@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

This piece is the first in a series that will focus on things I think are a priority if your focus is similar to mine: building a strong family and safeguarding their future.

---

Choosing the ideal place to raise a family is one of the most significant decisions you will ever make. For simplicity sake I will break down my thought process into key factors: strong property rights, the ability to grow your own food, access to fresh water, the freedom to own and train with guns, and a dependable community.

A Jurisdiction with Strong Property Rights

Strong property rights are essential and allow you to build on a solid foundation that is less likely to break underneath you. Regions with a history of limited government and clear legal protections for landowners are ideal. Personally I think the US is the single best option globally, but within the US there is a wide difference between which state you choose. Choose carefully and thoughtfully, think long term. Obviously if you are not American this is not a realistic option for you, there are other solid options available especially if your family has mobility. I understand many do not have this capability to easily move, consider that your first priority, making movement and jurisdiction choice possible in the first place.

Abundant Access to Fresh Water

Water is life. I cannot overstate the importance of living somewhere with reliable, clean, and abundant freshwater. Some regions face water scarcity or heavy regulations on usage, so prioritizing a place where water is plentiful and your rights to it are protected is critical. Ideally you should have well access so you are not tied to municipal water supplies. In times of crisis or chaos well water cannot be easily shutoff or disrupted. If you live in an area that is drought prone, you are one drought away from societal chaos. Not enough people appreciate this simple fact.

Grow Your Own Food

A location with fertile soil, a favorable climate, and enough space for a small homestead or at the very least a garden is key. In stable times, a small homestead provides good food and important education for your family. In times of chaos your family being able to grow and raise healthy food provides a level of self sufficiency that many others will lack. Look for areas with minimal restrictions, good weather, and a culture that supports local farming.

Guns

The ability to defend your family is fundamental. A location where you can legally and easily own guns is a must. Look for places with a strong gun culture and a political history of protecting those rights. Owning one or two guns is not enough and without proper training they will be a liability rather than a benefit. Get comfortable and proficient. Never stop improving your skills. If the time comes that you must use a gun to defend your family, the skills must be instinct. Practice. Practice. Practice.

A Strong Community You Can Depend On

No one thrives alone. A ride or die community that rallies together in tough times is invaluable. Seek out a place where people know their neighbors, share similar values, and are quick to lend a hand. Lead by example and become a good neighbor, people will naturally respond in kind. Small towns are ideal, if possible, but living outside of a major city can be a solid balance in terms of work opportunities and family security.

---

Let me know if you found this helpful. My plan is to break down how I think about these five key subjects in future posts.

@ b83a28b7:35919450

This article was originally part of the sermon of Plebchain Radio Episode 110 (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

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.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Die zwei mächtigsten Krieger sind Geduld und Zeit. \ Leo Tolstoi

Zum Wohle unserer Gesundheit, unserer Leistungsfähigkeit und letztlich unseres Glücks ist es wichtig, die eigene Energie bewusst zu pflegen. Das gilt umso mehr für an gesellschaftlichen Themen interessierte, selbstbewusste und kritisch denkende Menschen. Denn für deren Wahrnehmung und Wohlbefinden waren und sind die rasanten, krisen- und propagandagefüllten letzten Jahre in Absurdistan eine harte Probe.

Nur wer regelmäßig Kraft tankt und Wege findet, mit den Herausforderungen umzugehen, kann eine solche Tortur überstehen, emotionale Erschöpfung vermeiden und trotz allem zufrieden sein. Dazu müssen wir erkunden, was uns Energie gibt und was sie uns raubt. Durch Selbstreflexion und Achtsamkeit finden wir sicher Dinge, die uns erfreuen und inspirieren, und andere, die uns eher stressen und belasten.

Die eigene Energie ist eng mit unserer körperlichen und mentalen Gesundheit verbunden. Methoden zur Förderung der körperlichen Gesundheit sind gut bekannt: eine ausgewogene Ernährung, regelmäßige Bewegung sowie ausreichend Schlaf und Erholung. Bei der nicht minder wichtigen emotionalen Balance wird es schon etwas komplizierter. Stress abzubauen, die eigenen Grenzen zu kennen oder solche zum Schutz zu setzen sowie die Konzentration auf Positives und Sinnvolles wären Ansätze.

Der emotionale ist auch der Bereich, über den «Energie-Räuber» bevorzugt attackieren. Das sind zum Beispiel Dinge wie Überforderung, Perfektionismus oder mangelhafte Kommunikation. Social Media gehören ganz sicher auch dazu. Sie stehlen uns nicht nur Zeit, sondern sind höchst manipulativ und erhöhen laut einer aktuellen Studie das Risiko für psychische Probleme wie Angstzustände und Depressionen.

Geben wir negativen oder gar bösen Menschen keine Macht über uns. Das Dauerfeuer der letzten Jahre mit Krisen, Konflikten und Gefahren sollte man zwar kennen, darf sich aber davon nicht runterziehen lassen. Das Ziel derartiger konzertierter Aktionen ist vor allem, unsere innere Stabilität zu zerstören, denn dann sind wir leichter zu steuern. Aber Geduld: Selbst vermeintliche «Sonnenköniginnen» wie EU-Kommissionspräsidentin von der Leyen fallen, wenn die Zeit reif ist.

Es ist wichtig, dass wir unsere ganz eigenen Bedürfnisse und Werte erkennen. Unsere Energiequellen müssen wir identifizieren und aktiv nutzen. Dazu gehören soziale Kontakte genauso wie zum Beispiel Hobbys und Leidenschaften. Umgeben wir uns mit Sinnhaftigkeit und lassen wir uns nicht die Energie rauben!

Mein Wahlspruch ist schon lange: «Was die Menschen wirklich bewegt, ist die Kultur.» Jetzt im Frühjahr beginnt hier in Andalusien die Zeit der «Ferias», jener traditionellen Volksfeste, die vor Lebensfreude sprudeln. Konzentrieren wir uns auf die schönen Dinge und auf unsere eigenen Talente – soziale Verbundenheit wird helfen, unsere innere Kraft zu stärken und zu bewahren.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

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

@ 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

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Information ohne Reflexion ist geistiger Flugsand. \ Ernst Reinhardt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

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

@ d360efec:14907b5f

🚀📉 #BTC วิเคราะห์ H2! พุ่งชน 105K แล้วเจอแรงขาย... จับตา FVG 100.5K เป็นจุดวัดใจ! 👀📊

จากากรวิเคราะห์ทางเทคนิคสำหรับ #Bitcoin ในกรอบเวลา H2:

สัปดาห์ที่แล้ว #BTC ได้เบรคและพุ่งขึ้นอย่างแข็งแกร่งค่ะ 📈⚡ แต่เมื่อวันจันทร์ที่ผ่านมา ราคาได้ขึ้นไปชนแนวต้านบริเวณ 105,000 ดอลลาร์ แล้วเจอแรงขายย่อตัวลงมาตลอดทั้งวันค่ะ 🧱📉

ตอนนี้ ระดับที่น่าจับตาอย่างยิ่งคือโซน H4 FVG (Fair Value Gap ในกราฟ 4 ชั่วโมง) ที่ 100,500 ดอลลาร์ ค่ะ 🎯 (FVG คือโซนที่ราคาวิ่งผ่านไปเร็วๆ และมักเป็นบริเวณที่ราคามีโอกาสกลับมาทดสอบ/เติมเต็ม)

👇 โซน FVG ที่ 100.5K นี้ ยังคงเป็น Area of Interest ที่น่าสนใจสำหรับมองหาจังหวะ Long เพื่อลุ้นการขึ้นในคลื่นลูกถัดไปค่ะ!

🤔💡 อย่างไรก็ตาม การตัดสินใจเข้า Long หรือเทรดที่บริเวณนี้ ขึ้นอยู่กับว่าราคา แสดงปฏิกิริยาอย่างไรเมื่อมาถึงโซน 100.5K นี้ เพื่อยืนยันสัญญาณสำหรับการเคลื่อนไหวที่จะขึ้นสูงกว่าเดิมค่ะ!

เฝ้าดู Price Action ที่ระดับนี้อย่างใกล้ชิดนะคะ! 📍

BTC #Bitcoin #Crypto #คริปโต #TechnicalAnalysis #Trading #FVG #FairValueGap #PriceAction #MarketAnalysis #ลงทุนคริปโต #วิเคราะห์กราฟ #TradeSetup #ข่าวคริปโต #ตลาดคริปโต

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

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

@ d360efec:14907b5f

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

--- Quellen: ---

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

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

---

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

@ d360efec:14907b5f

สวัสดีค่ะเพื่อนๆ นักเทรดที่น่ารักทุกคน! 💕 Lina Engword กลับมาพร้อมกับการวิเคราะห์ BTCUSDT.P แบบเจาะลึกเพื่อเตรียมพร้อมสำหรับเทรดวันนี้ค่ะ! 🚀

วันนี้ 12 พฤษภาคม 2568 เวลา 08.15น. ราคา BTCUSDT.P อยู่ที่ 104,642.8 USDT ค่ะ โดยมี Previous Weekly High (PWH) อยู่ที่ 104,967.8 Previous Weekly Low (PWL) ที่ 93,338 ค่ะ

✨ ภาพรวมตลาดวันนี้ ✨

จากการวิเคราะห์ด้วยเครื่องมือคู่ใจของเรา ทั้ง SMC/ICT (Demand/Supply Zone, Order Block, Liquidity), EMA 50/200, Trend Strength, Money Flow, Chart/Price Pattern, Premium/Discount Zone, Trend line, Fibonacci, Elliott Wave และ Dow Theory ใน Timeframe ตั้งแต่ 15m ไปจนถึง Week! 📊 เราพบว่าภาพใหญ่ของ BTCUSDT.P ยังคงอยู่ในแนวโน้มขาขึ้นที่แข็งแกร่งมากๆ ค่ะ 👍 โดยเฉพาะใน Timeframe Day และ Week ที่สัญญาณทุกอย่างสนับสนุนทิศทางขาขึ้นอย่างชัดเจน Money Flow ยังไหลเข้าอย่างต่อเนื่อง และเราเห็นโครงสร้างตลาดแบบ Dow Theory ที่ยก High ยก Low ขึ้นไปเรื่อยๆ ค่ะ

อย่างไรก็ตาม... ใน Timeframe สั้นๆ อย่าง 15m และ 1H เริ่มเห็นสัญญาณของการชะลอตัวและการพักฐานบ้างแล้วค่ะ 📉 อาจมีการสร้าง Buyside และ Sellside Liquidity รอให้ราคาไปกวาดก่อนที่จะเลือกทางใดทางหนึ่ง ซึ่งเป็นเรื่องปกติของการเดินทางของ Smart Money ค่ะ

⚡ เปรียบเทียบแนวโน้มแต่ละ Timeframe ⚡

🪙 แนวโน้มตรงกัน Timeframe 4H, Day, Week ส่วนใหญ่ชี้ไปทาง "ขาขึ้น" ค่ะ ทุกเครื่องมือสนับสนุนแนวโน้มนี้อย่างแข็งแกร่ง 💪 เป้าหมายต่อไปคือการไปทดสอบ PWH และ High เดิม เพื่อสร้าง All-Time High ใหม่ค่ะ! 🪙 แนวโน้มต่างกัน Timeframe 15m, 1H ยังค่อนข้าง "Sideways" หรือ "Sideways Down เล็กน้อย" ค่ะ มีการบีบตัวของราคาและอาจมีการพักฐานสั้นๆ ซึ่งเป็นโอกาสในการหาจังหวะเข้า Long ที่ราคาดีขึ้นค่ะ

💡 วิธีคิดแบบ Market Slayer 💡

เมื่อแนวโน้มใหญ่เป็นขาขึ้นที่แข็งแกร่ง เราจะเน้นหาจังหวะเข้า Long เป็นหลักค่ะ การย่อตัวลงมาในระยะสั้นคือโอกาสของเราในการเก็บของ! 🛍️ เราจะใช้หลักการ SMC/ICT หาโซน Demand หรือ Order Block ที่ Smart Money อาจจะเข้ามาดันราคาขึ้น และรอสัญญาณ Price Action ยืนยันการกลับตัวค่ะ

สรุปแนวโน้มวันนี้:

🪙 ระยะสั้น: Sideways to Sideways Down (โอกาส 55%) ↔️↘️ 🪙 ระยะกลาง: ขาขึ้น (โอกาส 70%) ↗️ 🪙 ระยะยาว: ขาขึ้น (โอกาส 85%) 🚀 🪙 วันนี้: มีโอกาสย่อตัวเล็กน้อยก่อนจะมีแรงซื้อกลับเข้ามาเพื่อไปทดสอบ PWH (โอกาส Sideways Down เล็กน้อย สลับกับ Sideways Up: 60%) 🎢

🗓️ Daily Trade Setup ประจำวันนี้ 🗓️

นี่คือตัวอย่าง Setup ที่ Lina เตรียมไว้ให้พิจารณาค่ะ (เน้นย้ำว่าเป็นเพียงแนวทาง ไม่ใช่คำแนะนำลงทุนนะคะ)

1️⃣ ตัวอย่างที่ 1: รอรับที่โซน Demand (ปลอดภัย, รอยืนยัน)

🪙 Enter: รอราคาย่อตัวลงมาในโซน Demand Zone หรือ Bullish Order Block ที่น่าสนใจใน TF 1H/4H (ดูจากกราฟประกอบนะคะ) และเกิดสัญญาณ Bullish Price Action ที่ชัดเจน เช่น แท่งเทียนกลืนกิน (Engulfing) หรือ Hammer 🪙 TP: บริเวณ PWH 104,967.8 หรือ Buyside Liquidity ถัดไป 🎯 🪙 SL: ใต้ Low ที่เกิดก่อนสัญญาณกลับตัวเล็กน้อย หรือใต้ Demand Zone ที่เข้า 🛡️ 🪙 RRR: ประมาณ 1:2.5 ขึ้นไป ✨ 🪙 อธิบาย: Setup นี้เราจะใจเย็นๆ รอให้ราคาลงมาในโซนที่มีโอกาสเจอแรงซื้อเยอะๆ ตามหลัก SMC/ICT แล้วค่อยเข้า เพื่อให้ได้ราคาที่ดีและความเสี่ยงต่ำค่ะ ต้องรอสัญญาณ Price Action ยืนยันก่อนนะคะ ✍️

2️⃣ ตัวอย่างที่ 2: Follow Breakout (สายบู๊, รับความเสี่ยงได้)

🪙 Enter: เข้า Long ทันทีเมื่อราคาสามารถ Breakout เหนือ High ล่าสุดใน TF 15m หรือ 1H พร้อม Volume ที่เพิ่มขึ้นอย่างมีนัยสำคัญ 🔥 🪙 TP: บริเวณ PWH 104,967.8 หรือ Buyside Liquidity ถัดไป 🚀 🪙 SL: ใต้ High ก่อนหน้าที่ถูก Breakout เล็กน้อย 🚧 🪙 RRR: ประมาณ 1:3 ขึ้นไป ✨ 🪙 อธิบาย: Setup นี้เหมาะกับคนที่อยากเข้าไวเมื่อเห็นโมเมนตัมแรงๆ ค่ะ เราจะเข้าเมื่อราคา Breakout แนวต้านระยะสั้นพร้อม Volume เป็นสัญญาณว่าแรงซื้อกำลังมาค่ะ เข้าได้เลยด้วยการตั้ง Limit Order หรือ Market Order เมื่อเห็นการ Breakout ที่ชัดเจนค่ะ 💨

3️⃣ ตัวอย่างที่ 3: พิจารณา Short สั้นๆ ในโซน Premium (สวนเทรนด์หลัก, ความเสี่ยงสูง)

🪙 Enter: หากราคาขึ้นไปในโซน Premium ใน TF 15m หรือ 1H และเกิดสัญญาณ Bearish Price Action ที่ชัดเจน เช่น แท่งเทียน Shooting Star หรือ Bearish Engulfing บริเวณ Supply Zone หรือ Bearish Order Block 🐻 🪙 TP: พิจารณาแนวรับถัดไป หรือ Sellside Liquidity ใน TF เดียวกัน 🎯 🪙 SL: เหนือ High ของสัญญาณ Bearish Price Action เล็กน้อย 💀 🪙 RRR: ประมาณ 1:1.5 ขึ้นไป (เน้นย้ำว่าเป็นการเทรดสวนเทรนด์หลัก ควรใช้ RRR ต่ำและบริหารขนาด Lot อย่างเข้มงวด!) 🪙 อธิบาย: Setup นี้สำหรับคนที่เห็นโอกาสในการทำกำไรจากการย่อตัวระยะสั้นค่ะ เราจะเข้า Short เมื่อเห็นสัญญาณว่าราคาอาจจะมีการพักฐานในโซนที่ถือว่า "แพง" ในกรอบสั้นๆ ค่ะ ต้องตั้ง Stop Loss ใกล้มากๆ และจับตาดูใกล้ชิดนะคะ 🚨

⚠️ Disclaimer: การวิเคราะห์นี้เป็นเพียงความคิดเห็นส่วนตัวของ Lina เท่านั้น ไม่ถือเป็นคำแนะนำในการลงทุนนะคะ การลงทุนมีความเสี่ยง ผู้ลงทุนควรศึกษาข้อมูลเพิ่มเติมและตัดสินใจด้วยความรอบคอบค่ะ 🙏

ขอให้ทุกท่านโชคดีกับการเทรดในวันนี้ค่ะ! มีคำถามอะไรเพิ่มเติม ถามมาได้เลยนะคะ ยินดีเสมอค่ะ! 😊

Bitcoin #BTCUSDT #Crypto #Trading #TechnicalAnalysis #SMC #ICT #MarketSlayer #TradeSetup #คริปโต #เทรดคริปโต #วิเคราะห์กราฟ #LinaEngword 😉

@ d360efec:14907b5f

Disclaimer: * การวิเคราะห์นี้เป็นเพียงแนวทาง ไม่ใช่คำแนะนำในการซื้อขาย * การลงทุนมีความเสี่ยง ผู้ลงทุนควรตัดสินใจด้วยตนเอง

@ 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.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

Manipulation erkennen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ist Russland aggressiv und expansiv?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was ist los in der Ukraine?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hasst der Westen die Russen?

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

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

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

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

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

Fazit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Quellen: ---

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

[2] Zwei nette Beispiele:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben.

@ e3ba5e1a:5e433365

Prelude

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

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

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

Intro

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

The Filibuster: A Security Rule with No Teeth

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

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

Supreme Court Packing: Because Nine’s Just a Number

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

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

The Executive Should Go Full Klingon

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

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

Let the System Crash

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

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

States Are the Real MVPs

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

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

Chaos Isn’t the Enemy

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

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

Why This Matters

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

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

@ 91bea5cd:1df4451c

Básico

bash lsblk # Lista todos os diretorios montados.

Para criar o sistema de arquivos:

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

Criando um subvolume:

bash btrfs subvolume create SubVol

Montando Sistema de Arquivos:

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

Lista os discos formatados no diretório:

bash btrfs filesystem show /mnt

Adiciona novo disco ao subvolume:

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

Lista novamente os discos do subvolume:

bash btrfs filesystem show /mnt

Exibe uso dos discos do subvolume:

bash btrfs filesystem df /mnt

Balancea os dados entre os discos sobre raid1:

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

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

iniciar o processo de depuração :

bash btrfs scrub start /mnt

ver o status do processo de depuração Btrfs em execução:

bash btrfs scrub status /mnt

ver o status do scrub Btrfs para cada um dos dispositivos

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

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

btrfs scrub resume / data

Listando os subvolumes:

bash btrfs subvolume list /Reports

Criando um instantâneo dos subvolumes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

bash btrfs filsystem sync /Reports

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

bash btrfs device delete /dev/sdc /Reports

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

bash btrfs scrub status -dR / Relatórios

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

bash $ sudo btrfs scrub cancel / Reports

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

bash sudo btrfs scrub resume /Reports

mostra o uso do dispositivo de armazenamento:

btrfs filesystem usage /data

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

sudo btrfs balance start --full-balance /data

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

Opções importantes de montagem Btrfs

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

As opções de montagem Btrfs mais importantes são:

**1. acl e noacl

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

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

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

**2. autodefrag e noautodefrag

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

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

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

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

**3. compactar e compactar-forçar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**4. subvol e subvolid

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

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

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

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

**5. dispositivo

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

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

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

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

Por exemplo,

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

**6. degraded

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

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

**7. commit

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

O padrão é definido como 30 segundos.

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

**8. ssd e nossd

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

A opção de montagem nossd desativa a otimização do SSD.

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

**9. ssd_spread e nossd_spread

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

A opção de montagem nossd_spread desativa o recurso ssd_spread .

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

**10. descarte e nodiscard

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

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

Por padrão, a opção de montagem nodiscard é usada.

**11. norecovery

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

**12. usebackuproot e nousebackuproot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**14. skip_balance

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

**15. datacow e nodatacow

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

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

**16. datasum e nodatasum

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

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

Perfis Btrfs

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

Os perfis Btrfs disponíveis são os seguintes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

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

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Vorlage Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

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

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

Dazu passend:

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

---

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

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

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

TL;DR please educate your children about online safety.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ aa8de34f:a6ffe696

In seinem Beitrag vom 30. März 2025 fragt Henning Rosenbusch auf Telegram angesichts zunehmender digitaler Kontrolle und staatlicher Allmacht:

„Wie soll sich gegen eine solche Tyrannei noch ein Widerstand formieren können, selbst im Untergrund? Sehe ich nicht.“\ (Quelle: t.me/rosenbusch/25228)

Er beschreibt damit ein Gefühl der Ohnmacht, das viele teilen: Eine Welt, in der Totalitarismus nicht mehr mit Panzern, sondern mit Algorithmen kommt. Wo Zugriff auf Geld, Meinungsfreiheit und Teilhabe vom Wohlverhalten abhängt. Der Bürger als kontrollierbare Variable im Code des Staates.\ Die Frage ist berechtigt. Doch die Antwort darauf liegt nicht in alten Widerstandsbildern – sondern in einer neuen Realität.

-- Denn es braucht keinen Untergrund mehr. --

Der Widerstand der Zukunft trägt keinen Tarnanzug. Er ist nicht konspirativ, sondern transparent. Nicht bewaffnet, sondern mathematisch beweisbar. Bitcoin steht nicht am Rand dieser Entwicklung – es ist ihr Fundament. Eine Bastion aus physikalischer Realität, spieltheoretischem Schutz und ökonomischer Wahrheit. Es ist nicht unfehlbar, aber unbestechlich. Nicht perfekt, aber immun gegen zentrale Willkür.

Hier entsteht kein „digitales Gegenreich“, sondern eine dezentrale Renaissance. Keine Revolte aus Wut, sondern eine stille Abkehr: von Zwang zu Freiwilligkeit, von Abhängigkeit zu Selbstverantwortung. Diese Revolution führt keine Kriege. Sie braucht keine Führer. Sie ist ein Netzwerk. Jeder Knoten ein Individuum. Jede Entscheidung ein Akt der Selbstermächtigung.

Weltweit wachsen Freiheits-Zitadellen aus dieser Idee: wirtschaftlich autark, digital souverän, lokal verankert und global vernetzt. Sie sind keine Utopien im luftleeren Raum, sondern konkrete Realitäten – angetrieben von Energie, Code und dem menschlichen Wunsch nach Würde.

Der Globalismus alter Prägung – zentralistisch, monopolistisch, bevormundend – wird an seiner eigenen Hybris zerbrechen. Seine Werkzeuge der Kontrolle werden ihn nicht retten. Im Gegenteil: Seine Geister werden ihn verfolgen und erlegen.

Und während die alten Mächte um Erhalt kämpfen, wächst eine neue Welt – nicht im Schatten, sondern im Offenen. Nicht auf Gewalt gebaut, sondern auf Mathematik, Physik und Freiheit.

Die Tyrannei sieht keinen Widerstand.\ Weil sie nicht erkennt, dass er längst begonnen hat.\ Unwiderruflich. Leise. Überall.

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Der Irrsinn ist bei Einzelnen etwas Seltenes – \ aber bei Gruppen, Parteien, Völkern, Zeiten die Regel. \ Friedrich Nietzsche

Erinnern Sie sich an die Horrorkomödie «Scary Movie»? Nicht, dass ich diese Art Filme besonders erinnerungswürdig fände, aber einige Szenen daraus sind doch gewissermaßen Klassiker. Dazu zählt eine, die das Verhalten vieler Protagonisten in Horrorfilmen parodiert, wenn sie in Panik flüchten. Welchen Weg nimmt wohl die Frau in der Situation auf diesem Bild?

Diese Szene kommt mir automatisch in den Sinn, wenn ich aktuelle Entwicklungen in Europa betrachte. Weitreichende Entscheidungen gehen wider jede Logik in die völlig falsche Richtung. Nur ist das hier alles andere als eine Komödie, sondern bitterernst. Dieser Horror ist leider sehr real.

Die Europäische Union hat sich selbst über Jahre konsequent in eine Sackgasse manövriert. Sie hat es versäumt, sich und ihre Politik selbstbewusst und im Einklang mit ihren Wurzeln auf dem eigenen Kontinent zu positionieren. Stattdessen ist sie in blinder Treue den vermeintlichen «transatlantischen Freunden» auf ihrem Konfrontationskurs gen Osten gefolgt.

In den USA haben sich die Vorzeichen allerdings mittlerweile geändert, und die einst hoch gelobten «Freunde und Partner» erscheinen den europäischen «Führern» nicht mehr vertrauenswürdig. Das ist spätestens seit der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz, der Rede von Vizepräsident J. D. Vance und den empörten Reaktionen offensichtlich. Große Teile Europas wirken seitdem wie ein aufgescheuchter Haufen kopfloser Hühner. Orientierung und Kontrolle sind völlig abhanden gekommen.

Statt jedoch umzukehren oder wenigstens zu bremsen und vielleicht einen Abzweig zu suchen, geben die Crash-Piloten jetzt auf dem Weg durch die Sackgasse erst richtig Gas. Ja sie lösen sogar noch die Sicherheitsgurte und deaktivieren die Airbags. Den vor Angst dauergelähmten Passagieren fällt auch nichts Besseres ein und so schließen sie einfach die Augen. Derweil übertrumpfen sich die Kommentatoren des Events gegenseitig in sensationslüsterner «Berichterstattung».

Wie schon die deutsche Außenministerin mit höchsten UN-Ambitionen, Annalena Baerbock, proklamiert auch die Europäische Kommission einen «Frieden durch Stärke». Zu dem jetzt vorgelegten, selbstzerstörerischen Fahrplan zur Ankurbelung der Rüstungsindustrie, genannt «Weißbuch zur europäischen Verteidigung – Bereitschaft 2030», erklärte die Kommissionspräsidentin, die «Ära der Friedensdividende» sei längst vorbei. Soll das heißen, Frieden bringt nichts ein? Eine umfassende Zusammenarbeit an dauerhaften europäischen Friedenslösungen steht demnach jedenfalls nicht zur Debatte.

Zusätzlich brisant ist, dass aktuell «die ganze EU von Deutschen regiert wird», wie der EU-Parlamentarier und ehemalige UN-Diplomat Michael von der Schulenburg beobachtet hat. Tatsächlich sitzen neben von der Leyen und Strack-Zimmermann noch einige weitere Deutsche in – vor allem auch in Krisenzeiten – wichtigen Spitzenposten der Union. Vor dem Hintergrund der Kriegstreiberei in Deutschland muss eine solche Dominanz mindestens nachdenklich stimmen.

Ihre ursprünglichen Grundwerte wie Demokratie, Freiheit, Frieden und Völkerverständigung hat die EU kontinuierlich in leere Worthülsen verwandelt. Diese werden dafür immer lächerlicher hochgehalten und beschworen.

Es wird dringend Zeit, dass wir, der Souverän, diesem erbärmlichen und gefährlichen Trauerspiel ein Ende setzen und die Fäden selbst in die Hand nehmen. In diesem Sinne fordert uns auch das «European Peace Project» auf, am 9. Mai im Rahmen eines Kunstprojekts den Frieden auszurufen. Seien wir dabei!

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

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

@ 8671a6e5:f88194d1

#### Dit is een reactie op dit artikel Dit is een reactie op dit artikel\ --\ Geachte redactie van De Tijd,

Met teleurstelling las ik uw recente artikel waarin Bitcoin onterecht wordt omschreven als een "hot wallet", en waarin de meldplicht voor de fiscus onnauwkeurig wordt voorgesteld.\ Maar wat vooral schrijnend is (naast het gebrek aan kennis inzake Bitcoin) is de lichte zweem van "onbehagen" die er omheen werd geweven.

Bitcoin is geen hot wallet, maar een gedecentraliseerd netwerk met bewezen digitale schaarste – hard money. Een "hot wallet" is eenvoudig gezegd een internet-verbonden opslagmethode voor bitcoin, zoals een app op een smartphone, terwijl een cold wallet offline private sleutels bewaart. Dit onderscheid is essentieel voor correcte berichtgeving, maar werd helaas onvoldoende uitgelegd aan uw lezers.

Daarnaast schetst het artikel een misleidend beeld van de meldplicht. \ Volgens de Belgische wetgeving moeten Belgische belastingplichtigen buitenlandse rekeningen melden bij het CAP en jaarlijks in hun belastingaangifte. De juridische status van zulke exchange in de EU-"junta" zone, is daarbij van belang. Dat werd in het artikel gewoon onder de mat geveegd zonder enige nuance.\ \ De Belgische fiscus biedt na zestien jaar trouwens nog steeds geen adequate manier om bitcoin bezit correct aan te geven, zoals een veld voor xpub- of zpub-sleutels (mensen die dit correct willen aangeven worden geconfronteerd met een gebrek aan kennis die overal in België op eenzelfde bedroevend laag niveau zit,... hier hebben we al vaker voorbeelden van gezien).\ \ Vertrouwen op zulke instanties om je cold-storage holdings te melden, is vragen om problemen. Toch meldt uw krant dat je dat maar beter WEL doet.\ Er is echter GEEN verplichting om non-custodial wallets aan te tegen. Het gaat hier voor alle duidelijkheid over bitcoin UTXO's waar de houder zelf in het bezit is van de eigen sleutels, ... echte bitcoin dus:)... \ Zulk hard money spontaan melden bij een instantie die daar niet klaar voor is, kan onnodige administratieve lasten opleggen zonder juridische basis en bovendien ook andere problemen veroorzaken. \ Dit advies van De Tijd, lijkt eerder ingegeven door overdreven voorzichtigheid, dan dan door een wettelijke verplichting. Maar vooral moet het een sfeertje scheppen alsof alle bitcoin houders die NIET via een gecapteerde derde partij werken (een exchange of een service) blijkbaar "louche" zijn. \ Dan kunnen we meteen ook iedereen die een waardevol schilderij in de privé woning heeft hangen "louche" noemen, om maar te zwijgen over fake-NGO's en dure wijn collecties niet?

Uw artikel schept naast het etaleren van een gebrek aan kennis inzake bitcoin, bovendien een sfeer van criminalisering, waarbij uw artikel gewag maakt van het oude refrein: “Wie niets te verbergen heeft...” \ Komaan, dit argument is intussen doorzichtig en dient enkel om mensen bang te maken en totalitaire controle als ‘normaal’ te doen aanvaarden. \ Net zoals de wildgroei aan flitspalen en de in oktober uit te rollen CBDC "Digitale Euro", die in essentie een programmeerbare, makkelijk uitschakelbare nep-euro zal zijn (een slechtere vorm van een kermis-jeton).

Het blijft vreemd dat er in De Tijd – net als bij andere mainstream media – zelden of nooit ruimte is voor een kritische stem hierover... het zal niet in de kraam passen.\ Net zoals het niet in de kraam past om de lamentabele BEL20 performantie of de laakbare promotie van rommel-aandelen op TV aan de kaak te stellen, of de huizenmarkt-zwendel eens een welverdiende kritiek te geven. Kritiek of nuances hierover zijn ook ... uit den boze.\ Neen, bij De Tijd gaan we het altijd op veilig spelen, en de paar mensen die de krant nog betalend lezen vooral niet wijzer maken?\ \ Er was nochtans goede hoop op meer en betere berichtgeven over bitcoin. Maar die hoop smelt zienderogen weg.

Het artikel plaatst bitcoin gebruikers impliciet in het kamp van potentiële overtreders, wat bijdraagt aan een negatieve en onterechte criminalisering. \ Dit patroon, ook zichtbaar in media zoals De Morgen en De Standaard, vertroebelt elementaire kennis en benadeelt uw betalende abonnees door hen foutieve en onvolledige informatie te verstrekken over het best presterende activum van het afgelopen decennium – en over de unieke rol van bitcoin als alternatief voor de steeds verder wegsmeltende koopkracht en waarde van fiat-munten van oude staten en unies.

Ik hoop dat u uw verantwoordelijkheid opneemt om abonnees objectief en feitelijk correct te informeren, zodat zij de échte opportunity cost van hun keuzes kunnen inschatten – een kost die, ironisch genoeg, met elk jaarabonnement verder oploopt.

Wie sinds 2015 maandelijks €50 aan bitcoin had gekocht in plaats van een abonnement op De Tijd te nemen, heeft zich alvast niet laten misleiden door uw doemverhalen en onjuiste informatie over dit activum. En het verschil in rendement is, op z’n zachtst gezegd, significant.

Jammer maar helaas, "De Tijd" lijkt anno 2025 nog steeds niet in staat om systematisch correct te berichten over "de" Bitcoin.\ \ Een paar Anonieme Bitcoiners

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Wir werden nicht zulassen, dass technisch manches möglich ist, \ aber der Staat es nicht nutzt. \ Angela Merkel

Die Modalverben zu erklären, ist im Deutschunterricht manchmal nicht ganz einfach. Nicht alle Fremdsprachen unterscheiden zum Beispiel bei der Frage nach einer Möglichkeit gleichermaßen zwischen «können» im Sinne von «die Gelegenheit, Kenntnis oder Fähigkeit haben» und «dürfen» als «die Erlaubnis oder Berechtigung haben». Das spanische Wort «poder» etwa steht für beides.

Ebenso ist vielen Schülern auf den ersten Blick nicht recht klar, dass das logische Gegenteil von «müssen» nicht unbedingt «nicht müssen» ist, sondern vielmehr «nicht dürfen». An den Verkehrsschildern lässt sich so etwas meistens recht gut erklären: Manchmal muss man abbiegen, aber manchmal darf man eben nicht.

Dieses Beispiel soll ein wenig die Verwirrungstaktik veranschaulichen, die in der Politik gerne verwendet wird, um unpopuläre oder restriktive Maßnahmen Stück für Stück einzuführen. Zuerst ist etwas einfach innovativ und bringt viele Vorteile. Vor allem ist es freiwillig, jeder kann selber entscheiden, niemand muss mitmachen. Später kann man zunehmend weniger Alternativen wählen, weil sie verschwinden, und irgendwann verwandelt sich alles andere in «nicht dürfen» – die Maßnahme ist obligatorisch.

Um die Durchsetzung derartiger Initiativen strategisch zu unterstützen und nett zu verpacken, gibt es Lobbyisten, gerne auch NGOs genannt. Dass das «NG» am Anfang dieser Abkürzung übersetzt «Nicht-Regierungs-» bedeutet, ist ein Anachronismus. Das war vielleicht früher einmal so, heute ist eher das Gegenteil gemeint.

In unserer modernen Zeit wird enorm viel Lobbyarbeit für die Digitalisierung praktisch sämtlicher Lebensbereiche aufgewendet. Was das auf dem Sektor der Mobilität bedeuten kann, haben wir diese Woche anhand aktueller Entwicklungen in Spanien beleuchtet. Begründet teilweise mit Vorgaben der Europäischen Union arbeitet man dort fleißig an einer «neuen Mobilität», basierend auf «intelligenter» technologischer Infrastruktur. Derartige Anwandlungen wurden auch schon als «Technofeudalismus» angeprangert.

Nationale Zugangspunkte für Mobilitätsdaten im Sinne der EU gibt es nicht nur in allen Mitgliedsländern, sondern auch in der Schweiz und in Großbritannien. Das Vereinigte Königreich beteiligt sich darüber hinaus an anderen EU-Projekten für digitale Überwachungs- und Kontrollmaßnahmen, wie dem biometrischen Identifizierungssystem für «nachhaltigen Verkehr und Tourismus».

Natürlich marschiert auch Deutschland stracks und euphorisch in Richtung digitaler Zukunft. Ohne vernetzte Mobilität und einen «verlässlichen Zugang zu Daten, einschließlich Echtzeitdaten» komme man in der Verkehrsplanung und -steuerung nicht aus, erklärt die Regierung. Der Interessenverband der IT-Dienstleister Bitkom will «die digitale Transformation der deutschen Wirtschaft und Verwaltung vorantreiben». Dazu bewirbt er unter anderem die Konzepte Smart City, Smart Region und Smart Country und behauptet, deutsche Großstädte «setzen bei Mobilität voll auf Digitalisierung».

Es steht zu befürchten, dass das umfassende Sammeln, Verarbeiten und Vernetzen von Daten, das angeblich die Menschen unterstützen soll (und theoretisch ja auch könnte), eher dazu benutzt wird, sie zu kontrollieren und zu manipulieren. Je elektrischer und digitaler unsere Umgebung wird, desto größer sind diese Möglichkeiten. Im Ergebnis könnten solche Prozesse den Bürger nicht nur einschränken oder überflüssig machen, sondern in mancherlei Hinsicht regelrecht abschalten. Eine gesunde Skepsis ist also geboten.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

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

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hours: Available 24 hours

@ 3c559080:a053153e

So firstly you should find an emulator for whatever you want to play on. There are many for desktop and mobile devices. Checkhere for a list of all the available consoles and their various emulators.

Next what game do you want to play? This is the like the homepage for a shit ton of roms.

Some of the more popular roms are there and other various list like Sony Nintendo

After narrowing down your selection you will end up on myrient i assume this is just some dope person hosting all these so if you get some use out of it, think of donating they even take corn, but other shitcoins too (but thats not the focus here)

Once you download the Rom of the game you want, you will get a compressed (zip) folder, unzip it and within it will be the rom, most systems will identify your emulator and use it open the game. If not, launch the emulator and within it should be an option to open a file, open the file in the unzipped folder.

Enjoy So you want to Mod?

So every Mod, is a mod for a specific game [ex. Pokemon Blue, Pokemon FireRed, Super Mario Bros.] so it requires you to get the Rom for that base game, the mod itself, and a tool to patch it. There is an online tool to easily patch the mod to the ROM. IMPORTANT, this will not change any naming, Id recommend having a folder with the base game roms, and a folder for the mods, and lastly a folder for the newly modded roms. Make sure to name or just save the game in modded roms folder after the patch.

Below are a few resource to find various Pokemon Rom mods(sometimes called hacks)

• r/PokemonROMhacks
• Good Compilations of Hacks and Resource/Guides

Personally, Pokemon Unbound is considered the best most polished hack. it runs on Pokemon Fire Red.

Pokemon Emerald Rouge is a cool take on the popular Rougelite genre. This runs on base game Pokemon Emerald

@ 4857600b:30b502f4

At this point, we should be arresting, not firing, any FBI employee who delays, destroys, or withholds information on the Epstein case. There is ZERO explanation I will accept for redacting anything for “national security” reasons. A lot of Trump supporters are losing patience with Pam Bondi. I will give her the benefit of the doubt for now since the corruption within the whole security/intelligence apparatus of our country runs deep. However, let’s not forget that probably Trump’s biggest mistakes in his first term involved picking weak and easily corruptible (or blackmailable) officials. It seemed every month a formerly-loyal person did a complete 180 degree turn and did everything they could to screw him over, regardless of the betrayal’s effect on the country or whatever principles that person claimed to have. I think he’s fixed his screening process, but since we’re talking about the FBI, we know they have the power to dig up any dirt or blackmail material available, or just make it up. In the Epstein case, it’s probably better to go after Bondi than give up a treasure trove of blackmail material against the long list of members on his client list.

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na graduallythensuddenly.xyz

Autor: Parker Lewis

---

Bitkoin raste zauvek i kupovina stvari Bitkoinom je savršeno logična. Ove dve tvrdnje nisu suprotstavljene. Ovo je važno zato što mnogo ljudi (možda i većina) misli da je trošenje Bitkoina iracionalno. Zašto oni misle tako? Postoji kombinacija razloga:

1. Ukoliko Bitkoin raste, zašto biste ikada želeli da se rastanete od njega? Ako cena raste i vi ga potrošite, ostajete bez budućih "dobitaka".
2. Postoje poreske posledice kada kupujete Bitkoinom. Kada kupite nešto za Bitkoin, postoji porez na kapitalnu dobit zato što se to tretira kao da ste ga prodali, iz poreskih razloga (tako da tada plaćate više).

Ništa od ovoga nije racionalni razlog da ne potrošite Bitkoin. Zašto?

1. Prvi zaključak je iracionalan zato što se radi o drugačijoj dilemi od one na koju mislite. Ona se zapravo odnosi na svaku odluku u vezi sa potrošnjom ili štednjom, bez obzira da li trošite Bitkoin ili fiat novac. Na primer, ukoliko trošite fiat, mogli ste da se odreknete te potrošnje i umesto toga uštedite taj iznos u Bitkoinu. Vaša ekonomska računica je posve drugačija kada ste suočeni sa dilemom da li da potrošite novac fiksne količine u odnosu na novac koji konstantno gubi vrednost. Tačno je da se, bez obzira da li se odlučite (ili ne) da potrošite Bitkoin, radi o boljem testu potrošnje od štednje ili trošenja fiata. Ali svi moramo da svakodnevno trošimo novac.

2. Drugi zaključak je iracionalan zato što kapitalni dobitak ostvarujete samo u slučaju kada vaš novac dobije na vrednosti. Drugim rečima, kapitalni dobitak ste ostvarili samo ako vaš novac nije izgubio kupovnu moć. Da, bilo bi bolje kada bi promena politike dovela do ukidanja poreza na kapitalnu dobit na sve Bitkoin transakcije, ali to što plaćate porez na kapitalnu dobit ne znači da je stvar koju kupujete skuplja. Kako je to moguće? Zato što vi sada zapravo imate više novca nego u slučaju da ste izabrali put štednje u fiatu. Skuplje je štedeti u fiatu i trošiti u fiatu. Matematika je ubedljiva, a samim tim i logika.

Osnova rešavanja ove logičke dileme: ako mislite da je trošenje Bitkoina iracionalno, onda verovatno imate previše fiat novca. I pre nego što odemo dalje, volatilnost jeste stvarna. Njome morate upravljati. Ako je vaše razumevanje Bitkoina ograničeno, vaša sposobnost tolerancije prema volatilnosti Bitkoina je neminovno manja od nekoga ko je godinama štedeo u Bitkoinu i ko ima mnogo iskustva u upravljanju volatilnošću (i poseduje veće znanje o Bitkoinu od vas). Tako da ono što ću pokušati da objasnim, iako je 100% logično, ne odnosi se na svakoga zato što svačije znanje o Bitkoinu nije jednako, kao što nije jednaka ni svačija sposobnost da se toleriše volatilnost.

Sada možemo razmotriti nekoliko uporednih primera. Ukoliko imate 99% svoje štednje u fiatu (obliku novca koji gubi na vrednosti zato što se može sa lakoćom štampati) i 1% u Bitkoinu (obliku novca ograničene količine koji se ne može štampati), jeste veoma logično da štedite u Bitkoinu i trošite vaš fiat novac. Imate mnogo više fiata nego što imate Bitkoina. Ali ako imate 99% štednje u Bitkoinu i samo 1% u fiatu, bićete voljni da trošite Bitkoin. Pošto ste štedeli svoj novac u Bitkoinu koji čuva vrednost tokom vremena, nalazite se u boljoj poziciji od osobe koja je štedela u fiat novcu.

Hajmo da odemo u još veću krajnost da bismo izveli logičan zaključak, pre svega u vezi sa dve lažne ekonomske dileme. Pretpostavimo da imate 100% vaše štednje u Bitkoinu i 0 % u fiatu. Vi po definiciji morate da trošite tako da ste prinuđeni da trošite Bitkoin. Morate ga trošiti, bilo da kupujete proizvode i usluge direktno za Bitkoin, bilo da prodajete Bitkoin za fiat kojim ćete onda kupovati proizvode i usluge. Prva dilema je poništena. Ne radi se o tome da li treba da trošite Bitkoin. Radi se o tome da li uopšte treba da trošite (npr. da li je ono na šta trošite novac dobra potrošačka odluka).

Svi imamo i potrebe I želje. I jedno i drugo je validno. Život je kratak. Nikada ne trošiti novac je visoka vremenska preferencija. Ali nisu sve potrošačke odluke dobre odluke. U nekim slučajevima bi trebalo da štedite. Ali u oba slučaja, ako se radi o dobroj potrošačkoj odluci (o čemu samo vi odlučujete), dilema u vezi sa budućim rastom cene Bitkoina je poništena. Na primer, gotovo celokupna moja štednja je u Bitkoinu. Bila mi je neophodna popravka menjača na automobilu. Oko toga nije postojala dilema. Morao sam da popravim menjač i, s obzirom na to koliko malo fiat novca držim, bio sam prinuđen da potrošim Bitkoin. Nije mi bilo bitno da li će Bitkoin "rasti" u budućnosti. Bio mi je potreban moj automobil. U ovom konkretnom slučaju, prodao sam Bitkoin za fiat novac, zatim potrošio fiat, pa sam nabavio novi menjač kako ne bih morao svuda da pešačim.

Ovo nas sada vraća na drugu lažnu ekonomsku dilemu broj 2: kapitalne dobitke. Ukoliko pratite logiku, posledica kapitalnog dobitka je istovremeno i stvarna i nevažeća za dilemu rastanka sa Bitkoinom. Da bih ovo pokazao, zapravo ću proći kroz ekonomsku matematiku. Ovde dolazi do izražaja onaj zaključak da imate previše fiat novca ukoliko mislite da je trošenje Bitkoina iracionalno. Scenario A: tokom vremena štedite više u fiat novu i trošite fiat. Scenario B: tokom vremena štedite u Bitkoinu i trošite Bitkoin. Ovaj primer pretpostavlja ekstremne slučajeve da bi se naglasio ekonomski argument. 100% ušteđevine u fiatu naspram 100% ušteđevine u Bitkoinu:

Ekonomija štednje i trošenja u fiat novcu naspram štednje i trošenja u Bitkoinu

Tako da ono što ste smatrali dilemom o trošenju Bitkoina je zapravo dilema o štednji fiat novca. Štednja i potrošnja su suštinski povezane i, bez obzira na krajnosti (ili alokaciju), ekonomske posledice (izbora štednje u novcu koja gubi na vrednosti naspram štednje u novcu koji čuva kupovnu moć) se ne menjaju. U praktičnijem primeru, cene proizvoda i usluga "rastu" od sadašnjosti prema budućnosti kada su izražene u fiat valuti (fiat inflacija) tako da vam je potreban novac koji čuva kupovnu moć da biste se odbranili od obezvređivanja fiat novca. Ali štaviše, vaša dilema o trošenju je zapravo dilema o štednji i u stvarnom svetu ste ostvarili kapitalni dobitak koji treba da platite samo ako je vaša fiat štednja izgubila na vrednosti.

Sada mnogi od vas možda misle, "zašto jednostavno ne založite Bitkoin i pozajmite dolare koje ćete trošiti". Ovde se radi o potpuno drugačijoj ekonomskoj računici koja ne menja ništa u vezi sa matematikom ili ekonomskom logikom trošenja Bitkoina. To je samo dodavanje još jednog sloja na vrh. Da li možete potencijalno finansijski osmisliti bolji ishod preuzimanjem leveridža i duga i tako zakomplikovati svoj život? Možda. Ali to ne menja I) dilemu o potrošnji naspram štednje, II) posledice budućeg rasta Bitkoina (zato što ste mogli i da kupite Bitkoin sa leveridžom), ili III) posledice kapitalnog dobitka (koje su samo vremenski pomerene iz sadašnjosti u budućnost).

Suština je da je ekonomski pogled da je trošenje Bitkoina iracionalno - matematički nedosledan. Zapravo se radi o dilemi o štednji i vi jednostavno držite previše fiat novca. Ovde postoje i drugi logični razlozi za trošenje Bitkoina koje ću izložiti ali ih neću detaljnije objašnjavati (to ću učiniti u budućem članku).

• Ako niko ne troši Bitkoin, neće postojati ni alati za trošenje Bitkoina i kada fiat novac propadne, svima će biti potrebni ti alati zato što će Bitkoin biti jedina valuta koja funkcioniše.
• Ukoliko neki biznis želi da bude isplaćen u Bitkoinu, kupac poseduje Bitkoin za trošenje, trošenje fiat novca donosi nepotreban transakcioni trošak što dovodi do ekonomske neefikasnosti (veći trošak bez benefita)

Efikasnost Bitkoin transakcije između korisnika

• Ako cenite neki biznis (tj. proizvode i usluge koje vam omogućava) i želite da taj biznis opstane (da bi vam i dalje isporučivao proizvode i usluge), ako taj biznis želi da bude isplaćivan u Bitkoinu i ako vi razumete Bitkoin - u vašem je interesu da trošite Bitkoin zato što znate da će i taj biznis napredovati ako to učinite, a to omogućava i vaš napredak jer cenite proizvode i usluge tog biznisa.

Zaključak je da je trošenje Bitkoina lažna dilema. To je zapravo dilema o štednji. Matematika to i dokazuje. Ako se držite ove iracionalne pozicije (koja je iracionalna samo ako razumete Bitkoin zato što je volatilnost stvarna), onda verovatno imate previše fiat novca. Ipak, moram da naglasim da ovo nije molba da potrošite svoj Bitkoin. Ne postoji moralni imperativ za trošenje Bitkoina. Svaki Bitkoin (i satoši) je dragocen. Kada god trošite (ili investirate), potrudite se da trošite mudro jer je to ono što je zaista važno.

Do sledećeg puta. Srdačan pozdrav, Parker

@ aa8de34f:a6ffe696

19. März 2025

🔐 1. SHA-256 is Quantum-Resistant

Bitcoin’s proof-of-work mechanism relies on SHA-256, a hashing algorithm. Even with a powerful quantum computer, SHA-256 remains secure because:

• Quantum computers excel at factoring large numbers (Shor’s Algorithm).
• However, SHA-256 is a one-way function, meaning there's no known quantum algorithm that can efficiently reverse it.
• Grover’s Algorithm (which theoretically speeds up brute force attacks) would still require 2¹²⁸ operations to break SHA-256 – far beyond practical reach.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

🔑 2. Public Key Vulnerability – But Only If You Reuse Addresses

Bitcoin uses Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) to generate keys.

• A quantum computer could use Shor’s Algorithm to break SECP256K1, the curve Bitcoin uses.
• If you never reuse addresses, it is an additional security element
• 🔑 1. Bitcoin Addresses Are NOT Public Keys

Many people assume a Bitcoin address is the public key—this is wrong.

• When you receive Bitcoin, it is sent to a hashed public key (the Bitcoin address).
• The actual public key is never exposed because it is the Bitcoin Adress who addresses the Public Key which never reveals the creation of a public key by a spend
• Bitcoin uses Pay-to-Public-Key-Hash (P2PKH) or newer methods like Pay-to-Witness-Public-Key-Hash (P2WPKH), which add extra layers of security.

🕵️♂️ 2.1 The Public Key Never Appears

• When you send Bitcoin, your wallet creates a digital signature.
• This signature uses the private key to prove ownership.
• The Bitcoin address is revealed and creates the Public Key
• The public key remains hidden inside the Bitcoin script and Merkle tree.

This means: ✔ The public key is never exposed. ✔ Quantum attackers have nothing to target, attacking a Bitcoin Address is a zero value game.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

🔄 3. Bitcoin Can Upgrade

Even if quantum computers eventually become a real threat:

• Bitcoin developers can upgrade to quantum-safe cryptography (e.g., lattice-based cryptography or post-quantum signatures like Dilithium).
• Bitcoin’s decentralized nature ensures a network-wide soft fork or hard fork could transition to quantum-resistant keys.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

⏳ 4. The 10-Minute Block Rule as a Security Feature

• Bitcoin’s network operates on a 10-minute block interval, meaning:Even if an attacker had immense computational power (like a quantum computer), they could only attempt an attack every 10 minutes.Unlike traditional encryption, where a hacker could continuously brute-force keys, Bitcoin’s system resets the challenge with every new block.This limits the window of opportunity for quantum attacks.

---

🎯 5. Quantum Attack Needs to Solve a Block in Real-Time

• A quantum attacker must solve the cryptographic puzzle (Proof of Work) in under 10 minutes.
• The problem? Any slight error changes the hash completely, meaning:If the quantum computer makes a mistake (even 0.0001% probability), the entire attack fails.Quantum decoherence (loss of qubit stability) makes error correction a massive challenge.The computational cost of recovering from an incorrect hash is still incredibly high.

---

⚡ 6. Network Resilience – Even if a Block Is Hacked

• Even if a quantum computer somehow solved a block instantly:The network would quickly recognize and reject invalid transactions.Other miners would continue mining under normal cryptographic rules.51% Attack? The attacker would need to consistently beat the entire Bitcoin network, which is not sustainable.

---

🔄 7. The Logarithmic Difficulty Adjustment Neutralizes Threats

• Bitcoin adjusts mining difficulty every 2016 blocks (\~2 weeks).
• If quantum miners appeared and suddenly started solving blocks too quickly, the difficulty would adjust upward, making attacks significantly harder.
• This self-correcting mechanism ensures that even quantum computers wouldn't easily overpower the network.

---

🔥 Final Verdict: Quantum Computers Are Too Slow for Bitcoin

✔ The 10-minute rule limits attack frequency – quantum computers can’t keep up.

✔ Any slight miscalculation ruins the attack, resetting all progress.

✔ Bitcoin’s difficulty adjustment would react, neutralizing quantum advantages.

Even if quantum computers reach their theoretical potential, Bitcoin’s game theory and design make it incredibly resistant. 🚀

@ 4925ea33:025410d8

1. O que é um Aromaterapeuta?

O aromaterapeuta é um profissional especializado na prática da Aromaterapia, responsável pelo uso adequado de óleos essenciais, ervas aromáticas, águas florais e destilados herbais para fins terapêuticos.

A atuação desse profissional envolve diferentes métodos de aplicação, como inalação, uso tópico, sempre considerando a segurança e a necessidade individual do cliente. A Aromaterapia pode auxiliar na redução do estresse, alívio de dores crônicas, relaxamento muscular e melhora da respiração, entre outros benefícios.

Além disso, os aromaterapeutas podem trabalhar em conjunto com outros profissionais da saúde para oferecer um tratamento complementar em diversas condições. Como já mencionado no artigo sobre "Como evitar processos alérgicos na prática da Aromaterapia", é essencial ter acompanhamento profissional, pois os óleos essenciais são altamente concentrados e podem causar reações adversas se utilizados de forma inadequada.

---

2. Como um Aromaterapeuta Pode Ajudar?

Você pode procurar um aromaterapeuta para diferentes necessidades, como:

✔ Questões Emocionais e Psicológicas

Auxílio em momentos de luto, divórcio, demissão ou outras situações desafiadoras.

Apoio na redução do estresse, ansiedade e insônia.

Vale lembrar que, em casos de transtornos psiquiátricos, a Aromaterapia deve ser usada como terapia complementar, associada ao tratamento médico.

✔ Questões Físicas

Dores musculares e articulares.

Problemas respiratórios como rinite, sinusite e tosse.

Distúrbios digestivos leves.

Dores de cabeça e enxaquecas. Nesses casos, a Aromaterapia pode ser um suporte, mas não substitui a medicina tradicional para identificar a origem dos sintomas.

✔ Saúde da Pele e Cabelos

Tratamento para acne, dermatites e psoríase.

Cuidados com o envelhecimento precoce da pele.

Redução da queda de cabelo e controle da oleosidade do couro cabeludo.

✔ Bem-estar e Qualidade de Vida

Melhora da concentração e foco, aumentando a produtividade.

Estímulo da disposição e energia.

Auxílio no equilíbrio hormonal (TPM, menopausa, desequilíbrios hormonais).

Com base nessas necessidades, o aromaterapeuta irá indicar o melhor tratamento, calculando doses, sinergias (combinação de óleos essenciais), diluições e técnicas de aplicação, como inalação, uso tópico ou difusão.

---

3. Como Funciona uma Consulta com um Aromaterapeuta?

Uma consulta com um aromaterapeuta é um atendimento personalizado, onde são avaliadas as necessidades do cliente para a criação de um protocolo adequado. O processo geralmente segue estas etapas:

✔ Anamnese (Entrevista Inicial)

Perguntas sobre saúde física, emocional e estilo de vida.

Levantamento de sintomas, histórico médico e possíveis alergias.

Definição dos objetivos da terapia (alívio do estresse, melhora do sono, dores musculares etc.).

✔ Escolha dos Óleos Essenciais

Seleção dos óleos mais indicados para o caso.

Consideração das propriedades terapêuticas, contraindicações e combinações seguras.

✔ Definição do Método de Uso

O profissional indicará a melhor forma de aplicação, que pode ser:

Inalação: difusores, colares aromáticos, vaporização.

Uso tópico: massagens, óleos corporais, compressas.

Banhos aromáticos e escalda-pés. Todas as diluições serão ajustadas de acordo com a segurança e a necessidade individual do cliente.

✔ Plano de Acompanhamento

Instruções detalhadas sobre o uso correto dos óleos essenciais.

Orientação sobre frequência e duração do tratamento.

Possibilidade de retorno para ajustes no protocolo.

A consulta pode ser realizada presencialmente ou online, dependendo do profissional.

---

Quer saber como a Aromaterapia pode te ajudar? Agende uma consulta comigo e descubra os benefícios dos óleos essenciais para o seu bem-estar!

@ c9badfea:610f861a

1. Install Currencies (it's free and open source)
2. Launch the app, tap ⋮ and select Settings
3. Enable the Foreign Transaction Fee to factor in conversion fees if necessary
4. Tap Data Provider and choose another provider if necessary
5. Enjoy ad-free conversion rates

ℹ️ Tap 📈 to open the exchange rate chart

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Nur wenn wir aufeinander zugehen, haben wir die Chance \ auf Überwindung der gegenseitigen Ressentiments! \ Dr. med. dent. Jens Knipphals

In Wolfsburg sollte es kürzlich eine Gesprächsrunde von Kritikern der Corona-Politik mit Oberbürgermeister Dennis Weilmann und Vertretern der Stadtverwaltung geben. Der Zahnarzt und langjährige Maßnahmenkritiker Jens Knipphals hatte diese Einladung ins Rathaus erwirkt und publiziert. Seine Motivation:

«Ich möchte die Spaltung der Gesellschaft überwinden. Dazu ist eine umfassende Aufarbeitung der Corona-Krise in der Öffentlichkeit notwendig.»

Schon früher hatte Knipphals Antworten von den Kommunalpolitikern verlangt, zum Beispiel bei öffentlichen Bürgerfragestunden. Für das erwartete Treffen im Rathaus formulierte er Fragen wie: Warum wurden fachliche Argumente der Kritiker ignoriert? Weshalb wurde deren Ausgrenzung, Diskreditierung und Entmenschlichung nicht entgegengetreten? In welcher Form übernehmen Rat und Verwaltung in Wolfsburg persönlich Verantwortung für die erheblichen Folgen der politischen Corona-Krise?

Der Termin fand allerdings nicht statt – der Bürgermeister sagte ihn kurz vorher wieder ab. Knipphals bezeichnete Weilmann anschließend als Wiederholungstäter, da das Stadtoberhaupt bereits 2022 zu einem Runden Tisch in der Sache eingeladen hatte, den es dann nie gab. Gegenüber Multipolar erklärte der Arzt, Weilmann wolle scheinbar eine öffentliche Aufarbeitung mit allen Mitteln verhindern. Er selbst sei «inzwischen absolut desillusioniert» und die einzige Lösung sei, dass die Verantwortlichen gingen.

Die Aufarbeitung der Plandemie beginne bei jedem von uns selbst, sei aber letztlich eine gesamtgesellschaftliche Aufgabe, schreibt Peter Frey, der den «Fall Wolfsburg» auch in seinem Blog behandelt. Diese Aufgabe sei indes deutlich größer, als viele glaubten. Erfreulicherweise sei der öffentliche Informationsraum inzwischen größer, trotz der weiterhin unverfrorenen Desinformations-Kampagnen der etablierten Massenmedien.

Frey erinnert daran, dass Dennis Weilmann mitverantwortlich für gravierende Grundrechtseinschränkungen wie die 2021 eingeführten 2G-Regeln in der Wolfsburger Innenstadt zeichnet. Es sei naiv anzunehmen, dass ein Funktionär einzig im Interesse der Bürger handeln würde. Als früherer Dezernent des Amtes für Wirtschaft, Digitalisierung und Kultur der Autostadt kenne Weilmann zum Beispiel die Verknüpfung von Fördergeldern mit politischen Zielsetzungen gut.

Wolfsburg wurde damals zu einem Modellprojekt des Bundesministeriums des Innern (BMI) und war Finalist im Bitkom-Wettbewerb «Digitale Stadt». So habe rechtzeitig vor der Plandemie das Projekt «Smart City Wolfsburg» anlaufen können, das der Stadt «eine Vorreiterrolle für umfassende Vernetzung und Datenerfassung» aufgetragen habe, sagt Frey. Die Vereinten Nationen verkauften dann derartige «intelligente» Überwachungs- und Kontrollmaßnahmen ebenso als Rettung in der Not wie das Magazin Forbes im April 2020:

«Intelligente Städte können uns helfen, die Coronavirus-Pandemie zu bekämpfen. In einer wachsenden Zahl von Ländern tun die intelligenten Städte genau das. Regierungen und lokale Behörden nutzen Smart-City-Technologien, Sensoren und Daten, um die Kontakte von Menschen aufzuspüren, die mit dem Coronavirus infiziert sind. Gleichzeitig helfen die Smart Cities auch dabei, festzustellen, ob die Regeln der sozialen Distanzierung eingehalten werden.»

Offensichtlich gibt es viele Aspekte zu bedenken und zu durchleuten, wenn es um die Aufklärung und Aufarbeitung der sogenannten «Corona-Pandemie» und der verordneten Maßnahmen geht. Frustration und Desillusion sind angesichts der Realitäten absolut verständlich. Gerade deswegen sind Initiativen wie die von Jens Knipphals so bewundernswert und so wichtig – ebenso wie eine seiner Kernthesen: «Wir müssen aufeinander zugehen, da hilft alles nichts».

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

There is something quietly rebellious about stacking sats. In a world obsessed with instant gratification, choosing to patiently accumulate Bitcoin, one sat at a time, feels like a middle finger to the hype machine. But to do it right, you have got to stay humble. Stack too hard with your head in the clouds, and you will trip over your own ego before the next halving even hits.

Small Wins

Stacking sats is not glamorous. Discipline. Stacking every day, week, or month, no matter the price, and letting time do the heavy lifting. Humility lives in that consistency. You are not trying to outsmart the market or prove you are the next "crypto" prophet. Just a regular person, betting on a system you believe in, one humble stack at a time. Folks get rekt chasing the highs. They ape into some shitcoin pump, shout about it online, then go silent when they inevitably get rekt. The ones who last? They stack. Just keep showing up. Consistency. Humility in action. Know the game is long, and you are not bigger than it.

Ego is Volatile

Bitcoin’s swings can mess with your head. One day you are up 20%, feeling like a genius and the next down 30%, questioning everything. Ego will have you panic selling at the bottom or over leveraging the top. Staying humble means patience, a true bitcoin zen. Do not try to "beat” Bitcoin. Ride it. Stack what you can afford, live your life, and let compounding work its magic.

Simplicity

There is a beauty in how stacking sats forces you to rethink value. A sat is worth less than a penny today, but every time you grab a few thousand, you plant a seed. It is not about flaunting wealth but rather building it, quietly, without fanfare. That mindset spills over. Cut out the noise: the overpriced coffee, fancy watches, the status games that drain your wallet. Humility is good for your soul and your stack. I have a buddy who has been stacking since 2015. Never talks about it unless you ask. Lives in a decent place, drives an old truck, and just keeps stacking. He is not chasing clout, he is chasing freedom. That is the vibe: less ego, more sats, all grounded in life.

The Big Picture

Stack those sats. Do it quietly, do it consistently, and do not let the green days puff you up or the red days break you down. Humility is the secret sauce, it keeps you grounded while the world spins wild. In a decade, when you look back and smile, it will not be because you shouted the loudest. It will be because you stayed the course, one sat at a time. \ \ Stay Humble and Stack Sats. 🫡

@ 28ca019b:93fcb2cc

Introduction

“There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.” -Victor Hugo

Early 1950’s America. Harry S. Truman is in office. The economy is booming and the middle class are comfortable. Shiny new television sets invite the first scenes of Hollywood into people’s homes. The Weavers, Tony Bennett, Vera Lynn and Perry Como play on the radio.

But on the fringes, in dance halls and late night clubs, a cultural revolution is brewing… A new musical fusion with influences from blues, R\&B, jazz, rockabilly, country and gospel music is about to give birth to not only a new genre, but a whole new way of life that will change society and culture, forever.

Rock & Roll

It becomes a symbol of freedom, a means of expression, and a catalyst for social change. It brings into existence a new type of counter-culture, filled with individuals who are driven to rebel against norms and authority. They don’t ask for permission. They push for change.

I believe we are witnessing such a shift now. And like rock & roll, the movement I’m speaking of is also ground up, grass roots, punk rock and will not look to authority to seek permission. The catalyst for this new social change, I believe, is Bitcoin. With its innate properties, it empowers and enables the individual like never before to achieve their fullest potential, expressed through an unprecedented freedom technology. It is an idea, like a song everyone can sing in their own way, that nobody can silence.

Revolution

"You say you got a real solution / Well you know / we’d all love to see the plan" -John Lennon

The rock & roll era helped bring about meaningful societal change through art, music, and film. It created a new social narrative. Today, the Bitcoin network is providing people with a different set of tools and ideas to build a better future in a much more practical and pragmatic way. Instead of trying to reshape social consensus and cultural norms through art forms, fashion, or lifestyle, bitcoin is achieving this through open source code.

For the first time, this technology gives individuals financial sovereignty and personal control over their own destiny, with the ability to self custody their own money that no corporation, government, dictator or king can tamper with. The individual has an opportunity to finally be freed from economic tyranny. And societies have the potential to avoid endless wars funded with printed government money. John Lennon said ‘give peace a chance’. If he were still here today and understood how bitcoin could subvert the military industrial complex would he not exclaim, ‘give bitcoin a chance’?

Natural Rights, Civil Rights, Digital Rights

"The times they are a-Changin’" -Bob Dylan

The civil rights movement was tightly interwoven with the history of rock & roll. The march on Washington, August 28th 1963, marked a seminal moment in American history for the advancement of equal rights before the law. Bob Dylan, along with Joan Baez, stood with over two hundred thousand other Americans and listened to Martin Luther King’s now immortal speech. 

People with the same values peacefully gathered in numbers to make a statement powerful enough to change the conversation. This is analogous to the same freedom-minded people today gathering in cyberspace and voting not in the traditional sense, but voting with their money – peacefully exiting and transferring their economic energy into a system where they can’t be expropriated.

The question of whether individual rights are granted or have to be secured by each individual remains a contested area of philosophy to this day. To outline each in a very crude and simplistic way, natural rights (sometimes referred to as inalienable rights) are derived from the belief that every person owns their own body, therefore their own labor, time, and energy. Civil rights, on the other hand, are granted by the state and are therefore not universal. The fact that they are rights granted to humans by other humans means they always have the potential to be revoked or withdrawn.

Digital rights granted by the power of asymmetric cryptography are based in the laws of mathematics. Combined with proof of work, based in the law of thermodynamics, this makes digital rights that bitcoin provides more akin to natural rights than civil rights, as no one person or group can unilaterally revoke those rights or confiscate your property through violence. No amount of fire power, tanks, fighter jets or nuclear weapons can break a bitcoin private key or rewrite the sunken cost of proof of work embedded into bitcoin’s timechain. This idea of securing rights without asking permission is, in itself, a revolution and achievable now in an egalitarian way. This implies a potentially huge shift in power from those with a monopoly on violence, to peaceful individuals who want to be treated fairly and with dignity.

Cypher Punk-Rock

Songwriters write songs. Cypherpunks write code.

To tie things back and look at a very narrow, but potentially huge use case of bitcoin, let’s examine the current broken incentives of the music industry, particularly recorded music. It is becoming increasingly apparent that an option other than a subscription model could find demand from content consumers and producers alike.

There is now a way, with Bitcoin and Lightning Network, for a music fan to pay artists directly and for any amount – dollars, cents or even fractions of cents. This model has positive outcomes for the music producer and fan who are the main two parties engaged in the transaction. The artist keeps all of what is sent and the listener can pay what they want. The listener can pay as they listen, rather than be locked into a rolling subscription that isn’t based on usage. This concept, called ‘value for value’, is finding its way into new music platforms such as Wavlake and Fountain. I believe this model will become the de-facto way of monetizing digital content in the coming years. This could bring an economic signal back to music that has been lost and cannot be achieved by streams alone. This will hopefully create a more meritocratic music system and shake up the entrenched streaming monoliths.

Art can shine a light on a certain truth. It can also make people look at things in a completely new way. Maybe then, Satoshi was the greatest artist who ever lived. Bitcoin smashed the conventional wisdom and theories of the most basic and prevalent thing everyone takes for granted: money. Using money as a lens to view the world can lead to distortions in your perception if the lens is warped. Removing the glasses makes you reevaluate economics, politics, religion, philosophy, morality, beauty, and almost every other aspect of life. The beauty of the Sistine Chapel, the Egyptian pyramids, the Mona Lisa, Beethoven’s 5th Symphony, Bohemian Rhapsody all intrinsically imply a certain degree of proof of work. The art, you could say, speaks for itself.

The Long and Winding Road Ahead

As a musician, I have found a new hope. The value for value movement gives me that hope. If this is truly a superior model of music distribution and consumption it will win out over time on the market.

Another point to touch on would be the possibility of this technology ushering in an artistic renaissance. I can honestly say my favorite music, the songs that have moved me the most, normally comes from a place of truth, honesty and sheer talent. Maybe I’m out of touch, but I feel popular music of late is devoid of soul, meaning and the biggest mainstream artists want to conform to the man (giant corporations/governments) instead of stick it to the man! Probably because there is nowhere else to turn now that streaming and social media platforms own their speech and art. We need to investigate and embrace new ways to own our speech and art, to make art interesting again. The powers that be, need to let it be, and leave alone individuals who wish to use this technology for their own interests if they do so in a peaceful way.

I want to leave you with a Frank Zappa quote that seems more relevant than ever:

“I’d say that today, dishonesty is the rule, and honesty the exception. It could be, statistically, that more people are honest than dishonest, but the few that really control things are not honest, and that tips the balance…” 

My charitable view is that the majority of people in power aren’t corrupt, it’s rather just a case of ‘no one is better than their incentives’. But when incentives are misaligned bad outcomes will inevitably result. With bitcoin and its incorruptible incentive structure, we have a chance to peacefully opt-out of a rigged game. I urge you to not trust, but verify with your own research that bitcoin is the answer to many of society’s current problems.

I think it’s fair to say, we all need to question ourselves and authority a little more than we’re comfortable doing, to hold truth as an ideal worth striving for, and live a little more rock & roll!

Link to original article**

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Die grauenvollste Aussicht ist die der Technokratie – \ einer kontrollierenden Herrschaft, \ die durch verstümmelte und verstümmelnde Geister ausgeübt wird. \ Ernst Jünger

«Davos ist nicht mehr sexy», das Weltwirtschaftsforum (WEF) mache Davos kaputt, diese Aussagen eines Einheimischen las ich kürzlich in der Handelszeitung. Während sich einige vor Ort enorm an der «teuersten Gewerbeausstellung der Welt» bereicherten, würden die negativen Begleiterscheinungen wie Wohnungsnot und Niedergang der lokalen Wirtschaft immer deutlicher.

Nächsten Montag beginnt in dem Schweizer Bergdorf erneut ein Jahrestreffen dieses elitären Clubs der Konzerne, bei dem man mit hochrangigen Politikern aus aller Welt und ausgewählten Vertretern der Systemmedien zusammenhocken wird. Wie bereits in den vergangenen vier Jahren wird die Präsidentin der EU-Kommission, Ursula von der Leyen, in Begleitung von Klaus Schwab ihre Grundsatzansprache halten.

Der deutsche WEF-Gründer hatte bei dieser Gelegenheit immer höchst lobende Worte für seine Landsmännin: 2021 erklärte er sich «stolz, dass Europa wieder unter Ihrer Führung steht» und 2022 fand er es bemerkenswert, was sie erreicht habe angesichts des «erstaunlichen Wandels», den die Welt in den vorangegangenen zwei Jahren erlebt habe; es gebe nun einen «neuen europäischen Geist».

Von der Leyens Handeln während der sogenannten Corona-«Pandemie» lobte Schwab damals bereits ebenso, wie es diese Woche das Karlspreis-Direktorium tat, als man der Beschuldigten im Fall Pfizergate die diesjährige internationale Auszeichnung «für Verdienste um die europäische Einigung» verlieh. Außerdem habe sie die EU nicht nur gegen den «Aggressor Russland», sondern auch gegen die «innere Bedrohung durch Rassisten und Demagogen» sowie gegen den Klimawandel verteidigt.

Jene Herausforderungen durch «Krisen epochalen Ausmaßes» werden indes aus dem Umfeld des WEF nicht nur herbeigeredet – wie man alljährlich zur Zeit des Davoser Treffens im Global Risks Report nachlesen kann, der zusammen mit dem Versicherungskonzern Zurich erstellt wird. Seit die Globalisten 2020/21 in der Praxis gesehen haben, wie gut eine konzertierte und konsequente Angst-Kampagne funktionieren kann, geht es Schlag auf Schlag. Sie setzen alles daran, Schwabs goldenes Zeitfenster des «Great Reset» zu nutzen.

Ziel dieses «großen Umbruchs» ist die totale Kontrolle der Technokraten über die Menschen unter dem Deckmantel einer globalen Gesundheitsfürsorge. Wie aber könnte man so etwas erreichen? Ein Mittel dazu ist die «kreative Zerstörung». Weitere unabdingbare Werkzeug sind die Einbindung, ja Gleichschaltung der Medien und der Justiz.

Ein «Great Mental Reset» sei die Voraussetzung dafür, dass ein Großteil der Menschen Einschränkungen und Manipulationen wie durch die Corona-Maßnahmen praktisch kritik- und widerstandslos hinnehme, sagt der Mediziner und Molekulargenetiker Michael Nehls. Er meint damit eine regelrechte Umprogrammierung des Gehirns, wodurch nach und nach unsere Individualität und unser soziales Bewusstsein eliminiert und durch unreflektierten Konformismus ersetzt werden.

Der aktuelle Zustand unserer Gesellschaften ist auch für den Schweizer Rechtsanwalt Philipp Kruse alarmierend. Durch den Umgang mit der «Pandemie» sieht er die Grundlagen von Recht und Vernunft erschüttert, die Rechtsstaatlichkeit stehe auf dem Prüfstand. Seiner dringenden Mahnung an alle Bürger, die Prinzipien von Recht und Freiheit zu verteidigen, kann ich mich nur anschließen.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 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.

@ 6389be64:ef439d32

GA, plebs. The latest episode of Bitcoin And is out, and, as always, the chicanery is running rampant. Let’s break down the biggest topics I covered, and if you want the full, unfiltered rant, make sure to listen to the episode linked below.

House Democrats’ MEME Act: A Bad Joke?

House Democrats are proposing a bill to ban presidential meme coins, clearly aimed at Trump’s and Melania’s ill-advised token launches. While grifters launching meme coins is bad, this bill is just as ridiculous. If this legislation moves forward, expect a retaliatory strike exposing how politicians like Pelosi and Warren mysteriously amassed their fortunes. Will it pass? Doubtful. But it’s another sign of the government’s obsession with regulating everything except itself.

Senate Banking’s First Digital Asset Hearing: The Real Target Is You

Cynthia Lummis chaired the first digital asset hearing, and—surprise!—it was all about control. The discussion centered on stablecoins, AML, and KYC regulations, with witnesses suggesting Orwellian measures like freezing stablecoin transactions unless pre-approved by authorities. What was barely mentioned? Bitcoin. They want full oversight of stablecoins, which is really about controlling financial freedom. Expect more nonsense targeting self-custody wallets under the guise of stopping “bad actors.”

Bank of America and PayPal Want In on Stablecoins

Bank of America’s CEO openly stated they’ll launch a stablecoin as soon as regulation allows. Meanwhile, PayPal’s CEO paid for a hat using Bitcoin—not their own stablecoin, Pi USD. Why wouldn’t he use his own product? Maybe he knows stablecoins aren’t what they’re hyped up to be. Either way, the legacy financial system is gearing up to flood the market with stablecoins, not because they love crypto, but because it’s a tool to extend U.S. dollar dominance.

MetaPlanet Buys the Dip

Japan’s MetaPlanet issued $13.4M in bonds to buy more Bitcoin, proving once again that institutions see the writing on the wall. Unlike U.S. regulators who obsess over stablecoins, some companies are actually stacking sats.

UK Expands Crypto Seizure Powers

Across the pond, the UK government is pushing legislation to make it easier to seize and destroy crypto linked to criminal activity. While they frame it as going after the bad guys, it’s another move toward centralized control and financial surveillance.

Bitcoin Tools & Tech: Arc, SatoChip, and Nunchuk

Some bullish Bitcoin developments: ARC v0.5 is making Bitcoin’s second layer more efficient, SatoChip now supports Taproot and Nostr, and Nunchuk launched a group wallet with chat, making multisig collaboration easier.

The Bottom Line

The state is coming for financial privacy and control, and stablecoins are their weapon of choice. Bitcoiners need to stay focused, keep their coins in self-custody, and build out parallel systems. Expect more regulatory attacks, but don’t let them distract you—just keep stacking and transacting in ways they can’t control.

🎧 Listen to the full episode here: https://fountain.fm/episode/PYITCo18AJnsEkKLz2Ks

💰 Support the show by boosting sats on Podcasting 2.0! and I will see you on the other side.

@ 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

---

---

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Herzlichen Glückwunsch zum dritten Geburtstag, liebe Denk Bar! Wieso zum dritten? Das war doch 2022 und jetzt sind wir im Jahr 2024, oder? Ja, das ist schon richtig, aber bei Geburtstagen erinnere ich mich immer auch an meinen Vater, und der behauptete oft, der erste sei ja schließlich der Tag der Geburt selber und den müsse man natürlich mitzählen. Wo er recht hat, hat er nunmal recht. Konsequenterweise wird also heute dieser Blog an seinem dritten Geburtstag zwei Jahre alt.

Das ist ein Grund zum Feiern, wie ich finde. Einerseits ganz einfach, weil es dafür gar nicht genug Gründe geben kann. «Das Leben sind zwei Tage», lautet ein gängiger Ausdruck hier in Andalusien. In der Tat könnte es so sein, auch wenn wir uns im Alltag oft genug von der Routine vereinnahmen lassen.

Seit dem Start der Denk Bar vor zwei Jahren ist unglaublich viel passiert. Ebenso wie die zweieinhalb Jahre davor, und all jenes war letztlich auch der Auslöser dafür, dass ich begann, öffentlich zu schreiben. Damals notierte ich:

«Seit einigen Jahren erscheint unser öffentliches Umfeld immer fragwürdiger, widersprüchlicher und manchmal schier unglaublich - jede Menge Anlass für eigene Recherchen und Gedanken, ganz einfach mit einer Portion gesundem Menschenverstand.»

Wir erleben den sogenannten «großen Umbruch», einen globalen Coup, den skrupellose Egoisten clever eingefädelt haben und seit ein paar Jahren knallhart – aber nett verpackt – durchziehen, um buchstäblich alles nach ihrem Gusto umzukrempeln. Die Gelegenheit ist ja angeblich günstig und muss genutzt werden.

Nie hätte ich mir träumen lassen, dass ich so etwas jemals miterleben müsste. Die Bosheit, mit der ganz offensichtlich gegen die eigene Bevölkerung gearbeitet wird, war früher für mich unvorstellbar. Mein (Rest-) Vertrauen in alle möglichen Bereiche wie Politik, Wissenschaft, Justiz, Medien oder Kirche ist praktisch komplett zerstört. Einen «inneren Totalschaden» hatte ich mal für unsere Gesellschaften diagnostiziert.

Was mich vielleicht am meisten erschreckt, ist zum einen das Niveau der Gleichschaltung, das weltweit erreicht werden konnte, und zum anderen die praktisch totale Spaltung der Gesellschaft. Haben wir das tatsächlich mit uns machen lassen?? Unfassbar! Aber das Werkzeug «Angst» ist sehr mächtig und funktioniert bis heute.

Zum Glück passieren auch positive Dinge und neue Perspektiven öffnen sich. Für viele Menschen waren und sind die Entwicklungen der letzten Jahre ein Augenöffner. Sie sehen «Querdenken» als das, was es ist: eine Tugend.

Auch die immer ernsteren Zensurbemühungen sind letztlich nur ein Zeichen der Schwäche, wo Argumente fehlen. Sie werden nicht verhindern, dass wir unsere Meinung äußern, unbequeme Fragen stellen und dass die Wahrheit peu à peu ans Licht kommt. Es gibt immer Mittel und Wege, auch für uns.

---

Danke, dass du diesen Weg mit mir weitergehst!

@ 460c25e6:ef85065c

If you don't know where your posts are, you might as well just stay in the centralized Twitter. You either take control of your relay lists, or they will control you. Amethyst offers several lists of relays for our users. We are going to go one by one to help clarify what they are and which options are best for each one.

Public Home/Outbox Relays

Home relays store all YOUR content: all your posts, likes, replies, lists, etc. It's your home. Amethyst will send your posts here first. Your followers will use these relays to get new posts from you. So, if you don't have anything there, they will not receive your updates.

Home relays must allow queries from anyone, ideally without the need to authenticate. They can limit writes to paid users without affecting anyone's experience.

This list should have a maximum of 3 relays. More than that will only make your followers waste their mobile data getting your posts. Keep it simple. Out of the 3 relays, I recommend: - 1 large public, international relay: nos.lol, nostr.mom, relay.damus.io, etc. - 1 personal relay to store a copy of all your content in a place no one can delete. Go to relay.tools and never be censored again. - 1 really fast relay located in your country: paid options like http://nostr.wine are great

Do not include relays that block users from seeing posts in this list. If you do, no one will see your posts.

Public Inbox Relays

This relay type receives all replies, comments, likes, and zaps to your posts. If you are not getting notifications or you don't see replies from your friends, it is likely because you don't have the right setup here. If you are getting too much spam in your replies, it's probably because your inbox relays are not protecting you enough. Paid relays can filter inbox spam out.

Inbox relays must allow anyone to write into them. It's the opposite of the outbox relay. They can limit who can download the posts to their paid subscribers without affecting anyone's experience.

This list should have a maximum of 3 relays as well. Again, keep it small. More than that will just make you spend more of your data plan downloading the same notifications from all these different servers. Out of the 3 relays, I recommend: - 1 large public, international relay: nos.lol, nostr.mom, relay.damus.io, etc. - 1 personal relay to store a copy of your notifications, invites, cashu tokens and zaps. - 1 really fast relay located in your country: go to nostr.watch and find relays in your country

Terrible options include: - nostr.wine should not be here. - filter.nostr.wine should not be here. - inbox.nostr.wine should not be here.

DM Inbox Relays

These are the relays used to receive DMs and private content. Others will use these relays to send DMs to you. If you don't have it setup, you will miss DMs. DM Inbox relays should accept any message from anyone, but only allow you to download them.

Generally speaking, you only need 3 for reliability. One of them should be a personal relay to make sure you have a copy of all your messages. The others can be open if you want push notifications or closed if you want full privacy.

Good options are: - inbox.nostr.wine and auth.nostr1.com: anyone can send messages and only you can download. Not even our push notification server has access to them to notify you. - a personal relay to make sure no one can censor you. Advanced settings on personal relays can also store your DMs privately. Talk to your relay operator for more details. - a public relay if you want DM notifications from our servers.

Make sure to add at least one public relay if you want to see DM notifications.

Private Home Relays

Private Relays are for things no one should see, like your drafts, lists, app settings, bookmarks etc. Ideally, these relays are either local or require authentication before posting AND downloading each user\'s content. There are no dedicated relays for this category yet, so I would use a local relay like Citrine on Android and a personal relay on relay.tools.

Keep in mind that if you choose a local relay only, a client on the desktop might not be able to see the drafts from clients on mobile and vice versa.

Search relays:

This is the list of relays to use on Amethyst's search and user tagging with @. Tagging and searching will not work if there is nothing here.. This option requires NIP-50 compliance from each relay. Hit the Default button to use all available options on existence today: - nostr.wine - relay.nostr.band - relay.noswhere.com

Local Relays:

This is your local storage. Everything will load faster if it comes from this relay. You should install Citrine on Android and write ws://localhost:4869 in this option.

General Relays:

This section contains the default relays used to download content from your follows. Notice how you can activate and deactivate the Home, Messages (old-style DMs), Chat (public chats), and Global options in each.

Keep 5-6 large relays on this list and activate them for as many categories (Home, Messages (old-style DMs), Chat, and Global) as possible.

Amethyst will provide additional recommendations to this list from your follows with information on which of your follows might need the additional relay in your list. Add them if you feel like you are missing their posts or if it is just taking too long to load them.

My setup

Here's what I use: 1. Go to relay.tools and create a relay for yourself. 2. Go to nostr.wine and pay for their subscription. 3. Go to inbox.nostr.wine and pay for their subscription. 4. Go to nostr.watch and find a good relay in your country. 5. Download Citrine to your phone.

Then, on your relay lists, put:

Public Home/Outbox Relays: - nostr.wine - nos.lol or an in-country relay. - .nostr1.com

Public Inbox Relays - nos.lol or an in-country relay - .nostr1.com

DM Inbox Relays - inbox.nostr.wine - .nostr1.com

Private Home Relays - ws://localhost:4869 (Citrine) - .nostr1.com (if you want)

Search Relays - nostr.wine - relay.nostr.band - relay.noswhere.com

Local Relays - ws://localhost:4869 (Citrine)

General Relays - nos.lol - relay.damus.io - relay.primal.net - nostr.mom

And a few of the recommended relays from Amethyst.

Final Considerations

Remember, relays can see what your Nostr client is requesting and downloading at all times. They can track what you see and see what you like. They can sell that information to the highest bidder, they can delete your content or content that a sponsor asked them to delete (like a negative review for instance) and they can censor you in any way they see fit. Before using any random free relay out there, make sure you trust its operator and you know its terms of service and privacy policies.

@ 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

@ 9e69e420:d12360c2

Vice President J.D. Vance addressed the Munich Security Conference, criticizing European leaders for undermining free speech and traditional values. He claimed that the biggest threat to Europe is not from external enemies but from internal challenges. Vance condemned the arrest of a British man for praying near an abortion clinic and accused European politicians of censorship.

He urged leaders to combat illegal immigration and questioned their democratic practices. “There is a new sheriff in town,” he said, referring to President Trump. Vance's remarks were unexpected, as many anticipated discussions on security or Ukraine. His speech emphasized the need for Europe to share the defense burden to ensure stability and security.

@ e3ba5e1a:5e433365

My favorite line in any Marvel movie ever is in “Captain America.” After Captain America launches seemingly a hopeless assault on Red Skull’s base and is captured, we get this line:

“Arrogance may not be a uniquely American trait, but I must say, you do it better than anyone.”

Yesterday, I came across a comment on the song Devil Went Down to Georgia that had a very similar feel to it:

America has seemingly always been arrogant, in a uniquely American way. Manifest Destiny, for instance. The rest of the world is aware of this arrogance, and mocks Americans for it. A central point in modern US politics is the deriding of racist, nationalist, supremacist Americans.

That’s not what I see. I see American Arrogance as not only a beautiful statement about what it means to be American. I see it as an ode to the greatness of humanity in its purest form.

For most countries, saying “our nation is the greatest” is, in fact, twinged with some level of racism. I still don’t have a problem with it. Every group of people should be allowed to feel pride in their accomplishments. The destruction of the human spirit since the end of World War 2, where greatness has become a sin and weakness a virtue, has crushed the ability of people worldwide to strive for excellence.

But I digress. The fears of racism and nationalism at least have a grain of truth when applied to other nations on the planet. But not to America.

That’s because the definition of America, and the prototype of an American, has nothing to do with race. The definition of Americanism is freedom. The founding of America is based purely on liberty. On the God-given rights of every person to live life the way they see fit.

American Arrogance is not a statement of racial superiority. It’s barely a statement of national superiority (though it absolutely is). To me, when an American comments on the greatness of America, it’s a statement about freedom. Freedom will always unlock the greatness inherent in any group of people. Americans are definitionally better than everyone else, because Americans are freer than everyone else. (Or, at least, that’s how it should be.)

In Devil Went Down to Georgia, Johnny is approached by the devil himself. He is challenged to a ridiculously lopsided bet: a golden fiddle versus his immortal soul. He acknowledges the sin in accepting such a proposal. And yet he says, “God, I know you told me not to do this. But I can’t stand the affront to my honor. I am the greatest. The devil has nothing on me. So God, I’m gonna sin, but I’m also gonna win.”

Libertas magnitudo est

@ daa41bed:88f54153

There has been a good bit of discussion on Nostr over the past few days about the merits of zaps as a method of engaging with notes, so after writing a rather lengthy article on the pros of a strategic Bitcoin reserve, I wanted to take some time to chime in on the much more fun topic of digital engagement.

Let's begin by defining a couple of things:

Nostr is a decentralized, censorship-resistance protocol whose current biggest use case is social media (think Twitter/X). Instead of relying on company servers, it relies on relays that anyone can spin up and own their own content. Its use cases are much bigger, though, and this article is hosted on my own relay, using my own Nostr relay as an example.

Zap is a tip or donation denominated in sats (small units of Bitcoin) sent from one user to another. This is generally done directly over the Lightning Network but is increasingly using Cashu tokens. For the sake of this discussion, how you transmit/receive zaps will be irrelevant, so don't worry if you don't know what Lightning or Cashu are.

If we look at how users engage with posts and follows/followers on platforms like Twitter, Facebook, etc., it becomes evident that traditional social media thrives on engagement farming. The more outrageous a post, the more likely it will get a reaction. We see a version of this on more visual social platforms like YouTube and TikTok that use carefully crafted thumbnail images to grab the user's attention to click the video. If you'd like to dive deep into the psychology and science behind social media engagement, let me know, and I'd be happy to follow up with another article.

In this user engagement model, a user is given the option to comment or like the original post, or share it among their followers to increase its signal. They receive no value from engaging with the content aside from the dopamine hit of the original experience or having their comment liked back by whatever influencer they provide value to. Ad revenue flows to the content creator. Clout flows to the content creator. Sales revenue from merch and content placement flows to the content creator. We call this a linear economy -- the idea that resources get created, used up, then thrown away. Users create content and farm as much engagement as possible, then the content is forgotten within a few hours as they move on to the next piece of content to be farmed.

What if there were a simple way to give value back to those who engage with your content? By implementing some value-for-value model -- a circular economy. Enter zaps.

Unlike traditional social media platforms, Nostr does not actively use algorithms to determine what content is popular, nor does it push content created for active user engagement to the top of a user's timeline. Yes, there are "trending" and "most zapped" timelines that users can choose to use as their default, but these use relatively straightforward engagement metrics to rank posts for these timelines.

That is not to say that we may not see clients actively seeking to refine timeline algorithms for specific metrics. Still, the beauty of having an open protocol with media that is controlled solely by its users is that users who begin to see their timeline gamed towards specific algorithms can choose to move to another client, and for those who are more tech-savvy, they can opt to run their own relays or create their own clients with personalized algorithms and web of trust scoring systems.

Zaps enable the means to create a new type of social media economy in which creators can earn for creating content and users can earn by actively engaging with it. Like and reposting content is relatively frictionless and costs nothing but a simple button tap. Zaps provide active engagement because they signal to your followers and those of the content creator that this post has genuine value, quite literally in the form of money—sats.

I have seen some comments on Nostr claiming that removing likes and reactions is for wealthy people who can afford to send zaps and that the majority of people in the US and around the world do not have the time or money to zap because they have better things to spend their money like feeding their families and paying their bills. While at face value, these may seem like valid arguments, they, unfortunately, represent the brainwashed, defeatist attitude that our current economic (and, by extension, social media) systems aim to instill in all of us to continue extracting value from our lives.

Imagine now, if those people dedicating their own time (time = money) to mine pity points on social media would instead spend that time with genuine value creation by posting content that is meaningful to cultural discussions. Imagine if, instead of complaining that their posts get no zaps and going on a tirade about how much of a victim they are, they would empower themselves to take control of their content and give value back to the world; where would that leave us? How much value could be created on a nascent platform such as Nostr, and how quickly could it overtake other platforms?

Other users argue about user experience and that additional friction (i.e., zaps) leads to lower engagement, as proven by decades of studies on user interaction. While the added friction may turn some users away, does that necessarily provide less value? I argue quite the opposite. You haven't made a few sats from zaps with your content? Can't afford to send some sats to a wallet for zapping? How about using the most excellent available resource and spending 10 seconds of your time to leave a comment? Likes and reactions are valueless transactions. Social media's real value derives from providing monetary compensation and actively engaging in a conversation with posts you find interesting or thought-provoking. Remember when humans thrived on conversation and discussion for entertainment instead of simply being an onlooker of someone else's life?

If you've made it this far, my only request is this: try only zapping and commenting as a method of engagement for two weeks. Sure, you may end up liking a post here and there, but be more mindful of how you interact with the world and break yourself from blind instinct. You'll thank me later.

@ 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?

@ e3ba5e1a:5e433365

I got into a friendly discussion on X regarding health insurance. The specific question was how to deal with health insurance companies (presumably unfairly) denying claims? My answer, as usual: get government out of it!

The US healthcare system is essentially the worst of both worlds:

• Unlike full single payer, individuals incur high costs
• Unlike a true free market, regulation causes increases in costs and decreases competition among insurers

I'm firmly on the side of moving towards the free market. (And I say that as someone living under a single payer system now.) Here's what I would do:

• Get rid of tax incentives that make health insurance tied to your employer, giving individuals back proper freedom of choice.
• Reduce regulations significantly.

• In the short term, some people will still get rejected claims and other obnoxious behavior from insurance companies. We address that in two ways:

  1. Due to reduced regulations, new insurance companies will be able to enter the market offering more reliable coverage and better rates, and people will flock to them because they have the freedom to make their own choices.
  2. Sue the asses off of companies that reject claims unfairly. And ideally, as one of the few legitimate roles of government in all this, institute new laws that limit the ability of fine print to allow insurers to escape their responsibilities. (I'm hesitant that the latter will happen due to the incestuous relationship between Congress/regulators and insurers, but I can hope.)

Will this magically fix everything overnight like politicians normally promise? No. But it will allow the market to return to a healthy state. And I don't think it will take long (order of magnitude: 5-10 years) for it to come together, but that's just speculation.

And since there's a high correlation between those who believe government can fix problems by taking more control and demanding that only credentialed experts weigh in on a topic (both points I strongly disagree with BTW): I'm a trained actuary and worked in the insurance industry, and have directly seen how government regulation reduces competition, raises prices, and harms consumers.

And my final point: I don't think any prior art would be a good comparison for deregulation in the US, it's such a different market than any other country in the world for so many reasons that lessons wouldn't really translate. Nonetheless, I asked Grok for some empirical data on this, and at best the results of deregulation could be called "mixed," but likely more accurately "uncertain, confused, and subject to whatever interpretation anyone wants to apply."

https://x.com/i/grok/share/Zc8yOdrN8lS275hXJ92uwq98M

@ 91bea5cd:1df4451c

Definição de ULID:

Timestamp 48 bits, Aleatoriedade 80 bits Sendo Timestamp 48 bits inteiro, tempo UNIX em milissegundos, Não ficará sem espaço até o ano 10889 d.C. e Aleatoriedade 80 bits, Fonte criptograficamente segura de aleatoriedade, se possível.

Gerar ULID

```sql

CREATE EXTENSION IF NOT EXISTS pgcrypto;

CREATE FUNCTION generate_ulid() RETURNS TEXT AS $$ DECLARE -- Crockford's Base32 encoding BYTEA = '0123456789ABCDEFGHJKMNPQRSTVWXYZ'; timestamp BYTEA = E'\000\000\000\000\000\000'; output TEXT = '';

unix_time BIGINT; ulid BYTEA; BEGIN -- 6 timestamp bytes unix_time = (EXTRACT(EPOCH FROM CLOCK_TIMESTAMP()) * 1000)::BIGINT; timestamp = SET_BYTE(timestamp, 0, (unix_time >> 40)::BIT(8)::INTEGER); timestamp = SET_BYTE(timestamp, 1, (unix_time >> 32)::BIT(8)::INTEGER); timestamp = SET_BYTE(timestamp, 2, (unix_time >> 24)::BIT(8)::INTEGER); timestamp = SET_BYTE(timestamp, 3, (unix_time >> 16)::BIT(8)::INTEGER); timestamp = SET_BYTE(timestamp, 4, (unix_time >> 8)::BIT(8)::INTEGER); timestamp = SET_BYTE(timestamp, 5, unix_time::BIT(8)::INTEGER);

-- 10 entropy bytes ulid = timestamp || gen_random_bytes(10);

-- Encode the timestamp output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 0) & 224) >> 5)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 0) & 31))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 1) & 248) >> 3)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 1) & 7) << 2) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 2) & 192) >> 6))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 2) & 62) >> 1)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 2) & 1) << 4) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 3) & 240) >> 4))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 3) & 15) << 1) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 4) & 128) >> 7))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 4) & 124) >> 2)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 4) & 3) << 3) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 5) & 224) >> 5))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 5) & 31)));

-- Encode the entropy output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 6) & 248) >> 3)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 6) & 7) << 2) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 7) & 192) >> 6))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 7) & 62) >> 1)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 7) & 1) << 4) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 8) & 240) >> 4))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 8) & 15) << 1) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 9) & 128) >> 7))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 9) & 124) >> 2)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 9) & 3) << 3) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 10) & 224) >> 5))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 10) & 31))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 11) & 248) >> 3)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 11) & 7) << 2) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 12) & 192) >> 6))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 12) & 62) >> 1)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 12) & 1) << 4) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 13) & 240) >> 4))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 13) & 15) << 1) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 14) & 128) >> 7))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 14) & 124) >> 2)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 14) & 3) << 3) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 15) & 224) >> 5))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 15) & 31)));

RETURN output; END $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql VOLATILE; ```

ULID TO UUID

```sql CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION parse_ulid(ulid text) RETURNS bytea AS $$ DECLARE -- 16byte bytes bytea = E'\x00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000'; v char[]; -- Allow for O(1) lookup of index values dec integer[] = ARRAY[ 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 1, 18, 19, 1, 20, 21, 0, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 255, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 1, 18, 19, 1, 20, 21, 0, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 255, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 ]; BEGIN IF NOT ulid ~* '^[0-7][0-9ABCDEFGHJKMNPQRSTVWXYZ]{25}$' THEN RAISE EXCEPTION 'Invalid ULID: %', ulid; END IF;

v = regexp_split_to_array(ulid, '');

-- 6 bytes timestamp (48 bits) bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 0, (dec[ASCII(v[1])] << 5) | dec[ASCII(v[2])]); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 1, (dec[ASCII(v[3])] << 3) | (dec[ASCII(v[4])] >> 2)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 2, (dec[ASCII(v[4])] << 6) | (dec[ASCII(v[5])] << 1) | (dec[ASCII(v[6])] >> 4)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 3, (dec[ASCII(v[6])] << 4) | (dec[ASCII(v[7])] >> 1)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 4, (dec[ASCII(v[7])] << 7) | (dec[ASCII(v[8])] << 2) | (dec[ASCII(v[9])] >> 3)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 5, (dec[ASCII(v[9])] << 5) | dec[ASCII(v[10])]);

-- 10 bytes of entropy (80 bits); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 6, (dec[ASCII(v[11])] << 3) | (dec[ASCII(v[12])] >> 2)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 7, (dec[ASCII(v[12])] << 6) | (dec[ASCII(v[13])] << 1) | (dec[ASCII(v[14])] >> 4)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 8, (dec[ASCII(v[14])] << 4) | (dec[ASCII(v[15])] >> 1)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 9, (dec[ASCII(v[15])] << 7) | (dec[ASCII(v[16])] << 2) | (dec[ASCII(v[17])] >> 3)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 10, (dec[ASCII(v[17])] << 5) | dec[ASCII(v[18])]); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 11, (dec[ASCII(v[19])] << 3) | (dec[ASCII(v[20])] >> 2)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 12, (dec[ASCII(v[20])] << 6) | (dec[ASCII(v[21])] << 1) | (dec[ASCII(v[22])] >> 4)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 13, (dec[ASCII(v[22])] << 4) | (dec[ASCII(v[23])] >> 1)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 14, (dec[ASCII(v[23])] << 7) | (dec[ASCII(v[24])] << 2) | (dec[ASCII(v[25])] >> 3)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 15, (dec[ASCII(v[25])] << 5) | dec[ASCII(v[26])]);

RETURN bytes; END $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql IMMUTABLE;

CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION ulid_to_uuid(ulid text) RETURNS uuid AS $$ BEGIN RETURN encode(parse_ulid(ulid), 'hex')::uuid; END $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql IMMUTABLE; ```

UUID to ULID

```sql CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION uuid_to_ulid(id uuid) RETURNS text AS $$ DECLARE encoding bytea = '0123456789ABCDEFGHJKMNPQRSTVWXYZ'; output text = ''; uuid_bytes bytea = uuid_send(id); BEGIN

-- Encode the timestamp output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 0) & 224) >> 5)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 0) & 31))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 1) & 248) >> 3)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 1) & 7) << 2) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 2) & 192) >> 6))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 2) & 62) >> 1)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 2) & 1) << 4) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 3) & 240) >> 4))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 3) & 15) << 1) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 4) & 128) >> 7))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 4) & 124) >> 2)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 4) & 3) << 3) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 5) & 224) >> 5))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 5) & 31)));

-- Encode the entropy output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 6) & 248) >> 3)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 6) & 7) << 2) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 7) & 192) >> 6))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 7) & 62) >> 1)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 7) & 1) << 4) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 8) & 240) >> 4))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 8) & 15) << 1) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 9) & 128) >> 7))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 9) & 124) >> 2)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 9) & 3) << 3) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 10) & 224) >> 5))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 10) & 31))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 11) & 248) >> 3)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 11) & 7) << 2) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 12) & 192) >> 6))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 12) & 62) >> 1)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 12) & 1) << 4) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 13) & 240) >> 4))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 13) & 15) << 1) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 14) & 128) >> 7))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 14) & 124) >> 2)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 14) & 3) << 3) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 15) & 224) >> 5))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 15) & 31)));

RETURN output; END $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql IMMUTABLE; ```

Gera 11 Digitos aleatórios: YBKXG0CKTH4

```sql -- Cria a extensão pgcrypto para gerar uuid CREATE EXTENSION IF NOT EXISTS pgcrypto;

-- Cria a função para gerar ULID CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION gen_lrandom() RETURNS TEXT AS $$ DECLARE ts_millis BIGINT; ts_chars TEXT; random_bytes BYTEA; random_chars TEXT; base32_chars TEXT := '0123456789ABCDEFGHJKMNPQRSTVWXYZ'; i INT; BEGIN -- Pega o timestamp em milissegundos ts_millis := FLOOR(EXTRACT(EPOCH FROM clock_timestamp()) * 1000)::BIGINT;

-- Converte o timestamp para base32
ts_chars := '';
FOR i IN REVERSE 0..11 LOOP
    ts_chars := ts_chars || substr(base32_chars, ((ts_millis >> (5 * i)) & 31) + 1, 1);
END LOOP;

-- Gera 10 bytes aleatórios e converte para base32
random_bytes := gen_random_bytes(10);
random_chars := '';
FOR i IN 0..9 LOOP
    random_chars := random_chars || substr(base32_chars, ((get_byte(random_bytes, i) >> 3) & 31) + 1, 1);
    IF i < 9 THEN
        random_chars := random_chars || substr(base32_chars, (((get_byte(random_bytes, i) & 7) << 2) | (get_byte(random_bytes, i + 1) >> 6)) & 31 + 1, 1);
    ELSE
        random_chars := random_chars || substr(base32_chars, ((get_byte(random_bytes, i) & 7) << 2) + 1, 1);
    END IF;
END LOOP;

-- Concatena o timestamp e os caracteres aleatórios
RETURN ts_chars || random_chars;

END; $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql; ```

Exemplo de USO

```sql -- Criação da extensão caso não exista CREATE EXTENSION IF NOT EXISTS pgcrypto; -- Criação da tabela pessoas CREATE TABLE pessoas ( ID UUID DEFAULT gen_random_uuid ( ) PRIMARY KEY, nome TEXT NOT NULL );

-- Busca Pessoa na tabela SELECT * FROM "pessoas" WHERE uuid_to_ulid ( ID ) = '252FAC9F3V8EF80SSDK8PXW02F'; ```

Fontes

• https://github.com/scoville/pgsql-ulid
• https://github.com/geckoboard/pgulid

@ 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.

@ 91bea5cd:1df4451c

Definição de ULID:

Timestamp 48 bits, Aleatoriedade 80 bits Sendo Timestamp 48 bits inteiro, tempo UNIX em milissegundos, Não ficará sem espaço até o ano 10889 d.C. e Aleatoriedade 80 bits, Fonte criptograficamente segura de aleatoriedade, se possível.

Gerar ULID

```sql

CREATE EXTENSION IF NOT EXISTS pgcrypto;

CREATE FUNCTION generate_ulid() RETURNS TEXT AS $$ DECLARE -- Crockford's Base32 encoding BYTEA = '0123456789ABCDEFGHJKMNPQRSTVWXYZ'; timestamp BYTEA = E'\000\000\000\000\000\000'; output TEXT = '';

unix_time BIGINT; ulid BYTEA; BEGIN -- 6 timestamp bytes unix_time = (EXTRACT(EPOCH FROM CLOCK_TIMESTAMP()) * 1000)::BIGINT; timestamp = SET_BYTE(timestamp, 0, (unix_time >> 40)::BIT(8)::INTEGER); timestamp = SET_BYTE(timestamp, 1, (unix_time >> 32)::BIT(8)::INTEGER); timestamp = SET_BYTE(timestamp, 2, (unix_time >> 24)::BIT(8)::INTEGER); timestamp = SET_BYTE(timestamp, 3, (unix_time >> 16)::BIT(8)::INTEGER); timestamp = SET_BYTE(timestamp, 4, (unix_time >> 8)::BIT(8)::INTEGER); timestamp = SET_BYTE(timestamp, 5, unix_time::BIT(8)::INTEGER);

-- 10 entropy bytes ulid = timestamp || gen_random_bytes(10);

-- Encode the timestamp output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 0) & 224) >> 5)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 0) & 31))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 1) & 248) >> 3)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 1) & 7) << 2) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 2) & 192) >> 6))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 2) & 62) >> 1)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 2) & 1) << 4) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 3) & 240) >> 4))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 3) & 15) << 1) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 4) & 128) >> 7))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 4) & 124) >> 2)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 4) & 3) << 3) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 5) & 224) >> 5))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 5) & 31)));

-- Encode the entropy output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 6) & 248) >> 3)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 6) & 7) << 2) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 7) & 192) >> 6))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 7) & 62) >> 1)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 7) & 1) << 4) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 8) & 240) >> 4))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 8) & 15) << 1) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 9) & 128) >> 7))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 9) & 124) >> 2)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 9) & 3) << 3) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 10) & 224) >> 5))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 10) & 31))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 11) & 248) >> 3)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 11) & 7) << 2) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 12) & 192) >> 6))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 12) & 62) >> 1)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 12) & 1) << 4) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 13) & 240) >> 4))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 13) & 15) << 1) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 14) & 128) >> 7))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 14) & 124) >> 2)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 14) & 3) << 3) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 15) & 224) >> 5))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 15) & 31)));

RETURN output; END $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql VOLATILE; ```

ULID TO UUID

```sql CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION parse_ulid(ulid text) RETURNS bytea AS $$ DECLARE -- 16byte bytes bytea = E'\x00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000'; v char[]; -- Allow for O(1) lookup of index values dec integer[] = ARRAY[ 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 1, 18, 19, 1, 20, 21, 0, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 255, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 1, 18, 19, 1, 20, 21, 0, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 255, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 ]; BEGIN IF NOT ulid ~* '^[0-7][0-9ABCDEFGHJKMNPQRSTVWXYZ]{25}$' THEN RAISE EXCEPTION 'Invalid ULID: %', ulid; END IF;

v = regexp_split_to_array(ulid, '');

-- 6 bytes timestamp (48 bits) bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 0, (dec[ASCII(v[1])] << 5) | dec[ASCII(v[2])]); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 1, (dec[ASCII(v[3])] << 3) | (dec[ASCII(v[4])] >> 2)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 2, (dec[ASCII(v[4])] << 6) | (dec[ASCII(v[5])] << 1) | (dec[ASCII(v[6])] >> 4)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 3, (dec[ASCII(v[6])] << 4) | (dec[ASCII(v[7])] >> 1)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 4, (dec[ASCII(v[7])] << 7) | (dec[ASCII(v[8])] << 2) | (dec[ASCII(v[9])] >> 3)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 5, (dec[ASCII(v[9])] << 5) | dec[ASCII(v[10])]);

-- 10 bytes of entropy (80 bits); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 6, (dec[ASCII(v[11])] << 3) | (dec[ASCII(v[12])] >> 2)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 7, (dec[ASCII(v[12])] << 6) | (dec[ASCII(v[13])] << 1) | (dec[ASCII(v[14])] >> 4)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 8, (dec[ASCII(v[14])] << 4) | (dec[ASCII(v[15])] >> 1)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 9, (dec[ASCII(v[15])] << 7) | (dec[ASCII(v[16])] << 2) | (dec[ASCII(v[17])] >> 3)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 10, (dec[ASCII(v[17])] << 5) | dec[ASCII(v[18])]); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 11, (dec[ASCII(v[19])] << 3) | (dec[ASCII(v[20])] >> 2)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 12, (dec[ASCII(v[20])] << 6) | (dec[ASCII(v[21])] << 1) | (dec[ASCII(v[22])] >> 4)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 13, (dec[ASCII(v[22])] << 4) | (dec[ASCII(v[23])] >> 1)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 14, (dec[ASCII(v[23])] << 7) | (dec[ASCII(v[24])] << 2) | (dec[ASCII(v[25])] >> 3)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 15, (dec[ASCII(v[25])] << 5) | dec[ASCII(v[26])]);

RETURN bytes; END $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql IMMUTABLE;

CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION ulid_to_uuid(ulid text) RETURNS uuid AS $$ BEGIN RETURN encode(parse_ulid(ulid), 'hex')::uuid; END $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql IMMUTABLE; ```

UUID to ULID

```sql CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION uuid_to_ulid(id uuid) RETURNS text AS $$ DECLARE encoding bytea = '0123456789ABCDEFGHJKMNPQRSTVWXYZ'; output text = ''; uuid_bytes bytea = uuid_send(id); BEGIN

-- Encode the timestamp output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 0) & 224) >> 5)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 0) & 31))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 1) & 248) >> 3)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 1) & 7) << 2) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 2) & 192) >> 6))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 2) & 62) >> 1)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 2) & 1) << 4) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 3) & 240) >> 4))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 3) & 15) << 1) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 4) & 128) >> 7))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 4) & 124) >> 2)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 4) & 3) << 3) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 5) & 224) >> 5))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 5) & 31)));

-- Encode the entropy output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 6) & 248) >> 3)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 6) & 7) << 2) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 7) & 192) >> 6))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 7) & 62) >> 1)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 7) & 1) << 4) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 8) & 240) >> 4))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 8) & 15) << 1) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 9) & 128) >> 7))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 9) & 124) >> 2)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 9) & 3) << 3) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 10) & 224) >> 5))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 10) & 31))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 11) & 248) >> 3)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 11) & 7) << 2) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 12) & 192) >> 6))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 12) & 62) >> 1)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 12) & 1) << 4) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 13) & 240) >> 4))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 13) & 15) << 1) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 14) & 128) >> 7))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 14) & 124) >> 2)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 14) & 3) << 3) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 15) & 224) >> 5))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 15) & 31)));

RETURN output; END $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql IMMUTABLE; ```

Gera 11 Digitos aleatórios: YBKXG0CKTH4

```sql -- Cria a extensão pgcrypto para gerar uuid CREATE EXTENSION IF NOT EXISTS pgcrypto;

-- Cria a função para gerar ULID CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION gen_lrandom() RETURNS TEXT AS $$ DECLARE ts_millis BIGINT; ts_chars TEXT; random_bytes BYTEA; random_chars TEXT; base32_chars TEXT := '0123456789ABCDEFGHJKMNPQRSTVWXYZ'; i INT; BEGIN -- Pega o timestamp em milissegundos ts_millis := FLOOR(EXTRACT(EPOCH FROM clock_timestamp()) * 1000)::BIGINT;

-- Converte o timestamp para base32
ts_chars := '';
FOR i IN REVERSE 0..11 LOOP
    ts_chars := ts_chars || substr(base32_chars, ((ts_millis >> (5 * i)) & 31) + 1, 1);
END LOOP;

-- Gera 10 bytes aleatórios e converte para base32
random_bytes := gen_random_bytes(10);
random_chars := '';
FOR i IN 0..9 LOOP
    random_chars := random_chars || substr(base32_chars, ((get_byte(random_bytes, i) >> 3) & 31) + 1, 1);
    IF i < 9 THEN
        random_chars := random_chars || substr(base32_chars, (((get_byte(random_bytes, i) & 7) << 2) | (get_byte(random_bytes, i + 1) >> 6)) & 31 + 1, 1);
    ELSE
        random_chars := random_chars || substr(base32_chars, ((get_byte(random_bytes, i) & 7) << 2) + 1, 1);
    END IF;
END LOOP;

-- Concatena o timestamp e os caracteres aleatórios
RETURN ts_chars || random_chars;

END; $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql; ```

Exemplo de USO

```sql -- Criação da extensão caso não exista CREATE EXTENSION IF NOT EXISTS pgcrypto; -- Criação da tabela pessoas CREATE TABLE pessoas ( ID UUID DEFAULT gen_random_uuid ( ) PRIMARY KEY, nome TEXT NOT NULL );

-- Busca Pessoa na tabela SELECT * FROM "pessoas" WHERE uuid_to_ulid ( ID ) = '252FAC9F3V8EF80SSDK8PXW02F'; ```

Fontes

• https://github.com/scoville/pgsql-ulid
• https://github.com/geckoboard/pgulid

@ e3ba5e1a:5e433365

President Trump has started rolling out his tariffs, something I blogged about in November. People are talking about these tariffs a lot right now, with many people (correctly) commenting on how consumers will end up with higher prices as a result of these tariffs. While that part is true, I’ve seen a lot of people taking it to the next, incorrect step: that consumers will pay the entirety of the tax. I put up a poll on X to see what people thought, and while the right answer got a lot of votes, it wasn't the winner.

For purposes of this blog post, our ultimate question will be the following:

• Suppose apples currently sell for $1 each in the entire United States.
• There are domestic sellers and foreign sellers of apples, all receiving the same price.
• There are no taxes or tariffs on the purchase of apples.
• The question is: if the US federal government puts a $0.50 import tariff per apple, what will be the change in the following:
• Number of apples bought in the US
• Price paid by buyers for apples in the US
• Post-tax price received by domestic apple producers
• Post-tax price received by foreign apple producers

Before we can answer that question, we need to ask an easier, first question: before instituting the tariff, why do apples cost $1?

And finally, before we dive into the details, let me provide you with the answers to the ultimate question. I recommend you try to guess these answers before reading this, and if you get it wrong, try to understand why:

1. The number of apples bought will go down
2. The buyers will pay more for each apple they buy, but not the full amount of the tariff
3. Domestic apple sellers will receive a higher price per apple
4. Foreign apple sellers will receive a lower price per apple, but not lowered by the full amount of the tariff

In other words, regardless of who sends the payment to the government, both taxed parties (domestic buyers and foreign sellers) will absorb some of the costs of the tariff, while domestic sellers will benefit from the protectionism provided by tariffs and be able to sell at a higher price per unit.

Marginal benefit

All of the numbers discussed below are part of a helper Google Sheet I put together for this analysis. Also, apologies about the jagged lines in the charts below, I hadn’t realized before starting on this that there are some difficulties with creating supply and demand charts in Google Sheets.

Let’s say I absolutely love apples, they’re my favorite food. How much would I be willing to pay for a single apple? You might say “$1, that’s the price in the supermarket,” and in many ways you’d be right. If I walk into supermarket A, see apples on sale for $50, and know that I can buy them at supermarket B for $1, I’ll almost certainly leave A and go buy at B.

But that’s not what I mean. What I mean is: how high would the price of apples have to go everywhere so that I’d no longer be willing to buy a single apple? This is a purely personal, subjective opinion. It’s impacted by how much money I have available, other expenses I need to cover, and how much I like apples. But let’s say the number is $5.

How much would I be willing to pay for another apple? Maybe another $5. But how much am I willing to pay for the 1,000th apple? 10,000th? At some point, I’ll get sick of apples, or run out of space to keep the apples, or not be able to eat, cook, and otherwise preserve all those apples before they rot.

The point being: I’ll be progressively willing to spend less and less money for each apple. This form of analysis is called marginal benefit: how much benefit (expressed as dollars I’m willing to spend) will I receive from each apple? This is a downward sloping function: for each additional apple I buy (quantity demanded), the price I’m willing to pay goes down. This is what gives my personal demand curve. And if we aggregate demand curves across all market participants (meaning: everyone interested in buying apples), we end up with something like this:

Assuming no changes in people’s behavior and other conditions in the market, this chart tells us how many apples will be purchased by our buyers at each price point between $0.50 and $5. And ceteris paribus (all else being equal), this will continue to be the demand curve for apples.

Marginal cost

Demand is half the story of economics. The other half is supply, or: how many apples will I sell at each price point? Supply curves are upward sloping: the higher the price, the more a person or company is willing and able to sell a product.

Let’s understand why. Suppose I have an apple orchard. It’s a large property right next to my house. With about 2 minutes of effort, I can walk out of my house, find the nearest tree, pick 5 apples off the tree, and call it a day. 5 apples for 2 minutes of effort is pretty good, right?

Yes, there was all the effort necessary to buy the land, and plant the trees, and water them… and a bunch more than I likely can’t even guess at. We’re going to ignore all of that for our analysis, because for short-term supply-and-demand movement, we can ignore these kinds of sunk costs. One other simplification: in reality, supply curves often start descending before ascending. This accounts for achieving efficiencies of scale after the first number of units purchased. But since both these topics are unneeded for understanding taxes, I won’t go any further.

Anyway, back to my apple orchard. If someone offers me $0.50 per apple, I can do 2 minutes of effort and get $2.50 in revenue, which equates to a $75/hour wage for me. I’m more than happy to pick apples at that price!

However, let’s say someone comes to buy 10,000 apples from me instead. I no longer just walk out to my nearest tree. I’m going to need to get in my truck, drive around, spend the day in the sun, pay for gas, take a day off of my day job (let’s say it pays me $70/hour). The costs go up significantly. Let’s say it takes 5 days to harvest all those apples myself, it costs me $100 in fuel and other expenses, and I lose out on my $70/hour job for 5 days. We end up with:

• Total expenditure: $100 + $70 * 8 hours a day * 5 days \== $2900
• Total revenue: $5000 (10,000 apples at $0.50 each)
• Total profit: $2100

So I’m still willing to sell the apples at this price, but it’s not as attractive as before. And as the number of apples purchased goes up, my costs keep increasing. I’ll need to spend more money on fuel to travel more of my property. At some point I won’t be able to do the work myself anymore, so I’ll need to pay others to work on the farm, and they’ll be slower at picking apples than me (less familiar with the property, less direct motivation, etc.). The point being: at some point, the number of apples can go high enough that the $0.50 price point no longer makes me any money.

This kind of analysis is called marginal cost. It refers to the additional amount of expenditure a seller has to spend in order to produce each additional unit of the good. Marginal costs go up as quantity sold goes up. And like demand curves, if you aggregate this data across all sellers, you get a supply curve like this:

Equilibrium price

We now know, for every price point, how many apples buyers will purchase, and how many apples sellers will sell. Now we find the equilibrium: where the supply and demand curves meet. This point represents where the marginal benefit a buyer would receive from the next buyer would be less than the cost it would take the next seller to make it. Let’s see it in a chart:

You’ll notice that these two graphs cross at the $1 price point, where 63 apples are both demanded (bought by consumers) and supplied (sold by producers). This is our equilibrium price. We also have a visualization of the surplus created by these trades. Everything to the left of the equilibrium point and between the supply and demand curves represents surplus: an area where someone is receiving something of more value than they give. For example:

• When I bought my first apple for $1, but I was willing to spend $5, I made $4 of consumer surplus. The consumer portion of the surplus is everything to the left of the equilibrium point, between the supply and demand curves, and above the equilibrium price point.
• When a seller sells his first apple for $1, but it only cost $0.50 to produce it, the seller made $0.50 of producer surplus. The producer portion of the surplus is everything to the left of the equilibrium point, between the supply and demand curves, and below the equilibrium price point.

Another way of thinking of surplus is “every time someone got a better price than they would have been willing to take.”

OK, with this in place, we now have enough information to figure out how to price in the tariff, which we’ll treat as a negative externality.

Modeling taxes

Alright, the government has now instituted a $0.50 tariff on every apple sold within the US by a foreign producer. We can generally model taxes by either increasing the marginal cost of each unit sold (shifting the supply curve up), or by decreasing the marginal benefit of each unit bought (shifting the demand curve down). In this case, since only some of the producers will pay the tax, it makes more sense to modify the supply curve.

First, let’s see what happens to the foreign seller-only supply curve when you add in the tariff:

With the tariff in place, for each quantity level, the price at which the seller will sell is $0.50 higher than before the tariff. That makes sense: if I was previously willing to sell my 82nd apple for $3, I would now need to charge $3.50 for that apple to cover the cost of the tariff. We see this as the tariff “pushing up” or “pushing left” the original supply curve.

We can add this new supply curve to our existing (unchanged) supply curve for domestic-only sellers, and we end up with a result like this:

The total supply curve adds up the individual foreign and domestic supply curves. At each price point, we add up the total quantity each group would be willing to sell to determine the total quantity supplied for each price point. Once we have that cumulative supply curve defined, we can produce an updated supply-and-demand chart including the tariff:

As we can see, the equilibrium has shifted:

• The equilibrium price paid by consumers has risen from $1 to $1.20.
• The total number of apples purchased has dropped from 63 apples to 60 apples.
• Consumers therefore received 3 less apples. They spent $72 for these 60 apples, whereas previously they spent $63 for 3 more apples, a definite decrease in consumer surplus.
• Foreign producers sold 36 of those apples (see the raw data in the linked Google Sheet), for a gross revenue of $43.20. However, they also need to pay the tariff to the US government, which accounts for $18, meaning they only receive $25.20 post-tariff. Previously, they sold 42 apples at $1 each with no tariff to be paid, meaning they took home $42.
• Domestic producers sold the remaining 24 apples at $1.20, giving them a revenue of $28.80. Since they don’t pay the tariff, they take home all of that money. By contrast, previously, they sold 21 apples at $1, for a take-home of $21.
• The government receives $0.50 for each of the 60 apples sold, or in other words receives $30 in revenue it wouldn’t have received otherwise.

We could be more specific about the surpluses, and calculate the actual areas for consumer surplus, producer surplus, inefficiency from the tariff, and government revenue from the tariff. But I won’t bother, as those calculations get slightly more involved. Instead, let’s just look at the aggregate outcomes:

• Consumers were unquestionably hurt. Their price paid went up by $0.20 per apple, and received less apples.
• Foreign producers were also hurt. Their price received went down from the original $1 to the new post-tariff price of $1.20, minus the $0.50 tariff. In other words: foreign producers only receive $0.70 per apple now. This hurt can be mitigated by shifting sales to other countries without a tariff, but the pain will exist regardless.
• Domestic producers scored. They can sell less apples and make more revenue doing it.
• And the government walked away with an extra $30.

Hopefully you now see the answer to the original questions. Importantly, while the government imposed a $0.50 tariff, neither side fully absorbed that cost. Consumers paid a bit more, foreign producers received a bit less. The exact details of how that tariff was split across the groups is mediated by the relevant supply and demand curves of each group. If you want to learn more about this, the relevant search term is “price elasticity,” or how much a group’s quantity supplied or demanded will change based on changes in the price.

Other taxes

Most taxes are some kind of a tax on trade. Tariffs on apples is an obvious one. But the same applies to income tax (taxing the worker for the trade of labor for money) or payroll tax (same thing, just taxing the employer instead). Interestingly, you can use the same model for analyzing things like tax incentives. For example, if the government decided to subsidize domestic apple production by giving the domestic producers a $0.50 bonus for each apple they sell, we would end up with a similar kind of analysis, except instead of the foreign supply curve shifting up, we’d see the domestic supply curve shifting down.

And generally speaking, this is what you’ll always see with government involvement in the economy. It will result in disrupting an existing equilibrium, letting the market readjust to a new equilibrium, and incentivization of some behavior, causing some people to benefit and others to lose out. We saw with the apple tariff, domestic producers and the government benefited while others lost.

You can see the reverse though with tax incentives. If I give a tax incentive of providing a deduction (not paying income tax) for preschool, we would end up with:

• Government needs to make up the difference in tax revenue, either by raising taxes on others or printing more money (leading to inflation). Either way, those paying the tax or those holding government debased currency will pay a price.
• Those people who don’t use the preschool deduction will receive no benefit, so they simply pay a cost.
• Those who do use the preschool deduction will end up paying less on tax+preschool than they would have otherwise.

This analysis is fully amoral. It’s not saying whether providing subsidized preschool is a good thing or not, it simply tells you where the costs will be felt, and points out that such government interference in free economic choice does result in inefficiencies in the system. Once you have that knowledge, you’re more well educated on making a decision about whether the costs of government intervention are worth the benefits.

@ 97c70a44:ad98e322

There was a slight dust up recently over a website someone runs removing a listing for an app someone built based on entirely arbitrary criteria. I'm not to going to attempt to speak for either wounded party, but I would like to share my own personal definition for what constitutes a "nostr app" in an effort to help clarify what might be an otherwise confusing and opaque purity test.

In this post, I will be committing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, in which I start with the most liberal definition I can come up with, and gradually refine it until all that is left is the purest, gleamingest, most imaginary and unattainable nostr app imaginable. As I write this, I wonder if anything built yet will actually qualify. In any case, here we go.

It uses nostr

The lowest bar for what a "nostr app" might be is an app ("application" - i.e. software, not necessarily a native app of any kind) that has some nostr-specific code in it, but which doesn't take any advantage of what makes nostr distinctive as a protocol.

Examples might include a scraper of some kind which fulfills its charter by fetching data from relays (regardless of whether it validates or retains signatures). Another might be a regular web 2.0 app which provides an option to "log in with nostr" by requesting and storing the user's public key.

In either case, the fact that nostr is involved is entirely neutral. A scraper can scrape html, pdfs, jsonl, whatever data source - nostr relays are just another target. Likewise, a user's key in this scenario is treated merely as an opaque identifier, with no appreciation for the super powers it brings along.

In most cases, this kind of app only exists as a marketing ploy, or less cynically, because it wants to get in on the hype of being a "nostr app", without the developer quite understanding what that means, or having the budget to execute properly on the claim.

It leverages nostr

Some of you might be wondering, "isn't 'leverage' a synonym for 'use'?" And you would be right, but for one connotative difference. It's possible to "use" something improperly, but by definition leverage gives you a mechanical advantage that you wouldn't otherwise have. This is the second category of "nostr app".

This kind of app gets some benefit out of the nostr protocol and network, but in an entirely selfish fashion. The intention of this kind of app is not to augment the nostr network, but to augment its own UX by borrowing some nifty thing from the protocol without really contributing anything back.

Some examples might include:

• Using nostr signers to encrypt or sign data, and then store that data on a proprietary server.
• Using nostr relays as a kind of low-code backend, but using proprietary event payloads.
• Using nostr event kinds to represent data (why), but not leveraging the trustlessness that buys you.

An application in this category might even communicate to its users via nostr DMs - but this doesn't make it a "nostr app" any more than a website that emails you hot deals on herbal supplements is an "email app". These apps are purely parasitic on the nostr ecosystem.

In the long-term, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Email's ubiquity is self-reinforcing. But in the short term, this kind of "nostr app" can actually do damage to nostr's reputation by over-promising and under-delivering.

It complements nostr

Next up, we have apps that get some benefit out of nostr as above, but give back by providing a unique value proposition to nostr users as nostr users. This is a bit of a fine distinction, but for me this category is for apps which focus on solving problems that nostr isn't good at solving, leaving the nostr integration in a secondary or supporting role.

One example of this kind of app was Mutiny (RIP), which not only allowed users to sign in with nostr, but also pulled those users' social graphs so that users could send money to people they knew and trusted. Mutiny was doing a great job of leveraging nostr, as well as providing value to users with nostr identities - but it was still primarily a bitcoin wallet, not a "nostr app" in the purest sense.

Other examples are things like Nostr Nests and Zap.stream, whose core value proposition is streaming video or audio content. Both make great use of nostr identities, data formats, and relays, but they're primarily streaming apps. A good litmus test for things like this is: if you got rid of nostr, would it be the same product (even if inferior in certain ways)?

A similar category is infrastructure providers that benefit nostr by their existence (and may in fact be targeted explicitly at nostr users), but do things in a centralized, old-web way; for example: media hosts, DNS registrars, hosting providers, and CDNs.

To be clear here, I'm not casting aspersions (I don't even know what those are, or where to buy them). All the apps mentioned above use nostr to great effect, and are a real benefit to nostr users. But they are not True Scotsmen.

It embodies nostr

Ok, here we go. This is the crème de la crème, the top du top, the meilleur du meilleur, the bee's knees. The purest, holiest, most chaste category of nostr app out there. The apps which are, indeed, nostr indigitate.

This category of nostr app (see, no quotes this time) can be defined by the converse of the previous category. If nostr was removed from this type of application, would it be impossible to create the same product?

To tease this apart a bit, apps that leverage the technical aspects of nostr are dependent on nostr the protocol, while apps that benefit nostr exclusively via network effect are integrated into nostr the network. An app that does both things is working in symbiosis with nostr as a whole.

An app that embraces both nostr's protocol and its network becomes an organic extension of every other nostr app out there, multiplying both its competitive moat and its contribution to the ecosystem:

• In contrast to apps that only borrow from nostr on the technical level but continue to operate in their own silos, an application integrated into the nostr network comes pre-packaged with existing users, and is able to provide more value to those users because of other nostr products. On nostr, it's a good thing to advertise your competitors.
• In contrast to apps that only market themselves to nostr users without building out a deep integration on the protocol level, a deeply integrated app becomes an asset to every other nostr app by becoming an organic extension of them through interoperability. This results in increased traffic to the app as other developers and users refer people to it instead of solving their problem on their own. This is the "micro-apps" utopia we've all been waiting for.

Credible exit doesn't matter if there aren't alternative services. Interoperability is pointless if other applications don't offer something your app doesn't. Marketing to nostr users doesn't matter if you don't augment their agency as nostr users.

If I had to choose a single NIP that represents the mindset behind this kind of app, it would be NIP 89 A.K.A. "Recommended Application Handlers", which states:

Nostr's discoverability and transparent event interaction is one of its most interesting/novel mechanics. This NIP provides a simple way for clients to discover applications that handle events of a specific kind to ensure smooth cross-client and cross-kind interactions.

These handlers are the glue that holds nostr apps together. A single event, signed by the developer of an application (or by the application's own account) tells anyone who wants to know 1. what event kinds the app supports, 2. how to link to the app (if it's a client), and (if the pubkey also publishes a kind 10002), 3. which relays the app prefers.

As a sidenote, NIP 89 is currently focused more on clients, leaving DVMs, relays, signers, etc somewhat out in the cold. Updating 89 to include tailored listings for each kind of supporting app would be a huge improvement to the protocol. This, plus a good front end for navigating these listings (sorry nostrapp.link, close but no cigar) would obviate the evil centralized websites that curate apps based on arbitrary criteria.

Examples of this kind of app obviously include many kind 1 clients, as well as clients that attempt to bring the benefits of the nostr protocol and network to new use cases - whether long form content, video, image posts, music, emojis, recipes, project management, or any other "content type".

To drill down into one example, let's think for a moment about forms. What's so great about a forms app that is built on nostr? Well,

• There is a spec for forms and responses, which means that...
• Multiple clients can implement the same data format, allowing for credible exit and user choice, even of...
• Other products not focused on forms, which can still view, respond to, or embed forms, and which can send their users via NIP 89 to a client that does...
• Cryptographically sign forms and responses, which means they are self-authenticating and can be sent to...
• Multiple relays, which reduces the amount of trust necessary to be confident results haven't been deliberately "lost".

Show me a forms product that does all of those things, and isn't built on nostr. You can't, because it doesn't exist. Meanwhile, there are plenty of image hosts with APIs, streaming services, and bitcoin wallets which have basically the same levels of censorship resistance, interoperability, and network effect as if they weren't built on nostr.

It supports nostr

Notice I haven't said anything about whether relays, signers, blossom servers, software libraries, DVMs, and the accumulated addenda of the nostr ecosystem are nostr apps. Well, they are (usually).

This is the category of nostr app that gets none of the credit for doing all of the work. There's no question that they qualify as beautiful nostrcorns, because their value propositions are entirely meaningless outside of the context of nostr. Who needs a signer if you don't have a cryptographic identity you need to protect? DVMs are literally impossible to use without relays. How are you going to find the blossom server that will serve a given hash if you don't know which servers the publishing user has selected to store their content?

In addition to being entirely contextualized by nostr architecture, this type of nostr app is valuable because it does things "the nostr way". By that I mean that they don't simply try to replicate existing internet functionality into a nostr context; instead, they create entirely new ways of putting the basic building blocks of the internet back together.

A great example of this is how Nostr Connect, Nostr Wallet Connect, and DVMs all use relays as brokers, which allows service providers to avoid having to accept incoming network connections. This opens up really interesting possibilities all on its own.

So while I might hesitate to call many of these things "apps", they are certainly "nostr".

Appendix: it smells like a NINO

So, let's say you've created an app, but when you show it to people they politely smile, nod, and call it a NINO (Nostr In Name Only). What's a hacker to do? Well, here's your handy-dandy guide on how to wash that NINO stench off and Become a Nostr.

You app might be a NINO if:

• There's no NIP for your data format (or you're abusing NIP 78, 32, etc by inventing a sub-protocol inside an existing event kind)
• There's a NIP, but no one knows about it because it's in a text file on your hard drive (or buried in your project's repository)
• Your NIP imposes an incompatible/centralized/legacy web paradigm onto nostr
• Your NIP relies on trusted third (or first) parties
• There's only one implementation of your NIP (yours)
• Your core value proposition doesn't depend on relays, events, or nostr identities
• One or more relay urls are hard-coded into the source code
• Your app depends on a specific relay implementation to work (ahem, relay29)
• You don't validate event signatures
• You don't publish events to relays you don't control
• You don't read events from relays you don't control
• You use legacy web services to solve problems, rather than nostr-native solutions
• You use nostr-native solutions, but you've hardcoded their pubkeys or URLs into your app
• You don't use NIP 89 to discover clients and services
• You haven't published a NIP 89 listing for your app
• You don't leverage your users' web of trust for filtering out spam
• You don't respect your users' mute lists
• You try to "own" your users' data

Now let me just re-iterate - it's ok to be a NINO. We need NINOs, because nostr can't (and shouldn't) tackle every problem. You just need to decide whether your app, as a NINO, is actually contributing to the nostr ecosystem, or whether you're just using buzzwords to whitewash a legacy web software product.

If you're in the former camp, great! If you're in the latter, what are you waiting for? Only you can fix your NINO problem. And there are lots of ways to do this, depending on your own unique situation:

• Drop nostr support if it's not doing anyone any good. If you want to build a normal company and make some money, that's perfectly fine.
• Build out your nostr integration - start taking advantage of webs of trust, self-authenticating data, event handlers, etc.
• Work around the problem. Think you need a special relay feature for your app to work? Guess again. Consider encryption, AUTH, DVMs, or better data formats.
• Think your idea is a good one? Talk to other devs or open a PR to the nips repo. No one can adopt your NIP if they don't know about it.
• Keep going. It can sometimes be hard to distinguish a research project from a NINO. New ideas have to be built out before they can be fully appreciated.
• Listen to advice. Nostr developers are friendly and happy to help. If you're not sure why you're getting traction, ask!

I sincerely hope this article is useful for all of you out there in NINO land. Maybe this made you feel better about not passing the totally optional nostr app purity test. Or maybe it gave you some actionable next steps towards making a great NINON (Nostr In Not Only Name) app. In either case, GM and PV.

@ 9e69e420:d12360c2

Tech stocks have taken a hit globally after China's DeepSeek launched a competitive AI chatbot at a much lower cost than US counterparts. This has stirred market fears of a $1.2 trillion loss across tech companies when trading opens in New York.

DeepSeek’s chatbot quickly topped download charts and surprised experts with its capabilities, developed for only $5.6 million.

The Nasdaq dropped over 3% in premarket trading, with major firms like Nvidia falling more than 10%. SoftBank also saw losses shortly after investing in a significant US AI venture.

Venture capitalist Marc Andreessen called it “AI’s Sputnik moment,” highlighting its potential impact on the industry.

![] (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/business/2025/01/27/TELEMMGLPICT000409807198_17379939060750_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqgsaO8O78rhmZrDxTlQBjdGLvJF5WfpqnBZShRL_tOZw.jpeg)

@ ba3b4b1d:eadff0d3

por Gedaliah Braun

Sou um americano que leccionou filosofia em várias universidades africanas entre 1976 e 1988, e desde então vivo na África do Sul. Quando cheguei a África, praticamente não sabia nada sobre o continente ou os seus povos, mas comecei a aprender rapidamente. Notei, por exemplo, que os africanos raramente cumpriam promessas e não viam necessidade de se desculpar quando as quebravam. Era como se não tivessem consciência de que haviam feito algo que exigisse um pedido de desculpas.

Demorei muitos anos a compreender por que os africanos se comportavam assim, mas penso que agora posso explicar este e outros comportamentos que caracterizam África. Acredito que a moralidade requer pensamento abstrato — tal como o planeamento para o futuro — e que uma relativa deficiência no pensamento abstrato pode explicar muitas coisas que são tipicamente africanas.

O que se segue não são descobertas científicas. Pode haver explicações alternativas para o que observei, mas as minhas conclusões baseiam-se em mais de 30 anos a viver entre africanos.

As minhas primeiras suspeitas sobre o que pode ser uma deficiência no pensamento abstrato surgiram do que comecei a aprender sobre as línguas africanas. Numa conversa com estudantes na Nigéria, perguntei como se diria, na sua língua local, que um coco está a meio caminho da árvore. “Não se pode dizer isso”, explicaram. “Tudo o que se pode dizer é que está ‘lá em cima’.” “E no topo da árvore?” “Também não; apenas ‘lá em cima’.” Por outras palavras, parecia não haver forma de expressar gradações.

Alguns anos depois, em Nairobi, aprendi algo mais sobre as línguas africanas quando duas mulheres se mostraram surpreendidas com o meu dicionário de inglês. “O inglês não é a tua língua?”, perguntaram. “Sim”, respondi. “É a minha única língua.” “Então por que precisas de um dicionário?”

Elas estavam intrigadas com o facto de eu precisar de um dicionário, e eu estava intrigado com a sua perplexidade. Expliquei que há momentos em que ouvimos uma palavra da qual não temos a certeza e, por isso, a procuramos. “Mas se o inglês é a tua língua”, insistiram, “como pode haver palavras que não conheces?” “O quê?”, disse eu. “Ninguém conhece todas as palavras da sua língua.”

Concluí que uma relativa deficiência no pensamento abstrato pode explicar muitas coisas que são tipicamente africanas.

Línguas africanas e conceitos limitados “Mas nós conhecemos todas as palavras de Kikuyu; todos os Kikuyu as conhecem”, responderam. Fiquei ainda mais surpreendido, mas gradualmente percebi que, como a sua língua é totalmente oral, ela existe apenas nas mentes dos falantes de Kikuyu. Como há um limite para o que o cérebro humano pode reter, o tamanho total da língua permanece mais ou menos constante. Uma língua escrita, por outro lado, existindo parcialmente nas milhões de páginas do registo escrito, cresce muito além da capacidade de qualquer pessoa a conhecer na totalidade. Mas se o tamanho de uma língua é limitado, segue-se que o número de conceitos que ela contém também será limitado e, portanto, tanto a língua como o pensamento serão empobrecidos.

As línguas africanas eram, por necessidade, suficientes no seu contexto pré-colonial. São empobrecidas apenas por comparação com as línguas ocidentais e numa África que tenta emular o Ocidente. Embora tenham sido compilados numerosos dicionários entre línguas europeias e africanas, há poucos dicionários dentro de uma única língua africana, precisamente porque os falantes nativos não precisam deles. Encontrei um dicionário Zulu-Zulu, mas era um livro de bolso de pequeno formato com 252 páginas.

As minhas indagações sobre o Zulu começaram quando liguei para o Departamento de Línguas Africanas da Universidade de Witwatersrand, em Joanesburgo, e falei com um homem Branco. Existia “precisão” na língua Zulu antes do contacto com os europeus? “Oh”, disse ele, “essa é uma pergunta muito eurocêntrica!” e simplesmente não respondeu. Liguei novamente, falei com outro homem branco e recebi uma resposta praticamente idêntica.

Então, contactei a Universidade da África do Sul, uma grande universidade por correspondência em Pretória, e falei com um jovem negro. Como tantas vezes aconteceu na minha experiência em África, conectámo-nos imediatamente. Ele compreendeu o meu interesse pelo Zulu e achou as minhas perguntas muito interessantes. Explicou que a palavra Zulu para “precisão” significa “fazer como uma linha reta”. Era isso parte do Zulu indígena? Não; isso foi adicionado pelos compiladores do dicionário.

Mas, assegurou-me, era diferente com “promessa”. Eu estava céptico. E quanto a “obrigação”? Ambos tínhamos o mesmo dicionário (Dicionário Inglês-Zulu, Zulu-Inglês, publicado pela Witwatersrand University Press em 1958), e procurámos. A entrada Zulu para “obrigação” significa “como se estivesse a atar os pés”. Ele disse que isso não era indígena, mas foi adicionado pelos compiladores. Mas se o Zulu não tinha o conceito de obrigação, como poderia ter o conceito de promessa, já que uma promessa é simplesmente o compromisso oral de uma obrigação? Estava interessado nisso, disse eu, porque os africanos frequentemente não cumpriam promessas e nunca se desculpavam — como se isso não justificasse um pedido de desculpas.

Pareceu acender-se uma luz na sua mente. Sim, disse ele; de facto, a palavra Zulu para promessa — isithembiso — não é a palavra correcta. Quando uma pessoa negra “promete”, quer dizer “talvez o faça, talvez não”. Mas, disse eu, isso torna o ato de prometer sem sentido, já que o objetivo de uma promessa é vincular alguém a um curso de ação. Quando não se tem a certeza de poder fazer algo, pode-se dizer: “Vou tentar, mas não posso prometer.” Ele disse que tinha ouvido brancos dizerem isso e nunca o entendera até agora. Como um jovem amigo romeno resumiu tão apropriadamente, quando uma pessoa negra “promete”, quer dizer “vou tentar”. O incumprimento de promessas não é, portanto, um problema linguístico. É difícil acreditar que, após conviverem tanto tempo com os brancos, não aprendessem o significado correcto, e é demasiada coincidência que o mesmo fenómeno se encontre na Nigéria, no Quénia e na Papua-Nova Guiné, onde também vivi. É muito mais provável que os africanos, em geral, careçam do próprio conceito e, portanto, não possam dar à palavra o seu significado correcto. Isso parece indicar alguma diferença na capacidade intelectual.

Note-se a entrada Zulu para obrigação: “como se estivesse a atar os pés”. Uma obrigação vincula, mas fá-lo moralmente, não fisicamente. É um conceito abstrato, razão pela qual não há palavra para isso em Zulu. Então, o que fizeram os autores do dicionário? Pegaram neste conceito abstrato e tornaram-no concreto. Pés, corda e atar são coisas tangíveis e observáveis, e, portanto, coisas que todos os negros entenderão, enquanto muitos não compreenderão o que é uma obrigação. O facto de terem definido a palavra desta forma é, por si só, uma evidência convincente para a minha conclusão de que o pensamento Zulu tem poucos conceitos abstratos e uma evidência indirecta para a visão de que os africanos podem ser deficientes no pensamento abstrato.

Pensamento abstrato

Entidades abstratas não existem no espaço ou no tempo; são tipicamente intangíveis e não podem ser percebidas pelos sentidos. Muitas vezes, são coisas que não existem. “O que aconteceria se todos deitassem lixo por todo o lado?” refere-se a algo que esperamos que não aconteça, mas ainda podemos pensar sobre isso.

Tudo o que observamos com os nossos sentidos ocorre no tempo e tudo o que vemos existe no espaço; no entanto, não podemos perceber o tempo nem o espaço com os nossos sentidos, mas apenas com a mente. A precisão também é abstrata; embora possamos ver e tocar coisas feitas com precisão, a precisão em si só pode ser percebida pela mente.

Como adquirimos conceitos abstratos? É suficiente fazer coisas com precisão para ter o conceito de precisão? Os africanos fazem excelentes esculturas, feitas com precisão, então por que não está o conceito na sua língua? Para ter este conceito, não devemos apenas fazer coisas com precisão, mas estar cientes deste fenómeno e depois dar-lhe um nome.

Como, por exemplo, adquirimos conceitos como crença e dúvida? Todos temos crenças; até os animais as têm. Quando um cão abana a cauda ao ouvir os passos do seu dono, acredita que ele está a chegar. Mas não tem o conceito de crença porque não tem consciência de que tem essa crença e, portanto, não tem consciência da crença em si. Em resumo, não tem autoconsciência e, assim, não está ciente dos seus próprios estados mentais.

Há muito tempo me parece que os negros tendem a carecer de autoconsciência. Se tal consciência é necessária para desenvolver conceitos abstratos, não é surpreendente que as línguas africanas tenham tão poucos termos abstratos. A falta de autoconsciência — ou introspecção — tem vantagens. Na minha experiência, o comportamento neurótico, caracterizado por uma autoconsciência excessiva e pouco saudável, é incomum entre os negros. Também estou confiante de que a disfunção sexual, caracterizada por uma autoconsciência excessiva, é menos comum entre os negros do que entre os brancos.

O tempo é outro conceito abstrato com o qual os africanos parecem ter dificuldades. Comecei a pensar sobre isso em 1998. Vários africanos chegaram num carro e estacionaram mesmo à frente do meu, bloqueando-o. “Ei”, disse eu, “não podem estacionar aqui.” “Oh, estás prestes a sair?”, perguntaram de forma perfeitamente educada e amigável. “Não”, respondi, “mas posso querer sair mais tarde. Estacionem ali” — e eles o fizeram.

Embora a possibilidade de eu querer sair mais tarde fosse óbvia para mim, o pensamento deles parecia abranger apenas o aqui e agora: “Se estás a sair agora, entendemos, mas caso contrário, qual é o problema?” Tive outros encontros semelhantes e a questão-chave parecia ser sempre: “Estás a sair agora?” O futuro, afinal, não existe. Existirá, mas não existe agora. Pessoas que têm dificuldade em pensar em coisas que não existem terão, ipso facto, dificuldade em pensar no futuro.

Parece que a palavra Zulu para “futuro” — isikhati — é a mesma que para tempo, assim como para espaço. Realisticamente, isso significa que esses conceitos provavelmente não existem no pensamento Zulu. Também parece não haver palavra para o passado — ou seja, o tempo anterior ao presente. O passado existiu, mas já não existe. Assim, pessoas que podem ter problemas em pensar em coisas que não existem terão dificuldade em pensar no passado, assim como no futuro.

Isso tem um impacto óbvio em sentimentos como gratidão e lealdade, que há muito notei serem incomuns entre os africanos. Sentimos gratidão por coisas que aconteceram no passado, mas para aqueles com pouco senso do passado, tais sentimentos são menos prováveis de surgir. Por que demorei mais de 20 anos a notar tudo isso? Penso que é porque as nossas suposições sobre o tempo estão tão profundamente enraizadas que nem sequer temos consciência de as fazer e, portanto, a possibilidade de outros não as partilharem simplesmente não nos ocorre. E assim, não o vemos, mesmo quando a evidência está diante dos nossos olhos.

Matemática e manutenção Cito um artigo da imprensa sul-africana sobre os problemas que os negros têm com a matemática:

“[Xhosa] é uma língua onde polígono e plano têm a mesma definição … onde conceitos como triângulo, quadrilátero, pentágono, hexágono são definidos por uma única palavra.” (“Finding New Languages for Maths and Science,” Star [Joanesburgo], 24 de Julho de 2002, p. 8.)

Mais precisamente, esses conceitos simplesmente não existem em Xhosa, que, juntamente com o Zulu, é uma das duas línguas mais faladas na África do Sul. Na América, diz-se que os negros têm uma “tendência a aproximar espaço, números e tempo em vez de visar a precisão completa.” (Star, 8 de Junho de 1988, p.10.) Por outras palavras, também são fracos em matemática. Note-se o trio idêntico — espaço, números e tempo. Será apenas uma coincidência que esses três conceitos altamente abstratos sejam aqueles com os quais os negros — em todo o lado — parecem ter tantas dificuldades?

A entrada no dicionário Zulu para “número” — ningi — significa “numeroso”, o que não é de todo o mesmo que o conceito de número. Fica claro, portanto, que não há conceito de número em Zulu.

O domínio branco na África do Sul terminou em 1994. Cerca de dez anos depois, começaram os cortes de energia, que eventualmente atingiram proporções de crise. A principal razão para isso é simplesmente a falta de manutenção no equipamento de geração. A manutenção é orientada para o futuro, e a entrada Zulu no dicionário para isso é ondla, que significa: “1. Nutrir, criar; educar; 2. Vigiar; observar (a tua colheita).” Em resumo, não há tal coisa como manutenção no pensamento Zulu, e seria difícil argumentar que isso não está totalmente relacionado com o facto de que, quando as pessoas em África dizem “nada funciona”, é apenas um exagero.

O New York Times relata que a cidade de Nova Iorque está a considerar um plano (desde implementado) destinado a fazer com que os negros “se saiam bem em testes padronizados e compareçam às aulas”, pagando-lhes para fazer essas coisas e que poderiam “ganhar até 500 dólares por ano”. Os alunos receberiam dinheiro por frequentar regularmente a escola, por cada livro que lessem, por se saírem bem nos testes e, às vezes, apenas por os fazerem. Os pais seriam pagos por “manter um emprego a tempo inteiro … ter seguro de saúde … e assistir a conferências de pais e professores.” (Jennifer Medina, “Schools Plan to Pay Cash for Marks,” New York Times, 19 de Junho de 2007.) A implicação clara é que os negros não são muito motivados. A motivação envolve pensar no futuro e, portanto, em coisas que não existem. Dadas as deficiências dos negros neste aspecto, não é surpreendente que lhes falte motivação, e ter de os incentivar desta forma é mais uma evidência para tal deficiência.

A entrada Zulu para “motivar” é banga, sob a qual encontramos: “1. Fazer, causar, produzir algo desagradável; … causar problemas. … 2. Disputar uma reivindicação; … lutar por herança; … 3. Dirigir-se a, apontar para, viajar em direção a … .” No entanto, quando pergunto aos africanos o que banga significa, não fazem ideia. De facto, nenhuma palavra Zulu poderia referir-se à motivação pela simples razão de que não há tal conceito em Zulu; e se não há tal conceito, não pode haver uma palavra para ele. Isso ajuda a explicar a necessidade de pagar aos negros para se comportarem como se estivessem motivados.

Zulus O mesmo artigo do New York Times cita Darwin Davis, da Urban League, que “adverte que o … dinheiro oferecido [por frequentar as aulas] era relativamente insignificante … e questiona … quantos testes os alunos precisariam de passar para comprar o mais recente videojogo.” Em vez de se envergonhar pela própria necessidade de tal plano, este activista negro queixa-se de que os pagamentos não são suficientes! Se ele realmente não tem consciência de como as suas observações serão percebidas pela maioria dos leitores, é moralmente obtuso, mas as suas opiniões podem reflectir uma compreensão comum entre os negros do que é a moralidade: não algo internalizado, mas algo que os outros impõem de fora. Daí a sua queixa de que pagar às crianças para fazerem coisas que deveriam estar motivadas a fazer por si próprias não é suficiente.

Neste contexto, lembro-me de algumas descobertas notáveis do falecido linguista americano William Stewart, que passou muitos anos no Senegal a estudar línguas locais. Enquanto as culturas ocidentais internalizam normas — “Não faças isso!” para uma criança torna-se eventualmente “Eu não devo fazer isso” para um adulto — as culturas africanas não o fazem. Dependem inteiramente de controlos externos sobre o comportamento, vindos de anciãos tribais e outras fontes de autoridade. Quando os africanos foram destribalizados, esses controlos externos desapareceram, e como nunca houve controlos internos, os resultados foram crime, drogas, promiscuidade, etc. Onde houve outras formas de controlo — como na África do Sul governada por brancos, na África colonial ou no Sul segregado dos EUA — este comportamento foi mantido dentro de limites toleráveis. Mas quando mesmo esses controlos desaparecem, muitas vezes há violência desenfreada.

Stewart aparentemente nunca perguntou por que as culturas africanas não internalizavam normas, ou seja, por que nunca desenvolveram uma consciência moral, mas é improvável que isso tenha sido apenas um acidente histórico. Mais provavelmente, foi o resultado de deficiências na capacidade de pensamento abstrato.

Evolução e pensamento abstrato Uma explicação para esta falta de pensamento abstrato, incluindo a compreensão diminuída do tempo, é que os africanos evoluíram num clima onde podiam viver dia a dia sem precisar de pensar no futuro. Nunca desenvolveram essa capacidade porque não havia necessidade dela. Os brancos, por outro lado, evoluíram em circunstâncias em que tinham de considerar o que aconteceria se não construíssem casas robustas e armazenassem combustível e comida suficientes para o inverno. Para eles, era afundar ou nadar.

Uma confirmação surpreendente das ideias de Stewart pode ser encontrada na edição de Maio/Junho de 2006 da Boston Review, uma publicação tipicamente liberal. Em “Do the Right Thing: Cognitive Science’s Search for a Common Morality,” Rebecca Saxe distingue entre regras “convencionais” e “morais”. As regras convencionais são apoiadas por autoridades, mas podem ser alteradas; as regras morais, por outro lado, não se baseiam na autoridade convencional e não estão sujeitas a mudanças. “Mesmo crianças de três anos … distinguem entre transgressões morais e convencionais”, escreve ela. A única excepção, segundo James Blair, dos Institutos Nacionais de Saúde, são os psicopatas, que exibem “comportamento agressivo persistente”. Para eles, todas as regras se baseiam apenas na autoridade externa, na ausência da qual “tudo é permitido”. A conclusão tirada é que “indivíduos saudáveis em todas as culturas respeitam a distinção entre regras convencionais … e morais.” No entanto, no mesmo artigo, outra antropóloga argumenta que “o estatuto especial das regras morais não pode ser parte da natureza humana, mas é … apenas … um artefacto dos valores ocidentais.” Anita Jacobson-Widding, escrevendo sobre as suas experiências entre os Manyika do Zimbabué, diz: “Tentei encontrar uma palavra que correspondesse ao conceito inglês de ‘moralidade.’ Expliquei o que queria dizer perguntando aos meus informantes que descrevessem as normas para o bom comportamento em relação a outras pessoas. A resposta foi unânime. A palavra para isso era tsika. Mas quando pedi aos meus informantes bilingues para traduzirem tsika para o inglês, eles disseram que era ‘boas maneiras’ …”

Ela concluiu que, como as boas maneiras são claramente regras convencionais e não morais, os Manyika simplesmente não tinham um conceito de moralidade. Mas como se explicaria essa ausência? A explicação de Jacobson-Widding é o disparate típico que só poderia vir de um chamado intelectual: “o conceito de moralidade não existe.” A explicação muito mais provável é que o conceito de moralidade, embora universal em outros aspectos, é enfraquecido em culturas que têm uma deficiência no pensamento abstrato.

De acordo com uma sabedoria popular agora desacreditada, os negros são “crianças em corpos adultos”, mas pode haver alguma base para essa visão. O adulto africano médio tem o mesmo QI bruto que uma criança branca de 11 anos. Essa é aproximadamente a idade em que as crianças brancas começam a internalizar a moralidade e já não precisam de reforços externos tão fortes.

Crueldade gratuita Outro aspecto do comportamento africano que os liberais fazem o seu melhor para ignorar, mas que, no entanto, requer uma explicação, é a crueldade gratuita. Um revisor do livro Driving South, de David Robbins (1993), escreve:

“Um assistente social do Cabo vê elementos que se deleitam com a violência … É como um culto que abraçou muitas pessoas que, de outra forma, parecem normais. … À menor provocação, o seu desejo de sangue é despertado. E então querem ver morte, e zombam e ridicularizam o sofrimento envolvido, especialmente o sofrimento de uma morte lenta e agonizante.” (Citizen [Joanesburgo], 12 de Julho de 1993, p.6.)

Há algo tão indizivelmente vil nisso, algo tão além da depravação, que o cérebro humano recua. Isso não é apenas a ausência de empatia humana, mas o prazer positivo no sofrimento humano, ainda mais quando é “lento e agonizante”. Consegue imaginar zombar e ridicularizar alguém em tal agonia horrível?

Durante a era do apartheid, os activistas negros costumavam matar traidores e inimigos pelo método de “colar” (necklacing). Um pneu velho era colocado ao redor do pescoço da vítima, enchido com gasolina, e — é melhor deixar um testemunha ocular descrever o que acontecia a seguir:

“O pneu cheio de gasolina é colocado nos teus ombros e um isqueiro é colocado ao teu alcance. … Os teus dedos são quebrados, agulhas são enfiadas pelo teu nariz e és torturado até acenderes o isqueiro na gasolina tu mesmo.” (Citizen; “SA’s New Nazis,” 10 de Agosto de 1993, p.18.) O autor de um artigo no Chicago Tribune, descrevendo a forma igualmente horrível como os Hutu mataram Tutsi nos massacres do Burundi, maravilhou-se com “o êxtase de matar, a luxúria pelo sangue; este é o pensamento mais horrível. Está além do meu alcance.” (“Hutu Killers Danced In Blood Of Victims, Videotapes Show,” Chicago Tribune, 14 de Setembro de 1995, p.8.) A falta de qualquer senso moral é ainda mais evidenciada pelo facto de terem gravado os seus crimes em vídeo, “aparentemente querendo registá-los … para a posteridade.” Ao contrário dos criminosos de guerra, que escondiam as suas façanhas, essas pessoas aparentemente tinham orgulho no seu trabalho.

Em 1993, Amy Biehl, uma americana de 26 anos com uma bolsa Fulbright, vivia na África do Sul, onde passava a maior parte do seu tempo em bairros negros ajudando negros. Um dia, enquanto levava três amigos africanos para casa, jovens negros pararam o carro, arrastaram-na para fora e mataram-na porque era branca. Um juiz sul-africano aposentado, Rex van Schalkwyk, no seu livro de 1998 One Miracle is Not Enough, cita um relatório de jornal sobre o julgamento dos seus assassinos: “Os apoiantes dos três homens acusados de assassinar [ela] … desataram a rir na galeria pública do Supremo Tribunal hoje quando uma testemunha disse como a mulher espancada gemeu de dor.” Esse comportamento, escreveu Van Schalkwyk, “é impossível de explicar em termos acessíveis a mentes racionais.” (pp. 188-89.)

Esses incidentes e as respostas que evocam — “o cérebro humano recua”, “além do meu alcance”, “impossível de explicar a mentes racionais” — representam um padrão de comportamento e pensamento que não pode ser ignorado, e oferecem suporte adicional para a minha alegação de que os africanos são deficientes em consciência moral.

Violação e amor

Há muito suspeito que a ideia de violação não é a mesma em África como em outros lugares, e agora encontro confirmação disso na Newsweek: “De acordo com um estudo de três anos [em Joanesburgo] … mais da metade dos jovens entrevistados — tanto homens como mulheres — acredita que forçar sexo com alguém que conheces não constitui violência sexual … [A] maneira casual com que os adolescentes sul-africanos discutem relações coercivas e sexo desprotegido é impressionante.” (Tom Masland, “Breaking The Silence,” Newsweek, 9 de Julho de 2000.)

Claramente, muitos negros não acham que a violação é algo de que se envergonhar.

O autor da Newsweek está intrigado com o comportamento generalizado que se sabe levar à SIDA, perguntando “Por que o esforço pelo sexo seguro falhou tão abjectamente?” Bem, além das suas atitudes profundamente diferentes em relação ao sexo e à violência e da sua libido elevada, um factor importante pode ser o seu conceito diminuído de tempo e a capacidade reduzida de pensar no futuro.

No entanto, fiquei surpreendido com o que encontrei no dicionário Zulu. A entrada principal para violação diz: “1. Agir apressadamente; … 2. Ser ganancioso. 3. Roubar, saquear, … tomar [posses] pela força.” Embora essas entradas possam estar relacionadas com o nosso conceito de violação, há um pequeno problema: não há referência a relações sexuais! Numa cultura dominada por homens, onde dizer “não” muitas vezes não é uma opção (como confirmado pelo estudo mencionado), “tomar sexo pela força” não faz realmente parte do cálculo mental africano. A violação tem claramente uma dimensão moral, mas talvez não para os africanos. Na medida em que não consideram o sexo forçado como errado, então, pela nossa concepção, não podem considerá-lo violação, porque a violação é errada. Se tal comportamento não é errado, não é violação.

Um artigo sobre violação em grupo no jornal britânico de esquerda, The Guardian, confirma isso quando cita uma jovem negra: “A questão é que eles [homens negros] não o vêem como violação, como nós sendo forçadas. Eles apenas o vêem como prazer para eles.” (Rose George, “They Don’t See it as Rape. They Just See it as Pleasure for Them,” 5 de Junho de 2004.) Uma atitude semelhante parece ser partilhada entre alguns negros americanos que se referem casualmente à violação em grupo como “correr um comboio”. (Nathan McCall, Makes Me Wanna Holler, Vintage Books, 1995.)

Se a compreensão africana de violação está tão distante, também pode estar a sua ideia de romantismo ou amor. Recentemente assisti a um programa de televisão sul-africano sobre fazer sexo por dinheiro. Das várias mulheres na audiência que falaram, nenhuma questionou a moralidade desse comportamento. De facto, uma perguntou lamentavelmente: “Por que mais eu faria sexo com um homem?”

Pela forma casual como os africanos usam a palavra “amor”, suspeito que a sua compreensão dela é, na melhor das hipóteses, infantil. Suspeito que a noção é alheia aos africanos, e ficaria surpreendido se as coisas fossem muito diferentes entre os negros americanos. Os africanos ouvem os brancos falar de “amor” e tentam dar-lhe um significado dentro do seu próprio repertório conceptual. O resultado é uma concepção infantil desta emoção humana mais profunda, provavelmente semelhante ao seu mal-entendido sobre a natureza de uma promessa.

Recentemente localizei um documento que me foi ditado por uma jovem africana em Junho de 1993. Ela chamou-lhe a sua “história”, e o parágrafo final é uma ilustração comovente do que, para os europeus, pareceria uma compreensão limitada do amor:

“No meu caminho de volta da escola, conheci um rapaz. E ele me pediu em namoro. O nome dele era Mokone. Ele disse-me que me amava. E então eu disse-lhe que lhe daria a minha resposta na próxima semana. À noite, estava louca por ele. Estava sempre a pensar nele.”

Cegueira moral

Sempre que ensinava ética, usava o exemplo de Alfred Dreyfus, um oficial judeu do exército francês que foi condenado por traição em 1894, embora as autoridades soubessem que ele era inocente. Admitir o erro, dizia-se, teria um efeito desastroso no moral militar e causaria grande agitação social. Eu argumentava que certas coisas são intrinsecamente erradas e não apenas por causa das suas consequências. Mesmo que os resultados de libertar Dreyfus fossem muito piores do que mantê-lo na prisão, ele deveria ser libertado, porque é injusto manter um homem inocente preso.

Para meu espanto, uma classe inteira no Quénia disse sem hesitação que ele não deveria ser libertado. Chamem-me obtuso se quiserem, mas demorei 20 anos para que o significado pleno disso começasse a fazer sentido para mim.

Subjunctividade e contrafactualidade

A morte é certa, mas os acidentes não são. Acredito que os africanos, em geral, podem carecer dos conceitos de subjunctividade e contrafactualidade. A subjunctividade é expressa em afirmações como: “O que terias feito se eu não tivesse aparecido?” Isso é contrário ao facto porque eu apareci, e agora é impossível que eu não tenha aparecido. Estamos a pedir a alguém que imagine o que teria feito se algo que não aconteceu (e agora não poderia acontecer) tivesse acontecido. Isso requer autoconsciência, e já descrevi a possível deficiência dos negros neste aspecto. É óbvio que os animais, por exemplo, não podem pensar contrafactualmente, devido à sua completa falta de autoconsciência.

Quando alguém que conheço tentou persuadir os seus trabalhadores africanos a contribuir para um seguro de saúde, eles perguntaram: “Para que serve?” “Bem, se tiveres um acidente, pagaria o hospital.” A resposta deles foi imediata: “Mas chefe, não tivemos um acidente!” “Sim, mas e se tivesses?” Resposta? “Não tivemos um acidente!” Fim da história.

Curiosamente, os negros planeiam funerais, pois, embora um acidente seja apenas um risco, a morte é uma certeza. (As entradas Zulu para “risco” são “perigo” e “uma superfície escorregadia”.) Dada a natureza frequentemente tudo-ou-nada do pensamento negro, se não é certo que terás um acidente, então não terás um acidente. Além disso, a morte é concreta e observável: Vemos as pessoas envelhecerem e morrerem. Os africanos tendem a estar cientes do tempo quando ele se manifesta de forma concreta e observável.

Uma das ideias centrais que sustentam a moralidade é a Regra de Ouro: faz aos outros o que gostarias que te fizessem a ti. “Como te sentirias se alguém roubasse tudo o que tens? Bem, é assim que ele se sentiria se tu o roubasses.” A subjunctividade aqui é óbvia. Mas se os africanos, em geral, carecem deste conceito, terão dificuldade em entender a Regra de Ouro e, consequentemente, em entender a moralidade.

Se isso for verdade, também poderíamos esperar que a sua capacidade de empatia humana seja diminuída, e isso é sugerido nos exemplos citados acima. Afinal, como empatizamos? Quando ouvimos falar de coisas como “colar” (necklacing), instintiva — e inconscientemente — pensamos: “Como me sentiria se fosse aquela pessoa?” Claro que não sou e não posso ser essa pessoa, mas imaginar ser essa pessoa dá-nos informações morais valiosas: que não quereríamos que isso nos acontecesse e, portanto, não devemos querer que aconteça aos outros. Na medida em que as pessoas são deficientes nesse pensamento abstrato, serão deficientes na compreensão moral e, consequentemente, na empatia humana — o que é o que tendemos a encontrar nos africanos.

No seu livro de 1990, Devil’s Night, Ze’ev Chafets cita uma mulher negra falando sobre os problemas de Detroit: “Sei que algumas pessoas não vão gostar disto, mas sempre que tens muitos negros juntos, vais ter problemas. Os negros são ignorantes e rudes.” (pp. 76-77.)

Se alguns africanos não conseguem imaginar claramente como o seu próprio comportamento rude se sente para os outros — por outras palavras, se não conseguem colocar-se no lugar do outro — serão incapazes de entender o que é a grosseria. Para eles, o que chamamos de rude pode ser normal e, portanto, do seu ponto de vista, não realmente rude. Os africanos podem, portanto, não se ofender com comportamentos que consideraríamos rudes — como não cumprir compromissos, por exemplo. Pode-se até conjecturar que a crueldade africana não é a mesma que a crueldade branca, uma vez que os africanos podem não estar totalmente cientes da natureza do seu comportamento, enquanto tal consciência é uma parte essencial da “verdadeira” crueldade.

Não sou de forma alguma o único a notar esta aparente inconsciência em relação aos outros que por vezes caracteriza o comportamento negro. Walt Harrington, um liberal branco casado com uma negra de pele clara, faz algumas admissões surpreendentes no seu livro de 1994, Crossings: A White Man’s Journey Into Black America:

“Reparo num carro pequeno … ao longe. De repente … um saco de lixo voa pela janela. … Penso, aposto que são negros. Ao longo dos anos, notei mais negros a deitar lixo do que brancos. Odeio admitir isso porque é um preconceito. Mas ao passar pelo carro, vejo que o meu reflexo estava correcto — [são negros]. “[Ao entrar] num drive-through do McDonald’s … [vejo que] o carro à minha frente tinha quatro negros. Novamente … a minha mente fez o seu cálculo inconsciente: Vamos ficar aqui para sempre enquanto estas pessoas decidem o que pedir. Literalmente abanei a cabeça. … Meu Deus, os meus filhos são meio negros! Mas então o golpe: esperamos e esperamos e esperamos. Cada um dos quatro … debruçou-se pela janela e pediu individualmente. O pedido foi alterado várias vezes. Ficámos e ficámos, e eu voltei a abanar a cabeça, desta vez pelo enigma que é a raça na América.

“Sabia que o sentimento enterrado que me fez prever esta desorganização … era … racista. … Mas a minha previsão estava correcta.” (pp. 234-35.) Os africanos também tendem a deitar lixo. Para entender isso, devemos perguntar por que os brancos não deitam lixo, pelo menos não tanto. Perguntamo-nos: “O que aconteceria se todos deitassem lixo por todo o lado? Seria uma confusão. Então não deves fazê-lo!” A possível deficiência dos negros no pensamento abstrato torna esse raciocínio mais difícil, pelo que qualquer comportamento que exija esse pensamento é menos provável de se desenvolver nas suas culturas. Mesmo após viverem por gerações em sociedades onde esse pensamento é comum, muitos podem ainda não o absorver.

Aplicação aos negros americanos Até que ponto as minhas observações sobre os africanos se aplicam aos negros americanos? Os negros americanos têm um QI médio de 85, que é 15 pontos mais alto que a média africana de 70. A capacidade para o pensamento abstrato está, sem dúvida, correlacionada com a inteligência, e por isso podemos esperar que os negros americanos, em geral, superem os africanos nestes aspectos.

Ainda assim, os negros americanos mostram muitos dos traços tão marcantes entre os africanos: baixa capacidade matemática, raciocínio abstrato diminuído, altas taxas de criminalidade, horizonte temporal curto, grosseria, lixo, etc. Se eu tivesse vivido apenas entre negros americanos e não entre africanos, talvez nunca tivesse chegado às conclusões que tenho, mas o comportamento mais extremo entre os africanos torna mais fácil perceber as mesmas tendências entre os negros americanos.

Gedaliah Braun possui um doutoramento em filosofia e é o autor de Racism, Guilt, Self-Hatred and Self-Deceit. Quem estiver interessado em ler o seu livro pode adquiri-lo em formato PDF no site da AR, AmRen.com.

@ 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. 👀️️️️️️

@ cae03c48:2a7d6671

Bitcoin Magazine

Nigel Farage To Speak At Bitcoin 2025 Conference

We are pleased to announce that Nigel Farage will join the speaker lineup at the Bitcoin Conference 2025 in Las Vegas. A defining figure in modern European politics, Farage led the Brexit movement that took the United Kingdom out of the EU, reshaping global conversations around national sovereignty. He is the founder and current leader of Reform UK, a rising political force now polling competitively, positioning him as a serious contender for to be the next UK Prime Minister.

A former Member of the European Parliament for over 20 years, Farage built his reputation challenging supranational institutions and unelected power—values that resonate deeply with the Bitcoin community. He also hosts GB News, where he critiques monetary policy, CBDCs, and digital surveillance. An outspoken advocate for financial sovereignty and free speech, Farage previously appeared at Bitcoin Amsterdam 2023 in a conversation with Peter McCormack. In 2025, he returns for a fireside with Bitcoin Magazine’s Frank Corva, whose sharp political interviews are helping shape Bitcoin’s place in global affairs.

About Bitcoin 2025

The excitement is building as the world’s largest Bitcoin conference approaches, Bitcoin 2025. Set to take place in Las Vegas from May 27-29, this premier event is anticipated to draw Bitcoin enthusiasts, industry leaders, and innovators from all over the globe.

Be part of the revolution! Come experience the cultural movement that’s the Bitcoin Conference – a landmark event with wealth of opportunities for networking and learning. In 2025, Bitcoin takes over Las Vegas, uniting builders, leaders, and believers in the world’s most resilient monetary network.

New in 2025: Code & Country launches on Industry Day, bringing together policymakers, technologists, and industry leaders for a full day of focused collaboration.

The aim: strengthen Bitcoin’s role in national strategy, regulatory clarity, and technological sovereignty. This marks a new era where Bitcoin’s protocol and geopolitical potential intersect more directly than ever before.

Highlights Include

• Keynote Speakers: Renowned experts and visionaries will share their insights and predictions for the future of digital currency.
• Workshops and Panels: Attendees can participate in hands-on workshops and panel discussions covering a wide array of topics, from technical details to practical applications in various industries.
• Exhibition Hall: The exhibition will showcase art, cutting-edge products and services from top companies in the bitcoin ecosystem.
• Networking Opportunities: With thousands of attendees expected, Bitcoin 2025 offers unparalleled opportunities for networking with peers, potential partners, and thought leaders.

Keynote Speakers

The conference is set to feature an impressive lineup of speakers, including leading Bitcoin developers, experts, as well as influential figures from the financial sector. Topics range from the latest advancements to regulatory updates and investment strategies.

1. JD Vance, Vice President Vance will become the first sitting vice president in the history of the United States to publicly voice his support for Bitcoin as he addresses the audience in Las Vegas.
2. Ross Ulbricht, Freedom Advocate – Founder of the Silk Road marketplace, recently released by President Donald Trump from serving a double life sentence. His story has become emblematic of the clash between personal liberty, Bitcoin, and the state.
3. Eric Trump & Donald Trump Jr, Both figures bring a bold voice to the conversation around Capitalism, Bitcoin, freedom, and economic sovereignty.
4. Cameron & Tyler Winklevoss, Co-Founders of Gemini – Early Bitcoin adopters and founders of the regulated exchange Gemini.
5. David Sacks, White House AI & Crypto Czar – Former PayPal COO and venture capitalist, now serving as the White House’s senior advisor on AI and cryptocurrency policy, leading national efforts on stablecoin legislation and digital asset strategy.
6. Bryan Johnson, Founder of Project Blueprint – Tech entrepreneur and longevity researcher known for reversing his biological age and challenging fiat-era assumptions about health, time, and human potential.

Past Conferences in the USA

– 2021 Miami: Where President Nayib Bukele revealed plans for El Salvador to adopt Bitcoin as legal tender, making history live on stage. Attendance: 11,000
– 2022 Miami: Where Michael Saylor delivered a landmark address on corporate Bitcoin strategy and announced additional MicroStrategy purchases. Attendance: 26,000
– 2023 Miami: Where Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. became the first U.S. presidential candidate to speak at a Bitcoin conference, addressing financial freedom and civil liberties. Attendance: 15,000
– 2024 Nashville: Highlights include President Donald J. Trump’s appearance, where he voiced support for Bitcoin mining and national monetary sovereignty. Attendance: 22,000

Join Us in Las Vegas

• Date: May 27-29, 2025
• Venue: The Venetian, Las Vegas, NV, USA  
• Tickets: https://b.tc/conference/2025
• Get a free General Admission ticket when you deposit $200 on eToro – while supplies last!

This post Nigel Farage To Speak At Bitcoin 2025 Conference first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Conor Mulcahy.

@ 9e69e420:d12360c2

Salwan Momika, a Christian Iraqi known for burning the Koran in Sweden, was shot dead during a TikTok livestream in an apartment in Sodertalje. The 38-year-old sparked outrage in the Muslim community for his demonstrations, leading to global condemnation. After being rushed to the hospital, he was pronounced dead.

Authorities arrested five individuals in connection with the incident. Momika's death comes days before a court ruling on his possible incitement of ethnic hatred. The incident highlights the tensions surrounding free speech and religious sentiments, intensifying after his controversial protests in 2023.

Sauce

@ 26769dac:498e333b

Here's to the ones who can\ Feel there cause\ Surrender\ Change their ways\ But keep their fire\ And never give up

We will transform this world\ Restructuring\ One belief at a time

@ 0fa80bd3:ea7325de

"Degeneration" or "Вырождение" ![[photo_2025-01-29 23.23.15.jpeg]]

A once-functional object, now eroded by time and human intervention, stripped of its original purpose. Layers of presence accumulate—marks, alterations, traces of intent—until the very essence is obscured. Restoration is paradoxical: to reclaim, one must erase. Yet erasure is an impossibility, for to remove these imprints is to deny the existence of those who shaped them.

The work stands as a meditation on entropy, memory, and the irreversible dialogue between creation and decay.

@ 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.

@ 0fa80bd3:ea7325de

Lyn Alden - биткойн евангелист или евангелистка, я пока не понял npub1a2cww4kn9wqte4ry70vyfwqyqvpswksna27rtxd8vty6c74era8sdcw83a

Thomas Pacchia - PubKey owner - X - @tpacchia npub1xy6exlg37pw84cpyj05c2pdgv86hr25cxn0g7aa8g8a6v97mhduqeuhgpl

calvadev - Shopstr npub16dhgpql60vmd4mnydjut87vla23a38j689jssaqlqqlzrtqtd0kqex0nkq

Calle - Cashu founder npub12rv5lskctqxxs2c8rf2zlzc7xx3qpvzs3w4etgemauy9thegr43sf485vg

Джек Дорси npub1sg6plzptd64u62a878hep2kev88swjh3tw00gjsfl8f237lmu63q0uf63m

21 ideas npub1lm3f47nzyf0rjp6fsl4qlnkmzed4uj4h2gnf2vhe3l3mrj85vqks6z3c7l

Много адресов. Хз кто надо сортировать https://github.com/aitechguy/nostr-address-book

ФиатДжеф - создатель Ностр - https://github.com/fiatjaf npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6

EVAN KALOUDIS Zues wallet npub19kv88vjm7tw6v9qksn2y6h4hdt6e79nh3zjcud36k9n3lmlwsleqwte2qd

Программер Коди https://github.com/CodyTseng/nostr-relay npub1syjmjy0dp62dhccq3g97fr87tngvpvzey08llyt6ul58m2zqpzps9wf6wl

Anna Chekhovich - Managing Bitcoin at The Anti-Corruption Foundation https://x.com/AnyaChekhovich npub1y2st7rp54277hyd2usw6shy3kxprnmpvhkezmldp7vhl7hp920aq9cfyr7

@ 9ca447d2:fbf5a36d

Ukraine is reportedly about to make history by becoming the first country in Europe to have a national bitcoin reserve, a move aimed at strengthening its economy during the war with Russia.

The plan is still in its early stages and Binance, the world’s largest digital asset exchange, is involved.

According to Incrypted, a Ukrainian digital asset news outlet, Ukrainian MP Yaroslav Zheleznyak, First Deputy Chairman of the Finance, Tax and Customs Policy Committee, confirmed that the draft law is almost ready and will be submitted to the parliament soon.

“We will soon submit a draft law from the industry allowing the creation of crypto reserves,” Zheleznyak told Incrypted.

Earlier discussions mentioned a broader “crypto reserve” but the current plan is focused on bitcoin as a strategic reserve asset. If approved, the law will allow the National Bank of Ukraine to hold bitcoin as part of the country’s official reserves.

Since the war with Russia started, Ukraine has become one of the most bitcoin-friendly countries in the world.

In 2022 and 2023 Ukraine raised over $100 million in digital asset donations for defense and humanitarian purposes. A report from Chainalysis ranked the country among the top 10 countries for bitcoin adoption globally.

A rather vague and unconfirmed report by BitcoinTreasuries.net states that “holdings of public officials” currently stand at 46,351 BTC.

Ukraine bitcoin holdings as reported by BitcoinTreasuries

Supporters of the bitcoin reserve say it will help Ukraine protect its economy from war-related instability, inflation and currency depreciation.

By going digital, the government is looking for modern tools to strengthen its financial system in uncertain times. This is not just about storing bitcoin, it’s about establishing clear laws for digital assets ownership, management and use.

Binance is playing an advisory role in the project. The company has worked with Ukraine on digital asset education and regulations in the past and is now helping to shape the legal framework for the bitcoin reserve.

Kirill Khomyakov, Binance’s regional head for Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia and Africa, confirmed the company’s support, but warned it won’t be fast or easy.

“The creation of such a reserve will require significant changes in legislation,” Khomyakov said. “Another positive aspect is that this initiative will likely lead to greater clarity in the regulation of crypto assets in Ukraine.”

Despite the support from some officials, there are legal hurdles. Ukrainian laws don’t allow bitcoin to be in the official reserves. So the government needs to pass new laws for it to happen.

Efforts to legalize bitcoin in general have been going on for years. In 2021, a draft law on virtual assets was approved by Finance Committee but was withdrawn after the President’s Office and financial regulators objected.

Up to now, over 80 amendments have been proposed, showing how complicated the process is.

The Ministry of Digital Transformation is leading a larger reform that could introduce rules for digital asset exchanges, tax laws and anti-money laundering standards in the country.

Ukraine isn’t alone in considering bitcoin as a national reserve asset. In March 2025, the U.S. announced its own Strategic Bitcoin Reserve using BTC seized in criminal cases.

@ 0fa80bd3:ea7325de

![[yedinaya-rossiya-bear.png]]

1️⃣ Be where the bear roams. Stay in its territory, where it hunts for food. No point setting a trap in your backyard if the bear’s chilling in the forest.

2️⃣ Set a well-hidden trap. Bury it, disguise it, and place the bait right in the center. Bears are omnivores—just like secret police KGB agents. And what’s the tastiest bait for them? Money.

3️⃣ Wait for the bear to take the bait. When it reaches in, the trap will snap shut around its paw. It’ll be alive, but stuck. No escape.

Now, what you do with a trapped bear is another question... 😏

@ 9e69e420:d12360c2

President Trump plans to withdraw 20,000 U.S. troops from Europe and expects European allies to contribute financially to the remaining military presence. Reported by ANSA, Trump aims to deliver this message to European leaders since taking office. A European diplomat noted, “the costs cannot be borne solely by American taxpayers.”

The Pentagon hasn't commented yet. Trump has previously sought lower troop levels in Europe and had ordered cuts during his first term. The U.S. currently maintains around 65,000 troops in Europe, with total forces reaching 100,000 since the Ukraine invasion. Trump's new approach may shift military focus to the Pacific amid growing concerns about China.

Sauce

@ 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

@ 6be5cc06:5259daf0

A seguir, veja como instalar e configurar o Privoxy no Pop!_OS.

---

1. Instalar o Tor e o Privoxy

Abra o terminal e execute:

bash sudo apt update sudo apt install tor privoxy

Explicação:

• Tor: Roteia o tráfego pela rede Tor.
• Privoxy: Proxy avançado que intermedia a conexão entre aplicativos e o Tor.

---

2. Configurar o Privoxy

Abra o arquivo de configuração do Privoxy:

bash sudo nano /etc/privoxy/config

Navegue até a última linha (atalho: Ctrl + / depois Ctrl + V para navegar diretamente até a última linha) e insira:

bash forward-socks5 / 127.0.0.1:9050 .

Isso faz com que o Privoxy envie todo o tráfego para o Tor através da porta 9050.

Salve (CTRL + O e Enter) e feche (CTRL + X) o arquivo.

---

3. Iniciar o Tor e o Privoxy

Agora, inicie e habilite os serviços:

bash sudo systemctl start tor sudo systemctl start privoxy sudo systemctl enable tor sudo systemctl enable privoxy

Explicação:

• start: Inicia os serviços.
• enable: Faz com que iniciem automaticamente ao ligar o PC.

---

4. Configurar o Navegador Firefox

Para usar a rede Tor com o Firefox:

1. Abra o Firefox.
2. Acesse Configurações → Configurar conexão.
3. Selecione Configuração manual de proxy.
4. Configure assim:
   • Proxy HTTP: 127.0.0.1
   • Porta: 8118 (porta padrão do Privoxy)
   • Domínio SOCKS (v5): 127.0.0.1
   • Porta: 9050
5. Marque a opção "Usar este proxy também em HTTPS".
6. Clique em OK.

---

5. Verificar a Conexão com o Tor

Abra o navegador e acesse:

text https://check.torproject.org/

Se aparecer a mensagem "Congratulations. This browser is configured to use Tor.", a configuração está correta.

---

Dicas Extras

• Privoxy pode ser ajustado para bloquear anúncios e rastreadores.
• Outros aplicativos também podem ser configurados para usar o Privoxy.

@ 9223d2fa:b57e3de7

480 steps

@ 9e69e420:d12360c2

Oregano oil is a potent natural compound that offers numerous scientifically-supported health benefits.

Active Compounds

The oil's therapeutic properties stem from its key bioactive components: - Carvacrol and thymol (primary active compounds) - Polyphenols and other antioxidant

Antimicrobial Properties

Bacterial Protection The oil demonstrates powerful antibacterial effects, even against antibiotic-resistant strains like MRSA and other harmful bacteria. Studies show it effectively inactivates various pathogenic bacteria without developing resistance.

Antifungal Effects It effectively combats fungal infections, particularly Candida-related conditions like oral thrush, athlete's foot, and nail infections.

Digestive Health Benefits

Oregano oil supports digestive wellness by: - Promoting gastric juice secretion and enzyme production - Helping treat Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth (SIBO) - Managing digestive discomfort, bloating, and IBS symptoms

Anti-inflammatory and Antioxidant Effects

The oil provides significant protective benefits through: - Powerful antioxidant activity that fights free radicals - Reduction of inflammatory markers in the body - Protection against oxidative stress-related conditions

Respiratory Support

It aids respiratory health by: - Loosening mucus and phlegm - Suppressing coughs and throat irritation - Supporting overall respiratory tract function

Additional Benefits

Skin Health - Improves conditions like psoriasis, acne, and eczema - Supports wound healing through antibacterial action - Provides anti-aging benefits through antioxidant properties

Cardiovascular Health Studies show oregano oil may help: - Reduce LDL (bad) cholesterol levels - Support overall heart health

Pain Management The oil demonstrates effectiveness in: - Reducing inflammation-related pain - Managing muscle discomfort - Providing topical pain relief

Safety Note

While oregano oil is generally safe, it's highly concentrated and should be properly diluted before use Consult a healthcare provider before starting supplementation, especially if taking other medications.

@ 975e4ad5:8d4847ce

Selfishness as Bitcoin’s Engine

Bitcoin, created by Satoshi Nakamoto, operates on a clear mechanism: miners use computational power to solve complex mathematical puzzles, verifying transactions on the network. In return, they earn rewards in Bitcoin. This is pure self-interest—miners want to maximize their profits. But while pursuing personal gain, they inadvertently maintain the entire system. Each new block added to the blockchain makes the network more stable and resilient against attacks. The more miners join, the more decentralized the system becomes, rendering it nearly impossible to manipulate.

This mechanism is brilliant because it taps into human nature—the desire for personal gain—to create something greater. Bitcoin doesn’t rely on altruism or good intentions. It relies on rational self-interest, which drives individuals to act in their own favor, ultimately benefiting the entire community.

The World Works the Same Way

This concept isn’t unique to Bitcoin. The world is full of examples where personal interest leads to collective progress. When an entrepreneur creates a new product, they do so to make money, but in the process, they create jobs, advance technology, and improve people’s lives. When a scientist works on a breakthrough, they may be driven by fame or financial reward, but the result is often a discovery that changes the world. Even in everyday life, when we buy products or services for our own convenience, we support the economy and encourage innovation.

Of course, self-interest doesn’t always lead to positive outcomes. Technologies created with good intentions can be misused—for example, in wars or for fraud. But even these negative aspects don’t halt progress. Competition and the drive for survival push humanity to find solutions, learn from mistakes, and keep moving forward. This is the cycle of development: individual self-interest fuels innovations that make the world more technological and connected.

Nature and Bitcoin: The DNA Parallel

To understand this mechanism, let’s look to nature. Consider the cells in a living organism. Each cell operates independently, following the instructions encoded in its DNA—a code that dictates its actions. The cell doesn’t “know” about the entire body, nor does it care. It simply strives for its own survival, performing its functions. But when billions of cells work together, following this code, they create something greater—a living organism.

Bitcoin is like the DNA of a decentralized system. Each miner is like a cell, following the “instructions” of the protocol to survive (profit). They don’t think about the entire network, only their own reward. But when all miners act together, they create something bigger—a global, secure, and resilient financial system. This is the beauty of decentralization: everyone acts for themselves, but the result is collective.

Selfishness and Humanity

Humans are no different from cells. Each of us wants to thrive—to have security, comfort, and success. But in pursuing these goals, we contribute to society. A teacher educates because they want to earn a living, but they shape future generations. An engineer builds a bridge because it’s their job, but it facilitates transportation for millions. Even in our personal lives, when we care for our families, we strengthen the social bonds that make society stronger.

Of course, there are exceptions—people who act solely for personal gain without regard for consequences. But even these outliers don’t change the bigger picture. Selfishness, when channeled correctly, is a driver of progress. Bitcoin is proof of this—a technology that turns personal interest into global innovation.

Bitcoin is more than just a cryptocurrency; it’s a mirror of human nature and the way the world works. Its design harnesses selfishness to create something sustainable and valuable. Just like cells in a body or people in society, Bitcoin miners work for themselves but contribute to something greater. It’s a reminder that even in our pursuit of personal gain, we can make the world a better place—as long as we follow the right “code.”