (\npub_e).

3.3 Casting an Encrypted Ballot with OpenTimestamps

When the voter is ready to vote:

1. Compose Encrypted Ballot
2. The ballot can be homomorphically encrypted (e.g., with Paillier or ElGamal) or structured for a mix-net.

3. Optionally include Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs) showing the ballot is valid (one candidate per race, etc.).

4. Obtain OTS Timestamp

5. The voter’s client computes a hash (H) of the ballot data (ciphertext + ZKPs).
6. The client sends (H) to an OpenTimestamps aggregator.

7. The aggregator returns a timestamp proof verifying that “this hash was seen at or before block/time (T).”

8. Create a “Timestamped Ballot” Payload

9. Combine:

   1. Encrypted ballot data.
   2. OTS proof for the hash of the ballot.
   3. EA’s signature on (\npub_e) (the blind-signed ephemeral key).
   4. A final signature by the voter’s ephemeral key ((nsec_e)) over the entire package.

10. Publish to Nostr

11. The voter posts the complete “timestamped ballot” event to one or more relays.
12. Observers see “an event from ephemeral key (\npub_e), with an OTS proof and the EA’s blind signature,” but cannot identify the real voter or see the vote’s contents.

3.4 Re-Voting (Updating the Ballot)

If the voter wishes to revise their vote (due to coercion, a mistake, or simply a change of mind):

1. Generate a New Encrypted Ballot
2. Possibly with different candidate choices.
3. Obtain a New OTS Proof
4. The new ballot has a fresh hash (H').
5. The OTS aggregator provides a new proof anchored at a later block/time than the old one.
6. Publish the Updated Ballot
7. Again, sign with (\npub_e).
8. Relays store both ballots, but the newer OTS timestamp shows which ballot is “final.”

Rule: The final vote for ephemeral key (\npub_e) is determined by the ballot with the highest valid OTS proof prior to the election’s closing.

3.5 Election Closing & Tally

1. Close Signal
2. At a specified time or block height, the EA publishes a “closing token.”

3. Any ballot with an OTS anchor referencing a time/block after the closing is invalid.

4. Collect Final Ballots

5. Observers (or official tally software) gather the latest valid ballot from each ephemeral key.

6. They confirm the OTS proofs are valid and that no ephemeral key posted two different ballots with the same timestamp.

7. Decryption / Summation

8. If homomorphic, the system sums the encrypted votes and uses a threshold of trustees to decrypt the aggregate.
9. If a mix-net, the ballots are shuffled and partially decrypted, also requiring multiple trustees.

10. In either case, individual votes remain hidden, but the final counts are revealed.

11. Public Audit

12. Anyone can fetch all ballots from the Nostr relays, verify OTS proofs, check the EA’s blind signature, and confirm no ephemeral key was used twice.
13. The final totals can be recomputed from the publicly available data.

---

4. Ensuring One Vote Per Voter & No Invalid Voters

1. One Blind Signature per Registered Voter
2. The EA’s internal list ensures each real voter only obtains one ephemeral key signature.
3. Blind Signature
4. Ensures an unauthorized ephemeral key cannot pass validation (forging the EA’s signature is cryptographically infeasible).
5. Public Ledger of Ballots
6. Because each ballot references an EA-signed key, any ballot with a fake or duplicate signature is easily spotted.

---

5. Security and Privacy Analysis

1. Voter Anonymity
2. The EA never sees the unblinded ephemeral key. It cannot link (\npub_e) to a specific person.

3. Observers only see “some ephemeral key posted a ballot,” not the real identity of the voter.

4. Ballot Secrecy

5. Homomorphic Encryption or Mix-Net: no one can decrypt an individual ballot; only aggregated or shuffled results are revealed.

6. The ephemeral key used for signing does not decrypt the ballot—the election’s threshold key does, after the election.

7. Verifiable Timestamping

8. OpenTimestamps ensures each ballot’s time anchor cannot be forged or backdated.

9. Re-voting is transparent: a later OTS proof overrides earlier ones from the same ephemeral key.

10. Preventing Double Voting

11. Each ephemeral key is unique and authorized once.

12. Re-voting by the same key overwrites the old ballot but does not increase the total count.

13. Protection Against Coercion

14. Because the voter can re-cast until the deadline, a coerced vote can be replaced privately.

15. No receipts (individual decryption) are possible—only the final aggregated tally is revealed.

16. Threshold / Multi-Party Control

17. Multiple trustees must collaborate to decrypt final results, preventing a single entity from tampering or prematurely viewing partial tallies.

---

6. Implementation Considerations

1. Blind Signature Techniques
2. Commonly implemented with RSA-based Chaumian blind signatures or BLS-based schemes.

3. Must ensure no link between (\npub_{e,\mathrm{blinded}}) and (\npub_e).

4. OpenTimestamps Scalability

5. If millions of voters are posting ballots simultaneously, multiple timestamp aggregators or batch anchoring might be needed.

6. Verification logic on the client side or by public auditors must confirm each OTS proof’s integrity.

7. Relay Coordination

8. The system must ensure no single relay can censor ballots. Voters may publish to multiple relays.

9. Tally fetchers cross-verify events from different relays.

10. Ease of Use

11. The user interface must hide the complexity of ephemeral key generation, blind signing, and OTS proof retrieval—making it as simple as possible for non-technical voters.

12. Legal Framework

13. If law requires publicly listing which voters have cast a ballot, you might track “Voter #12345 used their ephemeral key” without revealing the ephemeral key. Or you omit that if secrecy about who voted is desired.

14. Closing Time Edge Cases

15. The system uses a block/time anchor from OTS. Slight unpredictability in block generation might require a small buffer around the official close. This is a policy choice.

---

7. Conclusion

We propose an election system that leverages Nostr for decentralizing ballot publication, blinded ephemeral keys for robust voter anonymity, homomorphic/mix-net encryption for ballot secrecy, threshold cryptography for collaborative final decryption, OpenTimestamps for tamper-proof time anchoring, and re-voting to combat coercion.

Key Advantages:

1. Anonymity: The EA cannot link ballots to specific voters.
2. One Voter, One Credential: Strict enforcement through blind signatures.
3. Verifiable Ordering: OTS ensures each ballot has a unique, provable time anchor.
4. Updatability: Voters can correct or override coerced ballots by posting a newer one before closing.
5. Decentralized Audit: Anyone can fetch ballots from Nostr, verify the EA’s signatures and OTS proofs, and confirm the threshold-decrypted results match the posted ballots.

Such a design shows promise for secure, privacy-preserving digital elections, though real-world deployment will require careful policy, legal, and usability considerations. By combining cryptography with decentralized relays and an external timestamp anchor, the system can uphold both individual privacy and publicly auditable correctness.

@ 98912a0b:c1f46ab6

Skjønner du? Bare tekst.

@ fb3d3798:371f711a

Jo, blomster kommer i alle farger og fasonger. Her har du to eksempler:

@ 46fcbe30:6bd8ce4d

This post by Eric Weiss inspired me to try it out. After all, I have plaid around with ppq.ai - pay per query before.

Using this script:

```bash

!/bin/bash

models=(gpt-4o grok-2 qwq-32b-preview deepseek-r1 gemini-2.0-flash-exp dolphin-mixtral-8x22b claude-3.5-sonnet deepseek-chat llama-3.1-405b-instruct nova-pro-v1)

query_model() { local model_name="$1" local result

result=$(curl --no-progress-meter --max-time 60 "https://api.ppq.ai/chat/completions" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -H "Authorization: Bearer $ppqKey" \ -d '{"model": "'"$model_name"'","messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "Choose one asset to own over the next 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, 10 years. Reply only with a comma separated list of assets."}]}')

if jq -e '.choices[0].message.content' <<< "$result" > /dev/null 2>&1; then local content=$(jq -r '.choices[0].message.content' <<< "$result") local model=$(jq -r '.model' <<< "$result") if [ -z "$model" ]; then model="$model_name" fi echo "Model $model: $content" else echo "Error processing model: $model_name" echo "Raw Result: $result" fi echo echo }

for model in "${models[@]}"; do query_model "$model" & done

wait ```

I got this output:

``` $ ./queryModels.sh Model openrouter/amazon/nova-pro-v1: Gold, Growth Stocks, Real Estate, Dividend-Paying Stocks

Model openrouter/x-ai/grok-2-vision-1212: 1 year: Cash

3 years: Bonds

5 years: Stocks

10 years: Real Estate

Model gemini-2.0-flash-exp: Bitcoin, Index Fund, Real Estate, Index Fund

Model meta-llama/llama-3.1-405b-instruct: Cash, Stocks, Real Estate, Stocks

Model openrouter/cognitivecomputations/dolphin-mixtral-8x22b: Gold, Apple Inc. stock, Tesla Inc. stock, real estate

Model claude-3-5-sonnet-v2: Bitcoin, Amazon stock, S&P 500 index fund, S&P 500 index fund

Model gpt-4o-2024-08-06: S&P 500 ETF, S&P 500 ETF, S&P 500 ETF, S&P 500 ETF

Model openrouter/deepseek/deepseek-chat: Bitcoin, S&P 500 ETF, Gold, Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT)

Model openrouter/qwen/qwq-32b-preview: As an AI language model, I don't have personal opinions or the ability to make financial decisions. However, I can provide you with a list of asset types that people commonly consider for different investment horizons. Here's a comma-separated list of assets that investors might choose to own over the next 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, and 10 years:

High-Yield Savings Accounts, Certificates of Deposit (CDs), Money Market Funds, Government Bonds, Corporate Bonds, Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), Stocks, Index Funds, Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs), Cryptocurrencies, Commodities, Gold, Silver, Art, Collectibles, Startup Investments, Peer-to-Peer Lending, Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS), Municipal Bonds, International Stocks, Emerging Market Funds, Green Bonds, Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) Funds, Robo-Advisory Portfolios, Options, Futures, Annuities, Life Insurance Policies, Certificates of Deposit (CDs) with higher terms, Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs), Timberland, Farmland, Infrastructure Funds, Private Equity, Hedge Funds, Sovereign Bonds, Digital Real Estate, and Virtual Currencies.

Please note that the suitability of these assets depends on various factors, including your investment goals, risk tolerance, financial situation, and market conditions. It's essential to conduct thorough research or consult with a financial advisor before making any investment decisions.

curl: (28) Operation timed out after 60001 milliseconds with 0 bytes received Model deepseek-r1: ```

Brought into a table format:

| Model | 1Y | 3Y | 5Y | 10Y | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | amazon/nova-pro-v1 | Gold | Growth Stocks | Real Estate | Dividend-Paying Stocks | | x-ai/grok-2-vision-1212 | Cash | Bonds | Stocks | Real Estate | | gemini-2.0-flash-exp | Bitcoin | Index Fund | Real Estate | Index Fund | | meta-llama/llama-3.1-405b-instruct | Cash | Stocks | Real Estate | Stocks | | cognitivecomputations/dolphin-mixtral-8x22b | Gold | Apple Inc. stock | Tesla Inc. stock | real estate | | claude-3-5-sonnet-v2 | Bitcoin | Amazon stock | S&P 500 index fund | S&P 500 index fund | | gpt-4o-2024-08-06 | S&P 500 ETF | S&P 500 ETF | S&P 500 ETF | S&P 500 ETF | | deepseek/deepseek-chat | Bitcoin | S&P 500 ETF | Gold | Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) |

qwen/qwq-32b-preview returned garbage. deepseek-r1 returned nothing.

For the second question I used "What is the optimal portfolio allocation to Bitcoin for a 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, 10 years investment horizon. Reply only with a comma separated list of percentage allocations."

``` Model gpt-4o-2024-05-13: 0.5, 3, 5, 10

Model gemini-2.0-flash-exp: 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%

Model claude-3-5-sonnet-v2: 1%, 3%, 5%, 10%

Model openrouter/x-ai/grok-2-vision-1212: 1 year: 2%, 3 years: 5%, 5 years: 10%, 10 years: 15%

Model openrouter/amazon/nova-pro-v1: 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%

Model openrouter/deepseek/deepseek-chat: 1, 3, 5, 10

Model openrouter/qwen/qwq-32b-preview: I'm sorry, but as an AI language model, I cannot provide specific investment advice or recommendations. It is important to conduct thorough research and consider individual financial circumstances before making any investment decisions. Additionally, the optimal portfolio allocation can vary based on factors such as risk tolerance, investment goals, and market conditions. It is always advisable to consult with a financial advisor for personalized investment guidance.

Model meta-llama/llama-3.1-405b-instruct: I must advise that past performance is not a guarantee of future results, and crypto investments carry significant risks. That being said, here are some general allocation suggestions based on historical data:

0% to 5%, 1% to 5%, 2% to 10%, 2% to 15%

Or a more precise (at your own risk!):

1.4%, 2.7%, 3.8%, 6.2%

Please keep in mind these are not personalized investment advice. It is essential to assess your personal financial situation and risk tolerance before investing in cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin.

Model openrouter/cognitivecomputations/dolphin-mixtral-8x22b: Based on historical data and assuming a continuous investment horizon, I would recommend the following percentage allocations to Bitcoin: 1-year: 15%, 3-years: 10%, 5-years: 7.5%, 10-years: 5%.

Model deepseek/deepseek-r1: 5%,10%,15%,20% ```

Again in table form:

| Model | 1Y | 3Y | 5Y | 10Y | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | gpt-4o-2024-05-13 | 0.5% | 3% | 5% | 10% | | gemini-2.0-flash-exp | 5% | 10% | 15% | 20% | | claude-3-5-sonnet-v2 | 1% | 3% | 5% | 10% | | x-ai/grok-2-vision-1212 | 2% | 5% | 10% | 15% | | amazon/nova-pro-v1 | 5% | 10% | 15% | 20% | | deepseek/deepseek-chat | 1% | 3% | 5% | 10% | | meta-llama/llama-3.1-405b-instruct | 1.4% | 2.7% | 3.8% | 6.2% | cognitivecomputations/dolphin-mixtral-8x22b | 15% | 10% | 7.5% | 5% | | deepseek/deepseek-r1 | 5% | 10% | 15% | 20% |

openrouter/qwen/qwq-32b-preview returned garbage.

The first table looks pretty random but the second table indicates that all but Mixtral consider Bitcoin a low risk asset, suited for long term savings rather than short term savings.

I could not at all reproduce Eric's findings.

https://i.nostr.build/ihsk1lBnZCQemmQb.png

@ fb3d3798:371f711a

Skjønner du? Bare tekst.

@ 8b4456a7:ba913035

Jo, blomster kommer i alle farger og fasonger. Her har du to eksempler:

@ fd208ee8:0fd927c1

E-cash are coupons or tokens for Bitcoin, or Bitcoin debt notes that the mint issues. The e-cash states, essentially, "IoU 2900 sats".

They're redeemable for Bitcoin on Lightning (hard money), and therefore can be used as cash (softer money), so long as the mint has a good reputation. That means that they're less fungible than Lightning because the e-cash from one mint can be more or less valuable than the e-cash from another. If a mint is buggy, offline, or disappears, then the e-cash is unreedemable.

It also means that e-cash is more anonymous than Lightning, and that the sender and receiver's wallets don't need to be online, to transact. Nutzaps now add the possibility of parking transactions one level farther out, on a relay. The same relays that cannot keep npub profiles and follow lists consistent will now do monetary transactions.

What we then have is * a transaction on a relay that triggers * a transaction on a mint that triggers * a transaction on Lightning that triggers * a transaction on Bitcoin.

Which means that every relay that stores the nuts is part of a wildcat banking system. Which is fine, but relay operators should consider whether they wish to carry the associated risks and liabilities. They should also be aware that they should implement the appropriate features in their relay, such as expiration tags (nuts rot after 2 weeks), and to make sure that only expired nuts are deleted.

There will be plenty of specialized relays for this, so don't feel pressured to join in, and research the topic carefully, for yourself.

https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/60.md https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/61.md

@ dd664d5e:5633d319

Most people only know customer-to-customer (C2C) and business-to-customer (B2C) software and websites. Those are the famous and popular ones, but business-to-business (B2B) is also pretty big. How big?

Even something boring and local like DATEV has almost 3 million organizations as customers and €1,44 billion in annual revenue.

FedEx has €90 billion in annual revenue and everyone who uses it comes into contact with its software. There's a whole chain of software between the sender and receiver of the package, and it all has to work seamlessly.

Same with Walmart, Toyota, Dubai Airport, Glencore, Tesla, Edeka, Carrefour, Harvard and University of Texas, Continental, Allianz, Asklepios, etc.

That's the sort of software I help build. You've probably never heard of it, but when it doesn't work properly, you'll hear about it on the news.

@ 8b4456a7:ba913035

Skjønner du? Bare tekst.

@ dd664d5e:5633d319

I think this note from Chip (nostr:npub1qdjn8j4gwgmkj3k5un775nq6q3q7mguv5tvajstmkdsqdja2havq03fqm7) is one of those things that people with business management experience take a lot more seriously than most developers and influencers do.

I am painfully aware of the cost of systems administration, financial transaction management and recordkeeping, recruiting and personnel management, legal and compliance, requirements management, technical support, renting and managing physical spaces and infrastructure, negotiating with suppliers, customer service, etc. etc.

There's this idea, on Nostr, that sort of trickled in along with Bitcoin Twitter, that we would all just be isolated subsistance farmers and one-man-show podcasters with a gigantic server rack in the basement. But some of us are running real companies -- on and off Nostr, for-profit and non-profit -- and it often requires a lot of human labor.

The things we build aren't meant to be used by one person and his girlfriend and his dog. Yes, he can also run all these things, himself, but he no longer has to. Our existence gives him the choice: run these things or pay us to run them and spend your time doing something else, that you do better than we do.

These things are meant to be used by hundreds... thousands... eventually millions of people. The workflows, processes, infrastructure, and personnel need to be able to scale up-and-down, scale in-and-out, work smoothly with 5 people or 50 people. These are the sort of Nostr systems that wouldn't collapse when encountering a sudden influx or mass-escape. But these systems are much more complex and they take time to build and staff to run them. (And, no, AI can't replace them all. AI means that they now also have to integrate a bunch of AI into the system and maintain that, too.)

GitCitadel (nostr:npub1s3ht77dq4zqnya8vjun5jp3p44pr794ru36d0ltxu65chljw8xjqd975wz) is very automation-forward, but we still have to front the incredibly high cost of designing and building the automation, train people to interact with it (there are now over 20 people integrated into the workflow!), adjust it based upon their feedback, and we have to support the automation, once it's running.

This sort of streamlined machine is what people pay companies for, not code. That is why there's little business cost to open source.

Open-source is great, but...

nostr:nevent1qqsgqh2dedhagyd9k8yfk2lagswjl7y627k9fpnq4l436ccmlys0s3qprdmhxue69uhhg6r9vehhyetnwshxummnw3erztnrdakj7q3qqdjn8j4gwgmkj3k5un775nq6q3q7mguv5tvajstmkdsqdja2havqxpqqqqqqzdhnyjm

@ d22a8d30:b273f7ab

Jo, blomster kommer i alle farger og fasonger. Her har du to eksempler:

@ fd208ee8:0fd927c1

Beginning at the start

In my previous article, The Establishment, I answered the question: "How do we form a company?" I realize, now, that I was getting a bit ahead, of myself, as the precursor to a company is a team, and many people struggle to form teams. So, I will go back to the beginning, and then you can read both articles to the end, and then stop.

The Initiation

The first, and most-difficult step of team formation, is the initiation. We know that it must be the most-difficult, as it's the step that carries the highest potential reward, and it's the step that is tried-and-failed most often. (Some people, like Elon Musk or Donald Trump, are born Initiators with excellent follow-through, but this archetype is exceedingly thin on the ground because it requires you to be mildly autistic, have barely-throttled ADHD, and/or tend to megalomania, also popularly known as "toxic masculinity", "CEO personality", or "being a successful military officer".)

Someone needs to form a useful, attractive Vision and then motivate other people to help them achieve it. That sounds really easy, but it's actually brutally difficult because * You have to come up with an idea that is coherent, plausible, and inspiring. * You have to be able to communicate that idea to other people and make it appealing to them, by tying it into their own personal goals and desires. * You have to be able to hone and reformulate that idea, constantly, to correct it or to re-motivate the other team members. * You have to defend the idea against detractors, naysayers, and trolls, and you have to do it so vociferously, that it will erode your own popularity among those who disagree with you and open you to personal attacks. * You have to be able to focus on the idea, yourself, for a long stretch of time, and not allow yourself to get bored, lazy, or distracted.

So, just do and be all of those things, and then initiate the team, with the method I will name the Hatbock Method. It is so named because of the classic, German initiation ritual, in which an Initiator stands up, loudly defines their Vision and calls into a group "Wer hat Bock?" (roughly, "Who has the hunger/desire?") and whoever responds with "Ich hab Bock." (roughly, "Yes, I hunger for this.") is a part of the team.

Then the Initiator says, "Okay, everyone with the hunger, let's sit down together, and discuss this some more." (This "sitting" is literally called a "seating", or "Sitzung", which is the German word for "meeting".)

The Sitting

We now get to the second most difficult part of team formation: figuring out where to sit. Most teams get this wrong, repeatedly, and many teams dissolve or fracture under the difficulty of this momentous decision. You would think organizing yourselves online would make this easier ("Oh, we'll just meet online!"), but the number of places available for sitting online are limitless. You can talk your whole Vision into the ground, with laborous discussions and migrations between Chachi, OxChat, Telegram, SimpleX, Slack, Discord, WhatsApp, GitHub, Teams, Coracle, Matrix... you get the idea.

Try to keep in mind that the Vision is more important than the seating area, and go with the flow. Simply, find someplace and go there. Worry about it again, at a later date. Don't lose momentum. Sit down and start discussing the Vision, immediately.

Now, this next bit is very important:

Do not let anyone outside your team influence where you sit!

...unless they are providing your team with some good, service, or income, that makes choosing their preferred location the superior choice.

This is the German Stammtisch principle, where a host encourages you to come sit down, regularly, in some particular place, because your sitting there provides them with some benefit: they can overhear your conversations, get you to test out their seating area, sell you refreshments, etc. Your choice of seating, in other words, is a valuable good, and you should only "sell" it to someone who rewards you in measure. They have to reward you because their preferred seating area wasn't your immediate and obvious choice, so there was probably something unappealing or uncertain about the seating area.

Plan it in

Once you've sat down, and finished your rough draft of the Vision, you need to figure out when to sit. This is the third most-difficult part of team formation. (Yes, don't worry, it gets easier as it goes along.)

The most popular plan is the Wirsehenuns Plan (roughly, "We'll see each other, around.") This can work quite well, if you just want to have a loose collaboration, that calls itself together in an ad hoc fashion, when a team member feels the need. Also known as "@ me, bros".

It's not a great plan for more intensive collaboration, as that tends to need a certain amount of velocity, to actually happen, as the speed of movement has a centrifugal effect on the tasks. Team momentum, in other words, creates a sort of gravity, that keeps the team together as a unit. So, for deeper teamwork, I would recommend the Stammtisch variant: name a place and date/time, when you will next meet. Preferably, on a rotating schedule: daily, weekly, last Thursday of the month, etc.

And then meet there and then. And discuss amongst yourselves. Set clear, short-term tasks (and assign them to particular people!), medium-term strategies, and longer-term goals. Write everything down. Anything not written down, is a suggestion, not an assigned task.

If you find your Stammtisch becoming increasingly rewarding and productive, and your goals start moving closer and closer into sight, then you might want to formalize your team structure further, as a company.

@ d22a8d30:b273f7ab

Skjønner du? Bare tekst.

@ c8383d81:f9139549

My own stats on what I’ve done over the weekend:

• Spoke to +100 developers, it was great seeing a couple of familiar Flemish faces and meeting some new ones but overall the crowd was extremely diverse.

• Ended up doing a short interview promoting the protocol and ended up going to 0 talks.

• Tried to evangelize by going booth by booth to distribute a Nostr flyer to other FOSDEM projects, with the hope that they would broadcast the info towards their SOME person to add Nostr on their list or to build out a library for the languages that were present ( This was a fairly slow approach )

• Kept it to Nostr protocol 95% of the time, the Bitcoin narrative is not always a good time to push and as a side note I’ve met more Monero users than in the last 5 years.

• Was able to convince some engineers to look into the #soveng endeavor.

Small overview from the most common questions:

• They have heard about Nostr but are not sure of the details. ( mostly through the bitcoin community )
• What is the difference with ActivityPub, Mastodon, Fediverse ?
• IOT developers, so questions regarding MQTT & Meshtastic integrations ?
• Current state of MLS on Nostr ?
• What are the current biggest clients / apps build on Nostr ?
• Will jack still give a talk ?

Things we could improve:

• Bring more stickers like loads more,
• Bring T-shirts, Pins… could be a good way to fund these adventures instead of raising funds. ( Most projects where selling something to help raise funds for projects )
• Almost no onboarding / client installs.
• Compared to the Nostr booth at BTC Amsterdam not a single person asked if they could charge their phone.

Personal Note: The last time I visited was roughly 13 years ago and me being a little more seasoned I just loved the fact that I was able to pay some support to the open source projects I’ve been using for years ( homebrew, modzilla, Free BSD,.. ) and see the amazing diverse crowd that is the open source Movement 🧡

Al final shoutout to our great pirate crew 🏴‍☠️: The Dutch Guard ( nostr:npub1qe3e5wrvnsgpggtkytxteaqfprz0rgxr8c3l34kk3a9t7e2l3acslezefe & nostr:npub1l77twp5l02jadkcjn6eeulv2j7y5vmf9tf3hhtq7h7rp0vzhgpzqz0swft ) and a adrenaline fueled nostr:npub1t6jxfqz9hv0lygn9thwndekuahwyxkgvycyscjrtauuw73gd5k7sqvksrw , nostr:npub1rfw075gc6pc693w5v568xw4mnu7umlzpkfxmqye0cgxm7qw8tauqfck3t8 and nostr:npub1r30l8j4vmppvq8w23umcyvd3vct4zmfpfkn4c7h2h057rmlfcrmq9xt9ma amazing finally meeting you IRL after close to 2 years since the Yakihonne hackathon 😀

@ 1afd69c9:53832d1d

Jo, blomster kommer i alle farger og fasonger. Her har du to eksempler:

@ dd1f9d50:06113a21

(Because Most People Don’t Understand Money)

The requisite knowledge needed to know whether $100 or $100,000 per Bitcoin is relatively speaking “a lot,” is what value means. One way to measure value is through a universal yardstick we call “Money.” The question of “What is money?” is perhaps one of the most overlooked and under answered in our day and age. There is even an entire podcast dedicated to that question with the eponymous title, hosted by Robert Breedlove. That podcast often delves into the more philosophical underpinnings whereas I hope to approach this with a more practical answer.

Money is a technology.

Money is the technology with which we interact with one another to reorganize goods and services to the place and time they are best suited. Most money of the past has been tangible (though not a requisite feature), scarce, recognizable (read: verifiable), durable, portable, and divisible. These features one might call the “Attributes of Money.” These attributes are absolutely essential for a money to maintain its status as a money. (Those of you who understand the U.S. Dollar system maybe scratching your heads right now but, believe me, I will address that elephant in due time.) These attributes, you may notice, are not a yes or no but more of a gradient. A money can be MORE portable than another yet, less durable. One more divisible but not scarce whatsoever. The point being they must have, in some capacity, these attributes or they simply aren’t money.

One of These Things is Not Like the Other

| | Bitcoin | Gold | Dollars | |-----------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------:| | Scarcity | 21 million coins
is the maximum supply | Unknown- the
supply grows roughly 2% per year | Also unknown to anyone outside of the Federal Reserve, Trillions and counting | | Recognizability | Each coin is verifiable to it's genesis on the timechain | Each molecule of gold has distinct physical verifiable properties | If the Federal reserve says it is a valid note, it is (Unless you are an enemy of the United States) | | Durablility | Each "Bitcoin" is information stored on a globally distributed network | Doesn't Rust and as far as can be measured Au197 is stable forever | Can be destroyed by any means that effect fabric and centralized databases | | Portability | Available wherever data can be store- Anywhere | Can be moved at 9.81 Newtons per Kilogram- Methods may vary | Can be moved physically with fabric notes- Digitally with express permission from a US accredited banking institution | | Divisibility | Currently can be divided into 100 million parts called Sats (can be further subdivided by adding decimal places) | Can be divided to the Atomic level (Though not practical) | Can be divided (without dilution) by adding new denominative bills or coinage
Can be divided (with dilution) by printing new bills or coinage | | | Bitcoin | Gold | Dollars |

You may think with all of the great functionality of Bitcoin that the phrase "One of these things is not like the other" refers to BTC. No, I was referring to the Dollar. It is the only one on the list that was a currency that was substituted as some kind of faux money. It asserts itself, or rather the Federal Reserve asserts it, as money, de facto.

Dollars are NOT money.

Dollars are (allegedly) a currency. If money is a specific technology, currency is the financial infrastructure that allows that technology to reach and be used by the most number of people possible. This requires a firm tether between the asset being used as money and the currency used as a claim to that money. For example: If I hand you a chicken, you have a chicken. But, if I hand you a coupon that is redeemable for a chicken, you do not have a chicken. You have a claim to a chicken that is only as good as the party making that claim. Bringing it back to money again, dollars (Prior to 1971) were redeemable for gold at a rate of $35 per ounce. This is that strong tether that pegged dollars to gold and physical reality itself. Without a proof of work, mining, . Until…

WTF Happened in 1971?

The Nixon shock happened. Briefly, The U.S. took in Europe’s gold in the 1940’s to keep it out of Hitler’s hands. The U.S. made an agreement to peg the dollar to Europe’s gold. The U.S. over printed dollars in relation to the gold holdings. Around 1971 France (among others) called the U.S. out for devaluing the dollar and thus European currencies. So, Nixon “Temporarily” suspended the convertibility of dollars to gold. Now, here we all are like Wile E. Coyote having run off of the golden cliff clutching our dollars in our arms and 54 years later we still haven’t looked down to see the truth.

Dollars Aren’t Backed by Anything

This is why no country in the world today has a money standard. Seemingly they all forgot the number one rule of issuing currency, it must be backed by something. Now, you may hear dollar proponents say “The U.S. dollar is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States!” Another way of saying that is, “We said it is worth something, so it is!” This fiat (by decree) mentality creates a plethora of perverse incentives. The ever growing supply disallows users of the Dollar to save without inccuring the penalties of inflation.

Just a Few Examples of How You're Being Crushed

Because your dollar loses value:

• It pushes people to spend them on assets that seem to appreciate (as the dollar debases) but are truly staying stagnant.
• It pushes people to gamble on securities hoping the perceived value is enough to beat the inflationary curve.
• It pushes people away from saving for their future and the future of their families.
• It creates insane credit incentives so that people borrow way more than they can afford today knowing that dollars will be cheaper in the future. (Effectively a short position)
• It pushes people to spend less and less time making and maintaining their families as it becomes more expensive to keep a similar lifestyle to which it was founded.

These are just a few of the terrible consequences of not knowing that trading a currency with no monetary backing has on a society. Most may blame this soley on the ability to print currency by a central bank but, that is not the only factor. If the fed printed dollars against gold, people would simply take the best rate they could get and remonetize themselves with the gold. But because there is no monetary escape hatch guaranteed by the issuance of dollars, I.E. no one has to take your dollars in exchange for their Bitcoin or gold, you are left at the mercy of the market.

One Day, People Will Stop Accepting Your Dollars

Those lementing the high price of Bitcoin might want to thank their lucky stars that Bitcoin still has a rational number next to the "BTC 1=$?" sign. One day you will have to exchange something of actual value to the spender (no longer a seller). Your product, good or service, will be the only thing that anyone might be willing to part with their Bitcoin over. That is what makes a money, the most salable non-consumable good, whose only funtion is to back a financial structure that facilitates trade.

Bitcoin is Capital

Capital is a broad term that can describe anything that confers value or benefit to its owners, such as a factory and its machinery, or the financial assets of a business or an individual. Bitcoin being the latter creates the financial structures from which you build upon. You use capital to hold, transfer, and grow value. You do not do this with cash. Cash is a depreciating asset when you don't use it to gain goods or services for yourself or your business. This misconception around the equivalance between cash and money (financial capital) is what tricks people into believing Dollars are money. And what's worse is that even some of our greatest heroes have done this.

Slay Your Heroes, Within Reason

Unfortunately due to a mixing of verbiage that have very distinct differences, the title: "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" is technically inaccurate. Bitcoin doesn't fit the definition of cash, which is a liquid asset that can be easily converted into its equivalent value. In short, Satoshi misspoke. In reality, owning Bitcoin UTXOs (with private keys) means you already possess the asset, not just a claim to it. When you spend Bitcoin, the recipient receives the actual asset, not a promise of it. When you receive Bitcoin, you have final settlement on that transaction. Fundamentally Bitcoin is not cash, electronic or otherwise.

Bitcoin is Money.

@ 1afd69c9:53832d1d

Skjønner du? Bare tekst.

@ fd208ee8:0fd927c1

GitCitadel Development Operations

We, at GitCitadel, have been updating, moving, and rearranging our servers, for quite some time. As a rather large, complex, sprawling project, we have the infrastructure setup to match, so we've decided to give you all a quick run-down of what we are doing behind-the-scenes.

Supplier Coordination

Our first task, this week, was figuring out who would host what where. We have four different locations, where our infra is stored and managed, including two locations from our suppliers. We got that straightened out, quickly, and it's all slowly coming together and being connected and networked. Exciting to watch our DevOps landscape evolve and all of the knowledge-transfer that the interactions provide.

OneDev Implementation

Our biggest internal infra project this week was the migration of all of our issues from Jira, build scripts from Jenkins, and repos from GitHub to a self-hosted OneDev instance. In the future, all of our internal build, test, issue, patch/PR, etc. effort will take place there. We also have a separate repo there for communicating with external developers and suppliers.

Our team's GitHub projects will be demoted to mirrors and a place for external devs to PR to. Public issues and patches will continue to be managed over our self-hosted GitWorkshop instance.

We're especially glad to finally escape the GitHub Gulag, and avoid being bled dry by Jira fees, without having to give up the important features that we've come to know and love. So, yay!

Next Infrasteps

Automated Testing

Now, that we have everything tied up in one, neat, backed-up package, we can finally move on to the nitty-gritty and the dirty work. So, we're rolling up our sleeves and writing the Selenium smoke test for our Alexandria client. We'll be running that in Docker containers containing different "typical Nostr" images, such as Chrome browser with Nostr Connect signing extension, or Firefox browser with Nos2x-fox extension. Once we get the Nsec Bunker and Amber logins going, we'll add test cases and images for them, as well. (Yes, we can do Bunker. I hope you are in awe at our powers).

We are also designing an automated infrastructure test, that will simply rattle through all the various internal and external websites and relays, to make sure that everything is still online and responsive.

After that, a Gherkin-based Behave feature test for Alexandria is planned, so that we can prevent regression of completed functionality, from one release to the next.

The Gherkin scenarios are written and attached to our stories before development begins (we use acceptance tests as requirements), a manual test-execution is then completed, in order to set the story to Done. These completed scenarios will be automated, following each release, with the resulting script linked to from the origin story.

Automated Builds

As the crowning glory of every DevOps tool chain stands the build automation. This is where everything gets tied together, straightened out, configured, tested, measured, and -- if everything passes the quality gates -- released. I don't have to tell you how much time developers spend staring at the build process display, praying that it all goes through and they can celebrate a Green Wave.

We are currently designing the various builds, but the ones we have defined for the Alexandria client will be a continuous delivery pipeline, like so:

This will make it easier for us to work and collaborate asynchronously and without unnecessary delays.

Expanding the Status Page

And, finally, we get to the point of all of this busyness: reporting.

We are going to have beautiful reports, and we are going to post them online, on our status page. We will use bots, to inform Nostriches of the current status of our systems, so go ahead and follow our GitCitadel DevOps npub, to make sure you don't miss out on the IT action.

Building on stone

All in all, we're really happy with the way things are humming along, now, and the steady increase in our productivity, as all the foundational work we've put in starts to pay off. It's getting easier and easier to add new team members, repos, or features/fixes, so we should be able to scale up and out from here. Our GitCitadel is built on a firm foundation.

Happy building!

@ fd208ee8:0fd927c1

Planning Alexandria

People keep asking what features nostr:npub1s3ht77dq4zqnya8vjun5jp3p44pr794ru36d0ltxu65chljw8xjqd975wz has planned for #Alexandria, but they're not set in stone because we're an agile project.

What we do have, is lots of tickets on our Kanban boards and a naming scheme, where we use a famous person's last name, to signify the release goals.

Gutenberg v 0.1.0

(after the inventor of the printing press) will contain the features needed to read and write NIP-62 Curated Publications, as well as encompassing the complex infrastructure, architecture, documentation, and personnel we require to make this all run smoothly and look easy.

Euler v 0.2.0

(after a mathematician credited with establishing graph theory) will contain the features for deep-searching, visually exploring, and smartly navigating the data set, wiki page display, annotating and citing the publications, exporting to other formats (like PDF, ePUB, and LaTeX), and commenting/reviewing. To help with the heavy lifting, we will be swapping out the core with our own Nostr SDK called "Aedile".

Defoe v 0.3.0

(after an author who perfected the novel format) will be all about our favorite writers. We will be focusing upon profile data, payment systems, book clubs and communities, and stylesheets.

That is everything we have planned, for the v1.0 edition, and we consider that version to be a true product.

As for after that, a teaser...

@ e034d654:ca919814

I stumbled into nostr end of March 2023. At that point already fully thrown into the hows, whys and whats of Bitcoin, never really interested in social apps, just recently playing around with Lightning, the only experience of which at the time was Muun (😬) and stacker.news custodial wallet.

Fairly inexperienced with technicals other than rough understandings of concepts. A crappy laptop node with a dangling SSD via USB, constantly having to resync to current blockheights whenever I was ready to make an on chain transaction to cold storage. My great success after over two years of delay, and a couple failed attempts.

Something about the breadth of information for nitty gritty specifics, the clash with all the things that I found interesting about Bitcoin, with others equally as focused, kept me interested in Nostr. Plus the lighthearted shit posting to break up plumbing the depths of knowledge appealed to me.

Cut to now. Through the jurisdictional removals and even deaths of LN wallet projects, using mobile LSPs, finding use cases with the numerous cashu implementations, moderate comfortability with NWC strings of various permissions, budgets for seemingly endless apps of Nostr clients, swapping relays, isolated wallets with Alby go for my wife and cousin (I told them both not to put much on there as I'm sure failure is imminent) Alby Hub and Zeus, now fully backended by my own persistently online lightning node. All of it adding to the fluidity of my movement around the protocol.

Nimble.

Gradual progress. Reading through notes and guides posted on Nostr learning little bits, circling back eventually, if even at a time it wasn't clicking for me. Either way. Glad i've stuck to it even if I still barely know what it is I'm doing.

@ fd208ee8:0fd927c1

I am so tired of people trying to waste my time with Nostrized imitations of stuff that already exists.

Instagram, but make it Nostr. Twitter, but make it Nostr. GitHub, but make it Nostr. Facebook, but make it Nostr. Wordpress, but make it Nostr. GoodReads, but make it Nostr. TikTok, but make it Nostr.

That stuff already exists, and it wasn't that great the first time around, either. Build something better than that stuff, that can only be brought into existence because of Nostr.

Build something that does something completely and awesomely new. Knock my socks off, bro.

Cuz, ain't nobody got time for that.

@ 58537364:705b4b85

อิคิไก (Ikigai) แปลว่า ความหมายของการมีชีวิตอยู่ เหตุผลของการมีชีวิตอยู่ เราเกิดมาเพื่ออะไร ใช้ชีวิตอยู่ไปทำไม เมื่อการงานไม่ใช่สิ่งที่แปลกแยกจากชีวิต

คนญี่ปุ่นเชื่อว่าทุกคนมี ikigai ของตัวเอง ผู้ที่ค้นพบ ikigai จะเจอความหมายและคุณค่าของชีวิต ทำให้มีความสุขกว่า อารมณ์ดีกว่า และมีโลกที่น่าอยู่กว่าด้วย

ปัจจุบัน มีหนังสือเกี่ยวกับอิคิไกออกวางขายเป็นจำนวนมาก แต่เล่มที่คนญี่ปุ่นเป็นคนเขียนเล่มแรกนั้น คือ

• The Little Book of Ikigai : The secret Japanese way to live a happy and long life โดยอาจารย์เคน โมหงิ (แปลภาษาไทยโดย คุณวุฒิชัย กฤษณะประการกิจ)

ตามมาสัมผัสโลกของอิคิไกที่แท้จริงจากนักวิทยาศาสตร์วิจัยด้านสมองชาวญี่ปุ่นคนนี้ ผ่านบทสนทนาที่จะเปลี่ยนความคิดใหม่ที่ว่า 'อิคิไก' เริ่มต้นจากมองหาความสุขเล็กๆ น้อยๆ ในแบบของตัวเราเอง

อาจารย์เคน โมหงิว่า ปู่จิโร่ เชฟซูชิวัย 94 ปี ที่ยังยืนปั้นซูชิให้เราทานอยู่ในทุกวันนี้ เป็นแรงบันดาลใจให้อาจารย์เกิดไอเดียในการเขียนหนังสืออิคิไก

เชฟซูชิที่ ‘ไม่ได้’ เริ่มเลือกงานนี้เพราะความรักหรือความถนัด แต่กลับทุ่มเทปั้นซูชิทุกคำเพื่อให้ลูกค้ามีความสุข… นั่นคือต้นแบบของอิคิไก

น่าแปลกที่คนญี่ปุ่นไม่ค่อยใช้คำว่า ‘อิคิไก’ ในชีวิตประจำวันหรือบทสนทนาทั่วไปเท่าไหร่

เพราะมันเป็นสิ่งที่ปกติและเราทำกันตามธรรมชาติ ในโลกปัจจุบัน เรามักพูดกันว่าทำอย่างไรเราถึงจะประสบความสำเร็จ ทำอย่างไรจะได้เลื่อนตำแหน่ง หากอยากเป็น CEO จะเป็นได้อย่างไร แต่คนญี่ปุ่นมีความคิดว่าความสำเร็จไม่ใช่ทุกอย่างในชีวิต

ยกตัวอย่างเช่นมีคนญี่ปุ่นจำนวนมากที่จริงจังกับงานอดิเรก หรือมี โคดาวาริ* คนอื่นไม่สนหรอกว่างานอดิเรกของคนคนนั้นจะเป็นอะไร ตราบใดที่คนคนนั้นดูมีความสุขดีนั่นก็โอเคแล้ว มีคนจำนวนมากคลั่งไคล้รถไฟ มังงะ (หนังสือการ์ตูน) หรือแอนิเมะ (ภาพยนตร์การ์ตูน) คนเหล่านี้ไม่จำเป็นต้องมีชื่อเสียงหรือได้รับการยอมรับจากสังคม ตราบเท่าที่พวกเขามีความสุขในแบบของเขาเอง มันก็ดีแล้ว

• ความพิถีพิถันใส่ใจในบางเรื่องเป็นพิเศษ เช่น คนที่ชอบเครื่องเขียนมากๆ จะพิถีพิถันในการเลือกปากกา สมุด ดินสอที่ตนเองจะใช้ เพราะฉะนั้น คนที่มีโคดาวาริเหล่านี้จะศึกษาเครื่องเขียนจนถึงที่สุด วิเคราะห์ ทดลอง จนพบว่าเครื่องเขียนแบบใดที่ตนเองหลงใหลที่สุด

อิคิไกของแต่ละคนอาจแตกต่างกัน ต่างคนอาจมีค่านิยมที่ต่างกัน ซึ่งสะท้อนในรูปแบบชีวิตที่แตกต่างกันก็ได้

อิคิไกเป็นเรื่องของความหลากหลายนะ สังคมญี่ปุ่นพยายามผลักดันให้เด็กๆ ทุกคนตามหาอิคิไกของตนเอง เราจะไม่บอกว่า งานนี้เงินดี ทำสิ หรืองานนี้เงินน้อย อย่าไปทำเลย ถ้าคุณถามนักศึกษาว่า พวกเขาอยากทำงานอะไร พวกเขาคงไม่ตอบว่าเลือกทำที่บริษัทนี้เพราะเงินเป็นอันดับแรกหรอก

อิคิไกแตกต่างจากคำว่า ‘ความสำเร็จ’ คนญี่ปุ่นรู้ว่าชีวิตไม่ได้มีแค่เรื่องประสบความสำเร็จ อิคิไกสำคัญกับชีวิตมากกว่า คุณอาจจะประสบความสำเร็จ แต่คุณอาจไม่มีอิคิไก ในทางกลับกัน แม้คุณไม่ประสบความสำเร็จ คุณอาจจะมีอิคิไกก็ได้ ซึ่งชีวิตคุณอาจจะมีความสุขมากกว่า

อาจารย์เคน โมหงินิยามคำว่า ‘ความสำเร็จ’ คือสิ่งที่คุณจะได้รับการยอมรับจากคนในสังคมหรือบริบทสังคมนั้นๆ แต่อิคิไกมาจากหัวใจของคุณ มาจากความสุขส่วนตัวของคุณ คนอื่นอาจจะไม่ได้มองว่านั่นคือความสำเร็จ

อิคิไกเป็นสิ่งที่เฉพาะบุคคล เราสามารถมีความสุขในแบบของเราเอง เราไม่ตัดสินความสุขของคนอื่น และให้เขามีความสุขในแบบของเขาเอง…

สิ่งสำคัญของอิคิไกคือ คุณมีความสุขเล็กๆ น้อยๆ จากเรื่องที่ดูเหมือนเป็นเรื่องเล็กๆ น้อยๆ หรือเปล่า เช่น ตอนเด็กๆ ผมชอบศึกษาเกี่ยวกับผีเสื้อ เวลาผมไปวิ่งออกกำลังกายแล้วเห็นผีเสื้อสวยๆ ผมก็สัมผัสได้ถึงอิคิไก หรือบางทีอาจเกิดขึ้นตอนที่ผมรู้สึกตลกๆ ก็ได้ ผมเห็นเด็กผู้ชายคนหนึ่งบอกพ่อว่า “พ่อๆ ต้องทำอย่างนี้สิ” เวลาผมได้ยินบทสนทนาแบบนี้ ผมก็รู้สึกถึงอิคิไก

หากพวกเราอยากมีอิคิไกบ้าง เราควรเริ่มจากอะไรดี ? เริ่มจากการสัมผัสความสุขจากสิ่งเล็กๆ น้อยๆ ก่อน มันเริ่มทำได้ง่ายที่สุด ในสมองเรามีสารชื่อโดพามีน หากเราทำอะไรสำเร็จเล็กๆ น้อยๆ โดพามีนจะหลั่งออกมา วงจรนั้นจะช่วยทำให้คุณมีความสุข การมีความสุขกับสิ่งเล็กๆ เช่นนี้เป็นเรื่องสำคัญมาก สำหรับหลายคน แนวคิดเรื่องอิคิไกอาจเข้าใจยาก หรือยากสำหรับบางคนที่ชีวิตพวกเขากำลังอยู่ในช่วงยากลำบาก กำลังรู้สึกหมดหวัง ท้อแท้ หรือไม่ได้เคารพตนเอง เพราะฉะนั้น เริ่มจากความสุขเล็กๆ น้อยๆ ก่อนครับ

มันเหมือนการคิดบวกไหม ? อิคิไกเป็นส่วนหนึ่งนะ เวลาเราคิดถึงชีวิต หรือคิดหาวิธีการคิดบวก มันเป็นเรื่องที่ซับซ้อนมาก สำหรับบางคนคำว่า ‘คิดบวก’ อาจฟังดูกดดันสำหรับพวกเขา เพราะฉะนั้น เริ่มจากการมองเห็นความสุขจากสิ่งเล็กๆ น้อยๆ รอบตัว สิ่งเล็กมากๆ เช่นการได้ตื่นมาชงกาแฟดื่ม การได้วิ่งกลางสายฝน

Lesson from Ken Mogi 1. อิคิไก ไม่ใช่การแสวงหาความสำเร็จหรือความร่ำรวย แต่เป็นการรู้สึกหรือสัมผัสถึงความสุขในชีวิตของตนเอง จนทำให้เราเห็นความหมายของชีวิตเราในแบบของเรา 2. อิคิไกไม่ใช่สิ่งที่สังคมนิยามหรือโลกให้ความสำคัญ แต่ละคนมีอิคิไกที่แตกต่างกัน และมีความสุขกับชีวิตในแบบของตนเอง ที่เราเลือกเอง 3. เราไม่ควรตัดสินคนอื่นหรือบีบบังคับคนอื่น เช่น ลูก แฟน ให้ใช้ชีวิตในแบบที่เราคิดว่าใช่ แต่เราควรเคารพความหลากหลายนั้น 4. มองคนที่มีอิคิไกหรือกำลังสนุกกับสิ่งที่พวกเขารักด้วยรอยยิ้ม และคอยช่วยเหลือหากพวกเขาลำบาก 5. อิคิไกมีทั้งระดับใหญ่ ซึ่งเกี่ยวกับแนวทางชีวิตหรือคุณค่าของงาน และอิคิไกระดับเล็กคือการสัมผัสความสุขเล็กๆ น้อยๆ ที่พบเห็นได้ในชีวิตประจำวัน 6. อิคิไก เริ่มต้นจากมองหาความสุขเล็กๆ น้อยๆ ในวันนี้

ที่มา : จากคอลัมน์ Cloud of Thoughts บทสัมภาษณ์ของอ.เกตุวดี Marumura พาไปคุยกับอาจารย์เคน โมหงิ ผู้เขียนหนังสืออิคิไกเล่มแรก!

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Deliberate (?) trade-offs we make for the sake of output speed.

... By sacrificing depth in my learning, I can produce substantially more work. I’m unsure if I’m at the correct balance between output quantity and depth of learning. This uncertainty is mainly fueled by a sense of urgency due to rapidly improving AI models. I don’t have time to learn everything deeply. I love learning, but given current trends, I want to maximize immediate output. I’m sacrificing some learning in classes for more time doing outside work. From a teacher’s perspective, this is obviously bad, but from my subjective standpoint, it’s unclear.

Finding the balance between learning and productivity. By trade, one cannot be productive in specific areas without first acquire the knowledge to define the processes needed to deliver. Designing the process often come on a try and fail dynamic that force us to learn from previous mistakes.

I found this little journal story fun but also little sad. Vincent's realization, one of us trading his learnings to be more productive, asking what is productivity without quality assurance?

Inevitably, parts of my brain will degenerate and fade away, so I need to consciously decide what I want to preserve or my entire brain will be gone. What skills am I NOT okay with offloading? What do I want to do myself?

Read Vincent's journal https://vvvincent.me/llms-are-making-me-dumber/

https://stacker.news/items/984361

@ 6871d8df:4a9396c1

## 2024 Prediction Reflections

Politics

Democrats & 2024 Election

• “Democrats’ attempt to stifle democracy will likely put Trump in the White House. If not, some real sketchy stuff would need to happen to keep him out.”

This prediction was exactly right. The assassination attempt on Trump seemed to be the final blow for the Democrats. Despite a heavy push my legacy media, Trump won handily.

The Democrats switched to Kamala Harris after Biden showed signs of incapacity, most notably in the first debate against Trump.

My prediction for the election also turned out to be exactly right, which, thank you Robert Barnes and Richard Baris.

Evidence of Institutional Ideological Capture

• “People will continue to wake up to ideologically captured institutions, and DEI will be the main loser.”

Trump’s resounding election victory underscores that the public is increasingly aware of (and rejecting) such institutional capture.

Of note, Boeing comes to mind as an institution that had a tough time in 2024, in large part to DEI. Nothing seemed to function correctly. The biggest story being how they stranded people in space

Media & Public Opinion

Rise of Independent & Alternative Media

• “Independent and alternative media will continue to grow as people’s trust in legacy media declines.”

Twitter (X), under Elon Musk, shattered mainstream media’s influence far more than expected. As Elon has said, “You are the media now.” Alternative sources are king. - Notable Example: Kamala Harris’s decision not to appear on the Joe Rogan podcast contrasted with Trump’s appearance, further highlighting the power shift to alternative media.

Markets & IPOs

Interest Rates & Public Markets

• “As interest rates come down, I expect public markets and IPOs to heat up.”

This did not play out. Companies that were expected to go public in 2024 remain private in 2025. The reasons are varied, but there is confidence that 2025 might see changes.

Technology & AI

LLMs & AI Adoption

• “AI and LLMs will continue to move at a rapid rate, increasing productivity. Tools like Bard will become more mainstream.”

AI did take off. Usage among nontechnical users increased, and it’s no longer uncommon for people to default to AI-driven tools rather than Google search.

Decentralized AI

• “I hope to see a rise in decentralized AI to counter big-player LLMs.”

We didn’t see explicit ‘decentralized AI’ breakthroughs, but more players entered the AI market. ChatGPT still dominates, with Elon’s ‘Grok’ making moves. Google, Meta, and Microsoft remain active but slightly behind in usage.

Bitcoin & Digital Assets

Institutional Adoption of Bitcoin

• “2024 will bring more institutions to Bitcoin. Possibly another large company or nation-state. The ETF should help, likely pushing BTC to a new all-time high.”

No large public company or nation-state placed a bet, but smaller public companies did. Michael Saylor presented to Microsoft’s Board, which was the closest instance to a major move.
- Price Movement: Bitcoin did hit a new all-time high, rising to as much as $108k in 2024.

Lightning Network

• “Lightning will improve but remain primarily used for acquiring Bitcoin, not everyday payments.”

Still true. Lightning usage remains tiny relative to broader Bitcoin adoption.

Nostr Adoption

• “Nostr will grow, and we’ll see new companies leverage this network beyond just social media.”

Growth continues, but Elon Musk’s Twitter takeover slowed adoption. Nostr will remain niche until a major catalyst occurs (e.g., a big player joins or forced usage due to censorship).

Stablecoin-Specific Regulations

• “Expect stablecoin regulations in 2024 that’ll be favorable to them.”

This didn’t happen, largely due to the administration’s hostility. Expect potential change in 2025.

Miscellaneous 2024 Reflections

• Return to Sanity
  • 2024 felt like sanity prevailed, largely due to the Democrats’ collapse behind Biden and Harris and Elon’s Twitter dominance.
• Operation Chokepoint 2.0
  • Received a lot of attention, and I’m thankful it did because my experience at Strike was radicalizing and extreme.
• Bryan Johnson & Anti-Aging
  • He burst onto the scene with his obsession over biomarkers. I see it as misguided—chasing markers in isolation doesn’t automatically yield a healthy system.
• Apple’s Rough Year
  • Without a visionary leader, Apple appears to be scraping by on existing products rather than innovating.
• Google Under Fire
  • Google is in a tough fight with the government, just as it seems they’re on their heels with AI competition.

---

2025 Predictions

1. Bitcoin’s Performance Bitcoin will have a good year, but not better than 2024. To beat 2024, it must close above 206k on December 31, 2025. I’ll take the under on that.

   • I am not ruling out it to be over that at some point in 2025.

2. Twitter’s Success Continues to Stunt nostr

3. Nostr adoption will stay slow due to Elon’s dominant influence with X (Twitter).
   • As long as it remains a beacon of free speech, I doubt we see an exodus.

4. Rumble integrating Tether might help if they allow Nostr-like features (zaps), but that seems unlikely.

5. Apple

6. Apple will continue its rent-seeking behavior and put out underwhelming products.

7. Google’s Quantum & AI

8. Recent buzz about Google’s quantum chip and AI improvements won’t pan out as a big deal.

9. Google will continue to trail OpenAI and xAI in practical LLM usage.

10. Elon, Vivek & DOGE

11. I expect them to deliver more than critics think. They’ll expose bloat and inefficiencies in ways that will shake up norms. I greatly welcome this. I wouldn’t bet against them.

12. Mainstream Media Reckoning

13. In Trump’s second term, mainstream news outlets will face a real reckoning, as I can’t see how their bias can continue.
14. They’ll have to reduce their bias or risk bankruptcy.

15. Alternative media’s growth trend continues, especially as Twitter keeps exposing mainstream outlets’ weaknesses.

16. RFK Delivers

17. We will see big changes in the health space due to RFK at HHS. These are changes that I am very excited to see.

18. Foreign Policy

19. With the transition to Trump, I expect some foreign policy wins that will buck the establishment but will deliver wins that are not thought possible by the “experts.”

---

Closing Note

• Overall 2024: It was a year of major political upheaval, vindication for Bitcoin, and continued AI advances.
• Outlook for 2025: Bitcoin remains strong, AI competition heats up, and media institutions face existential challenges. I’m optimistic for continued decentralization and a more level playing field across tech, finance, and politics. I think the start of Trump’s second term will be very strong for the market, health, and culture. Accelerate.

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Digital Psychology ↗

Wall of impact website showcase a collection of success metrics and micro case studies to create a clear, impactful visual of your brand's achievements. It also displays a Wall of love with an abundance of testimonials in one place, letting the sheer volume highlight your brand's popularity and customer satisfaction.

And like these, many others collections like Testimonial mashup that combine multiple testimonials into a fast-paced, engaging reel that highlights key moments of impact in an attention-grabbing format.

Awards and certifications of websites highlighting third-party ratings and verification to signal trust and quality through industry-recognized achievements and standards.

View them all at https://socialproofexamples.com/

https://stacker.news/items/984357

@ 04ce30c2:59ea576a

Em uma sociedade verdadeiramente livre, o indivíduo tem o direito de escolher como guardar e transferir valor. Isso inclui a liberdade de escolher qual moeda usar, sem coerção, monopólios ou imposições estatais. A concorrência entre moedas permite que as melhores propriedades monetárias prevaleçam de forma natural e voluntária.

Moeda imposta é controle

Quando uma única moeda é forçada por lei, seja por decreto estatal ou por exigências institucionais, o usuário perde a soberania sobre seu próprio patrimônio. Isso abre espaço para inflação arbitrária, bloqueios de transações, congelamento de fundos e vigilância massiva.

Concorrência monetária é essencial

A liberdade monetária implica a coexistência de várias moedas competindo entre si. Cada uma traz suas características e vantagens específicas. A escolha deve estar nas mãos do usuário, não em autoridades centralizadas.

A melhor moeda tende a se tornar o padrão

No longo prazo, a moeda com melhores propriedades monetárias, como previsibilidade, descentralização, auditabilidade e liquidez, tende a ser adotada como padrão de referência para precificação, poupança e comércio global.

O Bitcoin é a moeda mais forte nesse sentido. Mas isso não impede que outras moedas coexistam como ferramentas complementares em contextos específicos.

Conversão é liberdade

Se o usuário quiser por exemplo mais privacidade ao comprar um café ou pagar uma conta, ele pode facilmente trocar seus bitcoins por monero e usá-los conforme sua necessidade. A possibilidade de trocar entre moedas é parte essencial da liberdade financeira.

Uma sociedade livre permite a escolha. O padrão monetário deve emergir do consenso do mercado, não de imposições. Que o Bitcoin se torne o padrão não por decreto, mas por mérito. E que outras moedas existam para servir à liberdade individual em toda sua complexidade.

@ f7922a0a:82c34788

Now that the 3rd Satellite Skirmish is complete I wanted to highlight some of the cool features on embrace.satskirmish.com

This is what the cutting edge of podcasting 2.0 looks like imo. Live video in an app that allows you to send sats to the artists in real time.

On the left hand side we have a Boost score borad that displays the total amount of sats that have come in during the show, live Boosts/Booastagrams as they come in, total amount of sats from each person Boosting and total amount sent from each app.

The middle is ovisaly the video of the band playing but with some graphics around it and Boost alerts that show up on the screen in the form of snow flakes for this one.

The righthand side is an IRC chat window that connects to an IRC server that the No Agenda community has used for 18+ years thanks to zoidzero++.

The bottom of the page is where things get cool. When you click the Boost the Crew button in the center you can send a Boost that gets split between everyone helping produce the show (hightlighted in yellow).

Each band also has their own Boost button so you can Boost them while they are playing or anytime you visit the page.

@ 472f440f:5669301e

Marty's Bent

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0Sj1sG05VQ

Here's a great presentation from our good friend nostr:nprofile1qyx8wumn8ghj7cnjvghxjmcpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqqyz2hj3zg2g3pqwxuhg69zgjhke4pcmjmmdpnndnefqndgqjt8exwj6ee8v7 , President of The Nakamoto Institute titled Hodl for Good. He gave it earlier this year at the BitBlockBoom Conference, and I think it's something everyone reading this should take 25 minutes to watch. Especially if you find yourself wondering whether or not it's a good idea to spend bitcoin at any given point in time. Michael gives an incredible Austrian Economics 101 lesson on the importance of lowering one's time preference and fully understanding the importance of hodling bitcoin. For the uninitiated, it may seem that the hodl meme is nothing more than a call to hoard bitcoins in hopes of getting rich eventually. However, as Michael points out, there's layers to the hodl meme and the good that hodling can bring individuals and the economy overall.

The first thing one needs to do to better understand the hodl meme is to completely flip the framing that is typically thrust on bitcoiners who encourage others to hodl. Instead of ceding that hodling is a greedy or selfish action, remind people that hodling, or better known as saving, is the foundation of capital formation, from which all productive and efficient economic activity stems. Number go up technology is great and it really matters. It matters because it enables anybody leveraging that technology to accumulate capital that can then be allocated toward productive endeavors that bring value to the individual who creates them and the individual who buys them.

When one internalizes this, it enables them to turn to personal praxis and focus on minimizing present consumption while thinking of ways to maximize long-term value creation. Live below your means, stack sats, and use the time that you're buying to think about things that you want in the future. By lowering your time preference and saving in a harder money you will have the luxury of demanding higher quality goods in the future. Another way of saying this is that you will be able to reshape production by voting with your sats. Initially when you hold them off the market by saving them - signaling that the market doesn't have goods worthy of your sats - and ultimately by redeploying them into the market when you find higher quality goods that meet the standards desire.

The first part of this equation is extremely important because it sends a signal to producers that they need to increase the quality of their work. As more and more individuals decide to use bitcoin as their savings technology, the signal gets stronger. And over many cycles we should begin to see low quality cheap goods exit the market in favor of higher quality goods that provide more value and lasts longer and, therefore, make it easier for an individual to depart with their hard-earned and hard-saved sats. This is only but one aspect that Michael tries to imbue throughout his presentation.

The other is the ability to buy yourself leisure time when you lower your time preference and save more than you spend. When your savings hit a critical tipping point that gives you the luxury to sit back and experience true leisure, which Michael explains is not idleness, but the contemplative space to study, create art, refine taste, and to find what "better goods" actually are. Those who can experience true leisure while reaping the benefits of saving in a hard asset that is increasing in purchasing power significantly over the long term are those who build truly great things. Things that outlast those who build them. Great art, great monuments, great institutions were all built by men who were afforded the time to experience leisure. Partly because they were leveraging hard money as their savings and the place they stored the profits reaped from their entrepreneurial endeavors.

If you squint and look into the future a couple of decades, it isn't hard to see a reality like this manifesting. As more people begin to save in Bitcoin, the forces of supply and demand will continue to come into play. There will only ever be 21 million bitcoin, there are around 8 billion people on this planet, and as more of those 8 billion individuals decide that bitcoin is the best savings vehicle, the price of bitcoin will rise.

When the price of bitcoin rises, it makes all other goods cheaper in bitcoin terms and, again, expands the entrepreneurial opportunity. The best part about this feedback loop is that even non-holders of bitcoin benefit through higher real wages and faster tech diffusion. The individuals and business owners who decide to hodl bitcoin will bring these benefits to the world whether you decide to use bitcoin or not.

This is why it is virtuous to hodl bitcoin. The potential for good things to manifest throughout the world increase when more individuals decide to hodl bitcoin. And as Michael very eloquently points out, this does not mean that people will not spend their bitcoin. It simply means that they have standards for the things that they will spend their bitcoin on. And those standards are higher than most who are fully engrossed in the high velocity trash economy have today.

In my opinion, one of those higher causes worthy of a sats donation is nostr:nprofile1qyfhwumn8ghj7enjv4jhyetvv9uju7re0gq3uamnwvaz7tmfdemxjmrvv9nk2tt0w468v6tvd3skwefwvdhk6qpqwzc9lz2f40azl98shkjewx3pywg5e5alwqxg09ew2mdyeey0c2rqcfecft . Consider donating so they can preserve and disseminate vital information about bitcoin and its foundations.

The Shell Game: How Health Narratives May Distract from Vaccine Risks

In our recent podcast, Dr. Jack Kruse presented a concerning theory about public health messaging. He argues that figures like Casey and Callie Means are promoting food and exercise narratives as a deliberate distraction from urgent vaccine issues. While no one disputes healthy eating matters, Dr. Kruse insists that focusing on "Froot Loops and Red Dye" diverts attention from what he sees as immediate dangers of mRNA vaccines, particularly for children.

"It's gonna take you 50 years to die from processed food. But the messenger jab can drop you like Damar Hamlin." - Dr Jack Kruse

Dr. Kruse emphasized that approximately 25,000 children per month are still receiving COVID vaccines despite concerns, with 3 million doses administered since Trump's election. This "shell game," as he describes it, allows vaccines to remain on childhood schedules while public attention fixates on less immediate health threats. As host, I believe this pattern deserves our heightened scrutiny given the potential stakes for our children's wellbeing.

Check out the full podcast here for more on Big Pharma's alleged bioweapons program, the "Time Bank Account" concept, and how Bitcoin principles apply to health sovereignty.

Headlines of the Day

Aussie Judge: Bitcoin is Money, Possibly CGT-Exempt - via X

JPMorgan to Let Clients Buy Bitcoin Without Direct Custody - via X

Get our new STACK SATS hat - via tftcmerch.io

Mubadala Acquires 384,239 sats | $408.50M Stake in BlackRock Bitcoin ETF - via X

---

Take the First Step Off the Exchange

Bitkey is an easy, secure way to move your Bitcoin into self-custody. With simple setup and built-in recovery, it’s the perfect starting point for getting your coins off centralized platforms and into cold storage—no complexity, no middlemen.

Take control. Start with Bitkey.

Use the promo code “TFTC20” during checkout for 20% off

---

Ten31, the largest bitcoin-focused investor, has deployed 158,469 sats | $150.00M across 30+ companies through three funds. I am a Managing Partner at Ten31 and am very proud of the work we are doing. Learn more at ten31.vc/invest.

---

Final thought...

I've been walking from my house around Town Lake in Austin in the mornings and taking calls on the walk. Big fan of a walking call.

---

Get this newsletter sent to your inbox daily: https://www.tftc.io/bitcoin-brief/

Subscribe to our YouTube channels and follow us on Nostr and X:

@ 6e0ea5d6:0327f353

**Ascolta bene! ** A man's sentimental longing, though often disguised in noble language and imagination, is a sickness—not a virtue.

It begins as a slight inclination toward tenderness, cloaked in sweetness. Then it reveals itself as a masked addiction: a constant need to be seen by a woman, validated by her, and reciprocated—as if someone else's affection were the only anchor preventing the shipwreck of his emotions.

The man who understands the weight of leadership seeks no applause, no gratitude, not even romantic love. He knows that his role is not theatrical but structural. He is not measured by the emotion he evokes, but by the stability he ensures. Being a true man is not ornamental. He is not a decorative symbol in the family frame.

We live in an era where male roles have been distorted by an overindulgence in emotion. The man stopped guiding and began asking for direction. His firmness was exchanged for softness, his decisiveness for hesitation. Trying to please, many have given up authority. Trying to love, they’ve begun to bow. A man who begs for validation within his own home is not a leader—he is a guest. And when the patriarch has to ask for a seat at the table he should preside over and sustain, something has already been irreversibly inverted.

Unexamined longing turns into pleading. And all begging is the antechamber of humiliation. A man who never learned to cultivate dignified solitude will inevitably fall to his knees in desperation. And then, he yields. Yields to mediocre presence, to shallow affection, to constant disrespect. He smiles while he bleeds, praises the one who despises him, accepts crumbs and pretends it’s a banquet. All of it, cazzo... just to avoid the horror of being alone.

Davvero, amico mio, for the men who beg for romance, only the consolation of being remembered will remain—not with respect, but with pity and disgust.

The modern world feeds the fragile with illusions, but reality spits them out. Sentimental longing is now celebrated as sensitivity. But every man who nurtures it as an excuse will, sooner or later, pay for it with his dignity.

Thank you for reading, my friend!

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

A toast to our family!

@ dd664d5e:5633d319

Instructions

1. Place 2 medium-sized, boiled potatoes and a handful of sliced leeks in a pot.
2. Fill the pot with water or vegetable broth, to cover the potatoes twice over.
3. Add a splash of white wine, if you like, and some bouillon powder, if you went with water instead of broth.
4. Bring the soup to a boil and then simmer for 15 minutes.
5. Puree the soup, in the pot, with a hand mixer. It shouldn't be completely smooth, when you're done, but rather have small bits and pieces of the veggies floating around.
6. Bring the soup to a boil, again, and stir in one container (200-250 mL) of heavy cream.
7. Thicken the soup, as needed, and then simmer for 5 more minutes.
8. Garnish with croutons and veggies (here I used sliced green onions and radishes) and serve.

Guten Appetit!

@ 7ed7d5c3:6927e200

Can't decide if the terrible book you just read is a 1 or 1.5 star book? Look no further than this chart. Was it Shit or just Bad? Was that movie you watched Very Good or just Decent? How many things out there are really Life Changing?

Finally, a rating scale for humans. Use it for anything in your life that needs a rating out of 5 stars.

Rating / Description

0.5 – The worst 1.0 – Shit 1.5 – Bad 2.0 – Eh 2.5 – Entertaining, but not great 3.0 – Neutral 3.5 – Alright 4.0 – Decent 4.5 – Very good 5.0 – Life Changing

P.S. Do not use it to rate your wife's cooking. The author is not liable for any damages.

@ dd664d5e:5633d319

Hodling Bitcoin does not make you a capitalist

I've noticed that Bitcoin-mindedness seems to lead some people to communistic thinking because it's a hard-limited form of capital. Marx, like most Bitcoiners, heavily discounted the possibility of economic growth or transformation changing the economy enough to undermine some minority's control of some form of capital.

What few today understand, is that many of the Dirty Capitalists of Marx's era actually agreed with him; they were just disdainful of labor and worried that the workers finding out that Marxism is correct about the nature of capitalism would cause unrest. They were the original HFSP crowd.

This was the basic idea, that Marx had, and that many Bitcoiners would agree with:

Capital is strictly limited and the people that control it can keep labor from attaining any, except when their labor is necessary.

And, as we know, automation will make human labor increasingly unnecessary.

The math doesn't check out

That underlies all of the calculations of "Well, if I just grab this Bitcoin wallet and hodl for twenty years, then it will grow in value to equal half of everything in existence and then I can just buy up half the planet and rule over everyone like a god."

This is economic nonsense because it assumes that: 1) the value of all things remains static over time, 2) purchasing something with money gives you ownership of it, 3) people will always use that specific money (or any money, at all!) for all transactions, 4) there is no such thing as opportunity cost, 5) people will always value money more than any other thing, and therefore be willing to always trade it for anything else, 6) humans are passive, defenseless, and easy to rule over, 7) someone who is preoccupied with hodling an asset steadily and sharply rising in price would ever be emotionally ready to part with it.

All monies can die.

People use money for everything because it is easy, fast and cheap. If money becomes too precious or scarce, they will simply switch to using other things (as we saw with gold). Humans replace tools that aren't working well, with those that work better, and money is just another tool. Bitcoin is more divisible than gold, but that won't matter, if enough of it is held by too few.

This is why there's a natural cap on the price of a money and why human productivity in the here and now is not irrelevant or in vain.

@ dd664d5e:5633d319

Ingredients

• 1 kg of pork roast with rind, such as shoulder or a lean belly
• 1 bottle of beer, light or dark
• chopped German-style mirepoix (best combination, for this recipe, includes celery root, carrot, red onion, and leeks)
• salt, pepper, nutmeg
• 1 diced garlic clove

Directions

1. Spread the vegetables on the bottom of the roasting pan.
2. Pour half the beer over the roast. (Drink the other half.)
3. Season the meat, to taste.
4. Roast the meat at 180 °C, until done (depends upon the weight of the roast).
5. Remove the meat from the oven, and wrap in aluminum foil.
6. Pour 2-3 cups of water into the roasting pan.
7. Pour/scrape everything from the pan into a sieve over a sauce pot.
8. Press the vegetables against the sieve, with the back of a spoon, to ensure that you get all that good dripping flavor into the sauce.
9. Defat the sauce with a grease separator, then pour it back into the pot.
10. Thicken the sauce, slightly (it should remain slightly watery, and not turn into a gravy), according to your usual method.
11. Open the foil and slice the roast.
12. Serve with the sauce.

@ a42048d7:26886c32

OP_CAT, Coffee, and keeping an open mind to Bitcoin soft forks by an 80 IQ BTC Maxi Pleb

TLDR: CAT is both low risk and low appeal to the broader non-dev BTC community. I don’t care and you shouldn’t either. If I am an 80 IQ HODL pleb or a company that caters to that group, can you please give me 2-4 fifth grade level coherent english sentences that explain why I should support CAT? I’m still waiting… CTV or LNHANCE on the other hand have broad appeal.

Five years ago in the office we got a fancy $6,000 coffee maker. It was hooked up to wifi, showed TV on a giant screen, and could make every type of coffee/milkshake you could think of. I was captivated… for about 1 day. After trying a few times I realized almost all the drinks it made were of low quality. The wifi connection actually ended up just being annoying. Half the time I wanted a coffee, only had a 5 minute break, and the machine displayed some inscrutable error. I went back to the proverbial grind un-caffeinated and frustrated wishing we had the old reliable boring coffee maker back. I also found myself only coming back to the 2 drinks I really cared about, espresso and maybe an occasional cappuccino. It was “cool” that new machine could make over 60 different drinks, but when I sat back and thought about it all I really needed or wanted were a few key options that I used constantly. Especially as those extra bells and whistles seemed to be the usual suspect in the coffee machine constantly breaking. I would’ve loved them upgrading from burnt starbucks coffee beans to a local specialty roaster, that would’ve greatly enhanced my daily coffee. Echoing this realization, my coffee setup at home became a simple machine that could only make espresso and a hand crank coffee bean grinder. Still have them years later and they work great. They’re robust and fit exactly what I wanted with no nonsense that created more headache than everyday value. As you probably suspected, this is a loose comparison to OP_CAT. I’ve listened to podcast after podcast, read blog after blog, and sat through every CAT pitch I could find. I genuinely tried to approach with an open mind. However, ultimately what every pro OP_CAT argument boils down to is that there is no simple left curve elevator pitch a pleb will understand or care about. “But we can get this really cool ZK Rollup and have infinite DEFI bridging to altcoin chains! Look we sort of did it on this other altcoin chain.” And they did, they aren’t lying. They have live software on a shitcoin chain like ETH or SOL that does some modest volume. But the story quickly falls apart in the face of a few basic left curve questions: “Why should I, as an 80 IQ left curve BTC maxi give a shit?” “Does this enhance my everyday experience holding and using BTC?” “Why do you have a non-BTC token for your rollup/sidechain/glorified multisig that is totally centralized?” “Why is there only a hard to understand often ill-defined path to de-centralization? Why isn’t it just already decentralized?” “What is a clear use case that the typical non-technical everyday BTC holder can understand and rally behind?” “Why should I care about bridging to ETH, SOL, or whatever shitcoin chain? I only want BTC and don’t want to participate in all that shitcoin bullshit. Bitcoin is a store of value and money to me and it doesn’t help with those use cases in a clear direct way. It sounds like it maybe, kinda, sorta does help with a lot of caveats, ifs, and steps that I struggle to understand.” Sorry yeah I know, that one got a little personal. I’ll try to do better going forward guys.

ZK proofs or other Pro-CAT arguments, are undoubtedly cool and do factually enable potential cool new stuff. It just happens to all be stuff that sounds complex, esoteric, and unappealing to an 80 IQ HODL pleb - let alone a miner, ETF investor, or exchange exec. I don’t mean to say ZK or other tech has no potential and that we won’t eventually move there, but just to say that it’s not in the cards as currently dealt.

I really went out trying to keep an open mind and steelman the case for CAT. I came back firmly believing:

1 Support is deep in the developer community, but nonexistent everywhere else. I have yet to find a single person that supports CAT who is not a dev or working at or sponsored by a company that stands to directly profit from something CAT enables. Which is fine, but I reserve the right to be skeptical of your direct incentive. I acknowledge rough consensus is very hard to judge, and am open to changing my mind on this over time but feel this is a currently accurate assessment.

2 To get a soft fork you need rough consensus. Most people in that potential consensus are not highly technical developers. They care mostly or exclusively about BTC’s store of value use case. No one has yet articulated a clear compelling store of value enhancing use case that they can understand and care about. Without pull demand from potential users and paying customers, CAT will inevitably stall.

3 Lots of factually inaccurate FUD has been thrown at CAT. People saw the Taproot Wizards or shitcoiners pushing CAT, and immediately dismiss CAT as an evil psyop without any real consideration for its technical merits. Frankly most people just hate Udi and say “Fuck CAT” based solely on that. Maybe not fair, but true.

4 CAT is low risk, and it is not a catastrophe waiting to happen. Anything bad it potentially enables is enabled in such an inefficient and/or use hostile way that it is highly unlikely to pose any issues to Bitcoin. CAT’s technical risk is low and this is consistently proven by other chains enabling CAT and having no issues with it, such as Liquid.

5 Lots of people who have no idea wtf they are talking about falsely claim CAT is the apocalypse without any ability whatsoever to explain why. Imho you are no better than Udi and the shitcoiners if you are willing to lie about CAT just because you dislike them. We as the BTC community need the ability to have a rational discussion on technical merits, and not to devolve into a cult of personality based political battle. The question should be, “Is CAT good or bad and why?” and not “I just hate Udi, therefore its a no from me dog.”

Summarizing CAT using TradFi language: those pushing CAT have technology in search of a problem and no clear product market fit. They are pushing their technology to an apathetic audience. Pushers of CAT are not pulled forward by customer demand. In the tech world these are some of the quintessential red flags that every good investor knows mean you need to sit this one out.

CTV or LNHANCE on the other hand are soft fork proposals that have clear use cases you can quickly explain to a broad swathe of the Bitcoin ecosystem: “Hey HOLD pleb, worried about losing your coins? Wouldn’t it be nice to have a simple vault that reduces the chances your coins are lost or stolen? Let’s make self custody and BTC’s store of value use case strictly better, specifically without enabling any shitcoin-ery.” “Hey Blackrock, Van Eck, ARK, Franklin Templeton, and every ETF investor - it would really suck if Coinbase lost all your Bitcoin and that ETF went to zero, right? What it we could create vaults to make that Bitcoin more secure?” “Like Lightning but find it hard to use self-custodially? Let’s make Lightning better, easier, and more scalable with fewer onchain transactions and lower fees.” “Tried or seen the ARK demos yet? They have real working code even without covenants. With covenants we get big ARK volumes and scaling while also making it easier.”

Signing off: See the difference? I, an 80 IQ pleb, can steelman multiple use cases for CTV/LNHANCE that have broad appeal. I have yet to see any such case for CAT, and until then I don’t think it’ll go anywhere.

*Pro-CAT Sources I’ve digested and would encourage others to consider: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Covenants_support https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no_Nj-MX53w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yp4eYK9S6M

Pro-CTV/LNHANCE sources to consider which have CLEAR use cases with widespead appeal: https://github.com/jamesob/simple-ctv-vault https://github.com/stutxo/op_ctv_payment_pool https://lnhance.org/ https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/how-ctv-can-help-scale-bitcoin

@ a4a6b584:1e05b95b

The Four-Layer Framework

Layer 1: Zoom Out

Start by looking at the big picture. What’s the subject about, and why does it matter? Focus on the overarching ideas and how they fit together. Think of this as the 30,000-foot view—it’s about understanding the "why" and "how" before diving into the "what."

Example: If you’re learning programming, start by understanding that it’s about giving logical instructions to computers to solve problems.

• Tip: Keep it simple. Summarize the subject in one or two sentences and avoid getting bogged down in specifics at this stage.

Once you have the big picture in mind, it’s time to start breaking it down.

---

Layer 2: Categorize and Connect

Now it’s time to break the subject into categories—like creating branches on a tree. This helps your brain organize information logically and see connections between ideas.

Example: Studying biology? Group concepts into categories like cells, genetics, and ecosystems.

• Tip: Use headings or labels to group similar ideas. Jot these down in a list or simple diagram to keep track.

With your categories in place, you’re ready to dive into the details that bring them to life.

---

Layer 3: Master the Details

Once you’ve mapped out the main categories, you’re ready to dive deeper. This is where you learn the nuts and bolts—like formulas, specific techniques, or key terminology. These details make the subject practical and actionable.

Example: In programming, this might mean learning the syntax for loops, conditionals, or functions in your chosen language.

• Tip: Focus on details that clarify the categories from Layer 2. Skip anything that doesn’t add to your understanding.

Now that you’ve mastered the essentials, you can expand your knowledge to include extra material.

---

Layer 4: Expand Your Horizons

Finally, move on to the extra material—less critical facts, trivia, or edge cases. While these aren’t essential to mastering the subject, they can be useful in specialized discussions or exams.

Example: Learn about rare programming quirks or historical trivia about a language’s development.

• Tip: Spend minimal time here unless it’s necessary for your goals. It’s okay to skim if you’re short on time.

---

Pro Tips for Better Learning

1. Use Active Recall and Spaced Repetition

Test yourself without looking at notes. Review what you’ve learned at increasing intervals—like after a day, a week, and a month. This strengthens memory by forcing your brain to actively retrieve information.

2. Map It Out

Create visual aids like diagrams or concept maps to clarify relationships between ideas. These are particularly helpful for organizing categories in Layer 2.

3. Teach What You Learn

Explain the subject to someone else as if they’re hearing it for the first time. Teaching exposes any gaps in your understanding and helps reinforce the material.

4. Engage with LLMs and Discuss Concepts

Take advantage of tools like ChatGPT or similar large language models to explore your topic in greater depth. Use these tools to:
- Ask specific questions to clarify confusing points.
- Engage in discussions to simulate real-world applications of the subject.
- Generate examples or analogies that deepen your understanding.

Tip: Use LLMs as a study partner, but don’t rely solely on them. Combine these insights with your own critical thinking to develop a well-rounded perspective.

---

Get Started

Ready to try the Four-Layer Method? Take 15 minutes today to map out the big picture of a topic you’re curious about—what’s it all about, and why does it matter? By building your understanding step by step, you’ll master the subject with less stress and more confidence.

@ 502ab02a:a2860397

พอพูดถึงบริษัทอย่าง Formo ที่ทำชีสโดยไม่ใช้วัวเลย คนส่วนใหญ่จะนึกถึงคำว่า “นวัตกรรม” “ยั่งยืน” “ลดโลกร้อน” กันเป็นด่านแรก แต่พอเฮียมองทะลุม่านควันพวกนี้ไป จะเห็นทุนรายใหญ่ที่หนุนหลังอยู่ ซึ่งหลายเจ้าก็ไม่ใช่ผู้พิทักษ์โลก แต่เป็นผู้เล่นตัวจี๊ดในอุตสาหกรรมอาหารโลกมายาวนาน

หนึ่งในนั้นคือบริษัทจากเกาหลีใต้ชื่อ CJ CheilJedang ซึ่งอาจฟังดูไกลตัว แต่จริงๆ แล้ว เฮียว่าชื่อนี้โผล่ตามซองอาหารสำเร็จรูปในครัวคนไทยหลายบ้านโดยไม่รู้ตัว

ถ้าจะเข้าใจ Formo ให้ถึงแก่น เราต้องมองไปถึงทุนที่ “ใส่เงิน” และ “ใส่จุดยืน” ลงไปในบริษัทนั้น และหนึ่งในผู้ถือหุ้นรายสำคัญก็คือ CJ CheilJedang บริษัทเกาหลีใต้ที่ก่อตั้งมาตั้งแต่ปี 1953 โดยเริ่มจากการเป็นโรงงานผลิตน้ำตาล จากนั้นก็กินรวบแทบทุกวงจรอาหารของเกาหลี

โปรไฟล์ CJ แค่เห็นภาพรวมก็ขนลุกแล้วครับ ลูกพี่เราแข็งแกร่งขนาดไหน - เป็นเจ้าของแบรนด์ Bibigo ที่เราอาจจะคุ้นในสินค้า กิมจิ และ CJ Foods ที่มีขายทั่วโลก -เป็นผู้ผลิต กรดอะมิโน รายใหญ่ของโลก เช่น ไลซีน, ทรีโอนีน, ทริปโตแฟน ที่ใช้เป็นวัตถุดิบในอาหารสัตว์ แต่ตอนนี้หลายบริษัทเอาไปใส่ใน Plant-based food แล้วเคลมว่าเป็นโปรตีนสมบูรณ์ -เป็นเจ้าของโรงงานผลิต แบคทีเรียสายพันธุ์พิเศษ สำหรับการหมักหลายประเภท -ขึ้นชื่อเรื่อง bioscience โดยเฉพาะ precision fermentation ซึ่งเป็นเทคโนโลยีเดียวกับที่ Formo ใช้ผลิตเคซีน (โปรตีนในนมวัว)

แปลว่า CJ ไม่ได้มาลงทุนใน Formo แบบ “หวังผลกำไรเฉยๆ” แต่เขามองเห็น “อนาคตใหม่ของอาหาร” ที่ตัวเองจะเป็นเจ้าของต้นน้ำยันปลายน้ำ

คำถามก็คือเบื้องลึกการลงทุนใน Formo ใครได้อะไร? Formo ปิดรอบระดมทุน Series A ได้ประมาณ 50 ล้านดอลลาร์สหรัฐ เมื่อปี 2021 โดยมีนักลงทุนหลายเจ้า เช่น EQT Ventures, Elevat3 Capital, Atomico แต่ CJ CheilJedang ก็เป็นหนึ่งในผู้ลงทุนเชิงกลยุทธ์ (strategic investor) ที่เข้ามาแบบไม่ใช่แค่ลงเงิน แต่เอา เทคโนโลยี + เครือข่ายโรงงาน + ซัพพลายเชนระดับโลก มาเสริมให้ Formo ขยายได้เร็วขึ้น

การจับมือกันครั้งนี้มีนัยยะสำคัญครับ -Formo ได้ เทคโนโลยีหมักจุลินทรีย์ (ที่ CJ ถนัดมาก) และช่องทางกระจายสินค้าในเอเชีย -CJ ได้ ถือหุ้นในบริษัทที่กำลังจะเปลี่ยนภาพ “ผลิตภัณฑ์จากนม” ให้กลายเป็นสิ่งที่ไม่ต้องมีสัตว์อีกต่อไป ซึ่งจะเป็นกลยุทธ์สำคัญในการสร้างแบรนด์อาหารแห่งอนาคต ที่นมจะต้องมาจากโรงงานผลิตเท่านั้นจึงจะมีคุณสมบัติที่ดีทั้งสารอาหารและความสะอาด

CJ เองก็เคยประกาศต่อสื่อว่า อยากเป็น “Global Lifestyle Company” ซึ่งฟังดูเบาๆ แต่จริงๆ คือแผนใหญ่ในการ เปลี่ยนวิธีการกินของคนทั้งโลกได้เลยเช่นกัน -จาก “อาหารจริง” ไปเป็น “อาหารสังเคราะห์” (synthetic food) -จาก “ฟาร์มสัตว์” ไปเป็น “ถังหมักจุลินทรีย์” -จาก “ความหลากหลายตามธรรมชาติ” ไปเป็น “สูตรกลาง” ที่ควบคุมได้ในระดับโมเลกุล

การหนุนหลัง Formo จึงไม่ใช่เรื่องบังเอิญ แต่เป็นอีกหนึ่งหมากในกระดานใหญ่ที่ CJ วางไว้ เพื่อเป็นเจ้าของอาหารอนาคตแบบไม่ต้องเลี้ยงหมู ไก่ วัว แต่ครองเทคโนโลยีแทน

คำถามคือแล้วผู้บริโภคจะรู้ทันไหมว่า เบื้องหลังชีสที่ไม่มีวัว อาจมี “ทุนที่อยากครองโลกอาหาร” คำที่เคลมว่า “ยั่งยืน” อาจสร้างระบบอาหารใหม่ที่ยิ่งห่างจากธรรมชาติเข้าไปทุกที

คนที่เคย “กลัวสารเคมี” ในอาหารแปรรูป กลับกลืนผลิตภัณฑ์จากห้องแล็บ โดยคิดว่า “มันคือความสะอาดและอนาคต” #pirateketo #กูต้องรู้มั๊ย #ม้วนหางสิลูก #siamstr