@ eac63075:b4988b48

Companies like Meta (formerly Facebook) and Twitter (now X) control platforms that have become the main channels of communication for millions of people worldwide. At the center of this discussion are figures like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, whose recent actions raise serious questions about freedom of speech, censorship, and political manipulation. --- <https://fountain.fm/episode/VzJItfySZ8z6417prHyD> --- Recently, a public letter written by Mark Zuckerberg revealed how the U.S. government, under Joe Biden’s administration, pressured Facebook to censor information during the COVID-19 pandemic. The controversy involves, among other topics, the censorship of content related to Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, during the height of the laptop scandal. This revelation raises questions about the role these platforms play in spreading or withholding information, as well as the direct impact this has on democracy. ## **Meta and Censorship: Zuckerberg's Letter** In his letter, Zuckerberg admitted that Facebook was pressured by the Biden administration to suppress information about the pandemic and the Hunter Biden case, something he now claims to regret. This has sparked heated debate about how far social media should go in yielding to governmental pressure. Many see this as a threat to freedom of speech, while others argue that this censorship was necessary to control misinformation. The issue here is not just about government pressure, but the fact that Facebook, as a global platform with billions of users, holds unparalleled power to shape narratives. When a platform decides what is “acceptable” or “truthful,” it directly influences public perception and opinion formation, especially during critical moments like an election. Zuckerberg, in his letter, seems to be trying to salvage his image, but the damage has already been done. The admission that Facebook collaborated with the government to suppress certain information raises doubts about the platform’s impartiality and its commitment to free speech. ## **Elon Musk and Free Speech on X** Meanwhile, Elon Musk, now in control of Twitter, renamed X, has promised to transform the platform into a space for free expression. However, the reality seems more complex. Musk claims that X should be a place where all voices can be heard, regardless of political or ideological alignment. Yet, this promise has proven difficult to fulfill in practice. X continues to ban users and censor content, especially in countries with authoritarian governments like India and Turkey. This creates a dichotomy: on the one hand, Musk advocates for unrestricted free speech, but on the other, he complies with censorship requests from these regimes. This raises questions about Musk’s true intentions and the extent to which he is willing to uphold his principles when the platform faces international pressure. Moreover, Musk has used X as a political platform, especially in support of former President Donald Trump. The reinstatement of Trump’s account, banned during the Capitol insurrection, has raised further suspicions that Musk is turning X into a tool of political power. For many, this represents a significant risk to the neutrality of digital platforms. ## **The Cambridge Analytica Scandal and the Risk of Political Manipulation** The discussion of censorship and free speech on social media brings up a case that shocked the world a few years ago: the Cambridge Analytica scandal. In 2015, this British company was accused of using personal data from millions of Facebook users to manipulate elections, including the Brexit referendum and Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential election. Although Cambridge Analytica was dissolved after the scandal, its legacy remains. Big Tech companies still have access to vast amounts of user data, and the power this grants them is alarming. Companies like Meta and X could, in theory, directly influence election outcomes by manipulating algorithms to promote certain narratives or suppress others. This scenario raises crucial questions: to what extent can we trust these platforms to act impartially? Are they truly committed to free speech, or are they using their power to shape the political future of the world according to their own interests? ## **The Pablo Marçal Case and Manipulation in Brazil** In Brazil, a recent example that illustrates the complexity of the relationship between social media and political power is the case of coach Pablo Marçal. Marçal, who built a considerable following, became involved in controversies related to using his influence to manipulate public opinion. Recently, it was revealed that X hired the renowned law firm Pinheiro Neto to defend Marçal’s continued presence on the platform, even after controversies. This move raises concerns about the selective enforcement of social media’s own rules. Why are some influencers protected while others are summarily banned? Marçal’s influence, particularly among conservative voters in Brazil, is undeniable, and the public defense of his account on X suggests that more is at stake than just free speech. ## **The Future of Social Media and Democracy** What we are witnessing is the rise of a new era where social media plays a central role in global politics. Control over the flow of information lies in the hands of a few giant companies, and the decisions of their leaders—whether Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, or others—can have a profound impact on elections, governments, and democracies. This raises legitimate concerns about the future of democracy in a world where private platforms have the power to control public discourse. Big Tech censorship, often disguised as “misinformation control,” can easily become a tool for manipulation. For citizens, this means being vigilant and critical about the information they receive on social media. Freedom of expression must be defended, but we also need to question who is behind these platforms and what their true motivations are. Trust in social media is at stake, and the future of democracy may depend on how we decide to deal with this unprecedented power. ## **Conclusion** Recent revelations about Zuckerberg’s involvement in censorship and Musk’s use of X to promote a political agenda highlight the urgent need for transparency in social media platforms. As these companies become increasingly influential in the global political arena, the public must be aware of the risks and actively engage in the debate about the future of free speech and democracy.

@ c69b71dc:426ba763

## Chef's notes This cashew blue cheese is a true plant-based delight, delivering the rich, tangy flavours you’d expect from traditional blue cheeses like Roquefort or Gorgonzola. The fermentation process, with the help of «Penicillium Roqueforti», creates a beautifully marbled, creamy cheese that’s both bold and complex. It’s a labor of love that rewards your patience with an unforgettable vegan cheese experience! Whether enjoyed on crackers, in salads, or simply on its own, this cheese will elevate any dish with its unique flavour profile. Note 1: For this recipe you need parchment paper, a potent blender, glass jars with lid and two cheesecloths. Note 2: Always use very clean tools, and avoid touching with your fingers or tasting with them while working on the cheese! ## Details - ⏲️ Prep time: 4-5 weeks - 🍳 Cook time: 0 - 🍽️ Servings: Two small cheese loaves (2x 10-12 cm diameter) ## Ingredients - 300g raw cashews - 3 tbsp water - 3 tbsp kefir, kombucha or rejuvelac - 2 tbsp coconut oil (raw, unrefined) - 1-4 capsules vegan probiotics - 1/2 tsp Himalayan salt (iodine-free, no additives) - 1/16 tsp «Penicillium Roqueforti» (blue cheese mold culture) ## Directions 1. Day 1: Soak 300g of cashews overnight in water. 2. Day 2: Rinse the soaked cashews thoroughly and let them drain well. 3. In a high-speed blender, combine the cashews, 3 tbsp of water, 3 tbsp kefir or rejuvelac, and 2 tbsp coconut oil. Blend until the mixture is smooth and creamy. 4. Add 1-4 capsules of vegan probiotics, 1/2 tsp Himalayan salt (free of iodine and additives), and blend again briefly. 5. Add a pinch (about 1/16 tsp) of «Penicillium Roqueforti» powder (blue cheese culture) and give it another quick mix. 6. Transfer the cashew mixture to a glass container, leaving the lid lightly on top (do not seal it completely) and store in a warm place, ideally in your kitchen, for 24 hours to ferment. 7. Day 3: Divide the fermented cashew mixture into two smaller glass containers lined with cheesecloth. Press the mixture down firmly to eliminate air pockets. 8. Store in a cool place (12-14°C / 53-57°F), ideally in a wine fridge. 9. Day 4: Remove the cheese from the containers, take off the cheesecloth, and turn the cheese onto parchment paper. 10. Sprinkle salt all over the cheese, ensuring it is evenly coated. 11. Cover the cheese with larger glass bowls, ensuring that air can flow from underneath, and return to the wine fridge or the cool storage area. 12. Days 4-7: Turn the cheese daily onto fresh parchment paper to maintain its texture. 13. Day 7 or 8: Pierce the cheese with a thicker wooden skewer to create holes, allowing oxygen to reach the center, encouraging the blue mold to grow throughout the cheese, not just on the surface. 14. Alternatively, crumble the cheese completely and then press it back into shape to ensure oxygen distribution. 15. Days 8 toaround 12 or 15: Once the blue mold has fully developed around and inside the cheese, wrap the cheese in parchment paper, place it in a wooden cheese box, and then wrap it in a cloth bag. 16. Transfer to a regular fridge to age for another 2-3 weeks or even several months, depending on your desired strength of flavour.

@ aa8de34f:a6ffe696

\`\`\` Technion - Israel Institute of Technology\ Foundations of Quantum Mechanics\ Date: 2024-08-25 Submitted by: Max Peter \`\`\` \# Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness: Strange Bedfellows *"Does consciousness play a special role in quantum mechanics?"* ## Abstract Could there be a connection between quantum mechanics and consciousness? This Question has fascinated scholars for years. Some believe that consciousness plays a role in how we interpret quantum theory. This essay explores whether consciousness is a fundamental component of quantum mechanics, addressing both the "hard problem" of consciousness and the various interpretations of quantum theory. By critically analyzing arguments from prominent figures like David Chalmers and Barry Loewer, the essay argues that while consciousness presents a significant challenge in understanding reality, current quantum theories may not provide the final answers. Instead, the *"hard problem"* of consciousness could be the unresolved issue that quantum mechanics needs to address, making it the *"elephant in the room"* that scientists often avoid. ## 1. Introduction The relationship between quantum mechanics and consciousness is one of the most intriguing and contentious debates in modern science and philosophy. Quantum mechanics, the physics of the very small, has upended our classical understanding of the universe, introducing phenomena such as superposition, entanglement, and wavefunction collapse that defy intuition. Simultaneously, consciousness - the subjective experience of being aware - remains one of the most profound mysteries in science, famously described by David Chalmers (1995) as the "hard problem." The intersection of these two enigmatic fields has led to the proposal that consciousness may play a special role in quantum mechanics, particularly in the process of wavefunction collapse, where observation seems to determine physical reality. This essay explores the question: Does consciousness play a special role in quantum mechanics? Advocates of this idea, such as Wigner and Stapp, have argued that consciousness is not merely an observer in quantum mechanics but an active participant that influences quantum events. However, this view is not without its critics. Many physicists and philosophers, including Barry Loewer, argue that connecting consciousness to quantum mechanics is speculative and unsupported by empirical evidence. Despite these criticisms, the possibility that consciousness could be the "elephant in the room" that quantum mechanics needs to address remains an open question. This essay will explore the various interpretations of quantum mechanics that engage with or avoid the issue of consciousness and will argue that the hard problem of consciousness is maybe a vital, yet often ignored, aspect of a better understanding of quantum physics. ## 2. The Basics of Quantum Mechanics Quantum mechanics is the branch of physics that deals with the behavior of particles at the smallest scale - atoms and subatomic particles. It is governed by principles that are vastly different from the deterministic laws of classical physics. One of the foundational concepts of quantum mechanics is the wavefunction, a mathematical function that describes the probabilities of a particle's properties, such as position and momentum. Unlike in classical mechanics, where a particle has a definite position and momentum, in quantum mechanics, these properties are described by a probability distribution. One of the most famous principles of quantum mechanics is superposition, which states that a particle can exist in multiple states simultaneously until it is observed. This is famously illustrated by Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, where a cat in a box is simultaneously alive and dead until the box is opened, and an observation is made. Another critical concept is entanglement, where particles become linked, so the state of one particle instantaneously affects the state of another, regardless of the distance between them. The wavefunction collapse is perhaps the most perplexing aspect of quantum mechanics. When a quantum system is observed, the wavefunction collapses, and the system settles into a definite state. This raises the question: What causes the wavefunction to collapse? Is it the act of measurement itself, or does consciousness play a role in this process? The measurement problem in quantum mechanics has led some to propose that consciousness is necessary for wavefunction collapse, thus connecting the two fields in a profound way. ## 3. The Hard Problem of Consciousness David Chalmers (1995) famously distinguished between the "easy" and "hard" problems of consciousness. The easy problems involve explaining the cognitive functions and processes that underlie perception, memory, and behavior. These problems, while challenging, are considered solvable through the standard methods of cognitive science and neuroscience. The hard problem, on the other hand, is the problem of subjective experience - why and how physical processes in the brain give rise to the rich inner life of sensation, emotion, and awareness. This subjective aspect of consciousness, also known as qualia (Latin “of what sort”), remains resistant to reductive explanation. Chalmers (1995) argues that the hard problem of consciousness cannot be solved by merely explaining the functions of the brain. There is a gap between physical processes and the experience of those processes - a gap that traditional science struggles to bridge. This has led some theorists to propose that consciousness might be fundamental to the universe, rather than a byproduct of physical processes. This idea has significant implications for quantum mechanics, particularly in the context of the measurement problem. If consciousness is indeed fundamental, it may play a direct role in the collapse of the wavefunction, linking the hard problem of consciousness with the mysteries of quantum mechanics. ## 4. Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics The idea that consciousness plays a special role in quantum mechanics is most closely associated with the Consciousness Collapse Proposal (CCP). This theory suggests that the act of observation by a conscious being is what causes the wavefunction to collapse into a definite state. This view was championed by physicists like Eugene Wigner and Henry Stapp, who argued that consciousness must be integrated into our understanding of quantum mechanics. According to Wigner, consciousness is the ultimate cause of the wavefunction collapse, implying that the physical world does not exist in a definite state until it is observed by a conscious mind (Wigner, 1967). However, the CCP is not without its critics. Barry Loewer (2003) argues that the connection between consciousness and quantum mechanics is speculative and lacks empirical support. He contends that while quantum mechanics may involve strange and counterintuitive phenomena, there is no evidence that consciousness plays a direct role in these processes. Loewer suggests that alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber (GRW) theory and Bohmian mechanics, offer explanations for wavefunction collapse that do not require the involvement of consciousness (Loewer, 2003). Despite these criticisms, the idea that consciousness could be fundamental to quantum mechanics remains a compelling possibility. The CCP aligns with the notion that consciousness is not just an epiphenomenon of brain activity but a fundamental aspect of reality. This perspective challenges the materialist view that physical processes alone are sufficient to explain all phenomena, including consciousness. Instead, it suggests that consciousness might be the key to resolving the mysteries of quantum mechanics. ## 5. The Elephant in the Room: The Hard Problem of Consciousness in Quantum Mechanics The central thesis of this section is that the hard problem of consciousness, as articulated by David Chalmers (1995), represents an unresolved issue in the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and may be the "elephant in the room" that most scientific theories attempt to avoid. While many physicists adopt materialist interpretations of quantum mechanics that sidestep the issue of consciousness, it is increasingly difficult to ignore the possibility that consciousness might play a fundamental role in the behaviour of quantum systems. This section will argue that the hard problem of consciousness is not just a philosophical curiosity but a crucial component in understanding the true nature of quantum mechanics. ### Consciousness as a Fundamental Aspect of Reality The hard problem of consciousness refers to the challenge of explaining how and why physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experience—what it feels like to perceive, think, and be aware. Chalmers (1995) argues that the hard problem is distinct from the "easy" problems of explaining cognitive functions and behaviours because it involves the subjective nature of experience, which cannot be fully captured by a purely physical explanation. This problem is central to the question of whether consciousness plays a role in quantum mechanics because it challenges the materialist assumption that everything can be explained in terms of physical processes. One argument in favour of consciousness playing a fundamental role in quantum mechanics is that it may help solve the measurement problem—the question of why and how the wavefunction collapses when a measurement is made. According to the Consciousness Collapse Proposal (CCP), the collapse of the wavefunction occurs when a conscious observer interacts with the system, suggesting that consciousness is a necessary component of reality. This idea challenges the traditional view of quantum mechanics as a purely objective, observer-independent theory and implies that consciousness is more than just a byproduct of physical processes (Stapp, 1993). In this view, consciousness is not simply an epiphenomenon of the brain but a fundamental aspect of reality that interacts with the physical world in a way that science has yet to fully understand. This perspective aligns with certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the von Neumann-Wigner interpretation, which posits that consciousness plays an active role in the collapse of the wavefunction. While this interpretation remains controversial, it highlights the possibility that consciousness could be integral to the functioning of the universe at a fundamental level. ### Avoidance of the Hard Problem in Mainstream Science Despite the compelling nature of the hard problem, mainstream scientific interpretations of quantum mechanics often avoid addressing consciousness directly. For example, the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics sidesteps the issue of wavefunction collapse altogether by proposing that all possible outcomes of a quantum measurement exist simultaneously in parallel worlds. In this framework, there is no need to invoke consciousness as a factor in determining the outcome of a quantum event, as every possible outcome is realized in some branch of the multiverse (Everett, 1957). While MWI elegantly avoids the problem of collapse, it does so at the cost of ignoring the role of consciousness, which remains unexplained. Similarly, the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber (GRW) theory offers an objective collapse model that introduces spontaneous collapses of the wavefunction, independent of observation or consciousness. This theory attempts to solve the measurement problem without invoking consciousness by suggesting that wavefunctions collapse randomly after a certain threshold is reached (Ghirardi, Rimini, & Weber, 1986). Although GRW provides a mathematically consistent solution to the measurement problem, it does not address the hard problem of consciousness, leaving the nature of subjective experience untouched. These interpretations reflect a broader tendency in science to focus on solving the technical aspects of quantum mechanics while avoiding the deeper philosophical questions about consciousness. This approach is understandable, given that the hard problem of consciousness is notoriously difficult to address within the framework of materialist science. However, by sidestepping the issue, these interpretations may be missing a crucial piece of the puzzle. If consciousness is indeed fundamental to the collapse of the wavefunction, as proponents of the CCP suggest, then any interpretation that ignores consciousness is inherently incomplete. ### The Case for Addressing Consciousness in Quantum Mechanics Given the limitations of current interpretations of quantum mechanics, there is a strong case to be made for addressing the hard problem of consciousness directly. One of the key challenges in integrating consciousness into quantum mechanics is the lack of empirical evidence linking consciousness to wavefunction collapse. Critics like Barry Loewer (2003) argue that the CCP is speculative and lacks the rigorous experimental support needed to be taken seriously as a scientific theory. This criticism is valid, as science requires empirical validation to support theoretical claims. However, the absence of empirical evidence does not necessarily invalidate the idea that consciousness could play a role in quantum mechanics. The lack of direct evidence may simply reflect the limitations of current experimental methods, which are not yet sophisticated enough to test the relationship between consciousness and quantum phenomena. Furthermore, the hard problem of consciousness remains unresolved by conventional science, suggesting that new approaches may be needed to explore the connection between consciousness and the physical world. In response to critics, proponents of the CCP could argue that quantum mechanics itself has a long history of challenging conventional notions of reality. The very existence of phenomena like entanglement and superposition defies classical logic and suggests that our understanding of the universe is incomplete. If consciousness is indeed fundamental to the fabric of reality, then it is possible that it plays a role in these quantum phenomena in ways that we do not yet fully understand. Rather than dismissing the CCP as speculative, it may be more productive to consider it as a potential avenue for further research, one that could ultimately lead to a deeper understanding of both consciousness and quantum mechanics. ## 6. Personal Viewpoint: Consciousness as a Vital Component in Quantum Mechanics In my view, the hard problem of consciousness is not just an interesting philosophical challenge but a vital issue that must be addressed if we are to fully understand quantum mechanics. The reluctance of many scientists to engage with the hard problem is understandable, given the difficulty of the question and the lack of empirical evidence. However, this avoidance may be preventing us from making significant progress in understanding the true nature of reality. I believe that the hard problem of consciousness represents a fundamental gap in our understanding of the universe - one that cannot be ignored if we are to develop a complete theory of quantum mechanics. While alternative interpretations like the GRW theory and the Many Worlds Interpretation offer solutions to the technical problems of quantum mechanics, they do so by avoiding the deeper question of consciousness. This approach, while pragmatic, may ultimately prove to be a dead end if consciousness is indeed integral to the behaviour of quantum systems. Addressing the hard problem of consciousness in the context of quantum mechanics requires a willingness to think beyond the current boundaries of science and to explore new theoretical frameworks that integrate consciousness into our understanding of the physical world. This may involve revisiting ideas like the Consciousness Collapse Proposal or developing entirely new theories that link consciousness with quantum phenomena in ways that we have not yet imagined. At the same time, it is important to approach this question with a critical and balanced perspective. While the idea that consciousness plays a role in quantum mechanics is intriguing, it is essential to remain open to alternative explanations and to demand rigorous empirical evidence to support any claims. The history of science is filled with theories that seemed promising but ultimately proved to be incorrect, and we must be careful not to fall into the trap of speculation without evidence. ## Conclusion In Summary, I believe that the hard problem of consciousness is the *"elephant in the room"* that quantum mechanics needs to address. While traditional interpretations of quantum theory have tried to solve the measurement problem without involving consciousness it might be ignoring a part of reality. By blending the matter of consciousness into quantum mechanics we could potentially gain a comprehensive view of the universe - one that appreciates both the enigmatic nature of subjective experiences and the elegant mathematics of some quantum mechanics theories. Even though this viewpoint is speculative and needs investigation it presents a glimpse into a future where consciousness and quantum mechanics are seen as interconnected elements of existence. ### References \- CHALMERS, D. J. (1995). FACING UP TO THE PROBLEM OF CONSCIOUSNESS. JOURNAL OF CONSCIOUSNESS STUDIES, 2(3), 200-219. \- EVERETT, H. (1957). “RELATIVE STATE” FORMULATION OF QUANTUM MECHANICS. REVIEWS OF MODERN PHYSICS, 29(3), 454-462. \- GHIRARDI, G. C., RIMINI, A., & WEBER, T. (1986). UNIFIED DYNAMICS FOR MICROSCOPIC AND MACROSCOPIC SYSTEMS. PHYSICAL REVIEW D, 34(2), 470-491. \- LOEWER, B. (2003). CONSCIOUSNESS AND QUANTUM THEORY: STRANGE BEDFELLOWS. \- STAPP, H. P. (1993). MIND, MATTER, AND QUANTUM MECHANICS. SPRINGER.

@ 4ba8e86d:89d32de4

Governos do mundo industrial, seus gigantes cansados ​​de carne e aço, venho do ciberespaço, a nova casa da mente. Em nome do futuro, peço que no passado nos deixe em paz. Você não é bem vindo entre nós. Nem você exerce qualquer soberania sobre o lugar onde nos encontramos. Não elegemos nenhum governo, nem pretendemos tê-lo, por isso dirijo-me a vocês sem outra autoridade senão aquela com que sempre fala a liberdade. Declaro que o espaço social global que estamos construindo é independente por natureza das tiranias que você procura impor a nós. Você não tem o direito moral de nos governar, nem possui métodos para fazer cumprir sua lei que devemos realmente temer. Os governos obtêm seus justos poderes do consentimento daqueles que são governados. Você não pediu nem recebeu o nosso. Nós também não convidamos você. Você não nos conhece, nem conhece o nosso mundo. O ciberespaço não está dentro de suas fronteiras. Não pense que você pode construí-lo, como se fosse um projeto de construção pública. Você não pode. É um ato natural que cresce a partir de nossas ações coletivas. Você não participou de nossa grande conversa coletiva, nem criou a riqueza de nossos mercados. Você não conhece nossa cultura, nossa ética ou os códigos não escritos que já fornecem à nossa sociedade mais ordem do que o que poderia ser obtido por qualquer uma de suas imposições. Você proclama que há problemas entre nós que precisa resolver. Você usa isso como uma desculpa para invadir nossos limites. Muitos desses problemas não existem. Onde houver conflitos reais, erros, nós os identificaremos e resolveremos por nossos próprios meios. Estamos criando nosso próprio contrato social. Essa autoridade será criada de acordo com as condições do nosso mundo, não a sua. Nosso mundo é diferente. O ciberespaço é composto de transações, relacionamentos e pensamento em si, que se espalham como uma onda silenciosa na web de nossas comunicações. Nosso mundo está ao mesmo tempo em todo lugar e lugar nenhum, mas não é onde os corpos vivem. Estamos criando um mundo no qual todos possam entrar, sem privilégios ou preconceitos devido à raça, poder econômico, força militar ou local de nascimento. Estamos criando um mundo em que qualquer pessoa, em qualquer lugar, possa expressar suas crenças, não importa quão únicas sejam, sem medo de ser coagida ao silêncio ou à conformidade. Seus conceitos legais de propriedade, expressão, identidade, movimento e contexto não se aplicam a nós. Eles são baseados na matéria. Não há problema aqui. Nossas identidades não têm corpo; portanto, diferentemente de você, não podemos obter ordem por coerção física. Acreditamos que nossa autoridade emanará da moralidade, do interesse próprio progressivo e do bem comum. Nossas identidades podem ser distribuídas por várias jurisdições. A única lei que todas as nossas culturas reconheceriam é a Regra de Ouro. Esperamos ansiosamente desenvolver nossas soluções específicas sobre essa base. Mas não podemos aceitar as soluções que você está tentando impor. Hoje, na América, você criou uma lei, a Lei de Reforma das Telecomunicações, que repudia sua própria Constituição e insulta os sonhos de Jefferson, Washington, Mill, Madison, DeToqueville e Brandeis. Esses sonhos devem renascer em nós agora. Você tem medo de seus próprios filhos, pois eles são nativos em um mundo onde você sempre será imigrante. Ao recear, confia à sua burocracia responsabilidades parentais que não pode ser covarde. Em nosso mundo, todos os sentimentos e expressões da humanidade, do mais vil ao mais angélico, fazem parte de um único todo, a conversa global de bits. Não podemos separar o ar que sufoca daquele em que as asas batem. Na China, Alemanha, França, Rússia, Cingapura, Itália e Estados Unidos, você está tentando evitar o vírus da liberdade, estabelecendo postos de guarda nas fronteiras do ciberespaço. Eles podem impedir o contágio por um curto período de tempo, mas não funcionarão em um mundo que em breve será coberto pela mídia transmitida por bits. Suas indústrias de informação cada vez mais obsoletas se perpetuariam propondo leis, nos Estados Unidos e em outros lugares, que reivindicam a propriedade da palavra em todo o mundo. Essas leis declarariam que as idéias são outro produto industrial, menos nobre que o ferro enferrujado. Em nosso mundo, tudo o que a mente humana pode criar pode ser reproduzido e distribuído infinitamente, sem nenhum custo. A transferência global de pensamento não precisa mais ser realizada por suas fábricas. Essas medidas cada vez mais hostis e colonialistas nos colocam na mesma situação em que estavam aqueles amantes da liberdade e da autodeterminação que tiveram que lutar contra a autoridade de um poder distante e ignorante. Devemos declarar nossos "eus" virtuais imunes à sua soberania, embora continuemos a consentir com seu poder sobre nossos corpos. Vamos nos espalhar por todo o planeta para que ninguém possa aprisionar nossos pensamentos. Criaremos uma civilização da mente no ciberespaço. Que seja mais humano e bonito do que o mundo que seus governos criaram antes. Davos, Suíça, até 8 de fevereiro de 1996 John Perry Barlow

@ eac63075:b4988b48

In this botcast, we explore how technology is solving one of the biggest challenges faced by DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations): vote fraud. Learn how Vitalik Buterin and other experts from Cornell University are leading innovation using Zero-Knowledge Proofs and Proof of Work (PoW) to ensure security and privacy in blockchain voting systems. You will discover how these technologies combat practices like token renting and lending, preventing vote manipulation in DAOs. The video also covers the importance of dedicated hardware to increase the integrity of digital elections. --- Listen to the Podcast: <https://wavlake.com/episode/bdb2850b-49b4-45f6-9a00-d310e29f4528> --- Table of Contents: **Source:** YouTube Transcript - Morning Crypto (Timestamped Excerpts) **I. Introduction and Context (0:00:00 - 0:02:37)** - This section sets the stage by briefly discussing a common problem in Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs): fraudulent voting practices. - It highlights the issue of individuals manipulating voting systems by borrowing, renting, or delegating tokens to influence decision-making within DAOs. **II. Introducing Complete Knowledge and the Proposed Solution (0:02:37 - 0:03:39)** - Introduces a potential solution developed by Vitalik Buterin and researchers from Cornell University, utilizing Zero-Knowledge Proofs to address the challenge of fraudulent voting in DAOs. - Explains that the proposed solution involves a dedicated hardware or wallet system that verifies voting rights without revealing the user's private key, preventing token manipulation. **III. Deep Dive into Complete Knowledge with "Ger" (0:05:54 - 0:07:57)** - This section features "Ger," a voice assistant, who explains Complete Knowledge as a cryptographic innovation. - Ger describes how Complete Knowledge allows users to prove possession of information, like a private key, without revealing the information itself. - The section emphasizes how Complete Knowledge enhances security and privacy in digital identity and voting systems. **IV. Proof of Work and ASICs for Enhanced Security (0:07:57 - 0:09:05)** - Examines the potential of using Proof of Work (PoW), the consensus mechanism behind Bitcoin, in conjunction with Complete Knowledge. - Explains how PoW can act as a mechanism to further ensure that a specific secret or key is held by a user without requiring the user to reveal it. - Discusses the use of Application-Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs) for performing the computational tasks required for PoW and Complete Knowledge verification. **V. Practical Implementation and Conclusion (0:09:05 - 0:10:25)** - Highlights the development of a demo ASIC by the researchers, showcasing the practical application of their proposed solution. - Emphasizes the potential of this technology to prevent fraudulent voting practices by requiring a user to generate proof of their voting rights via this specialized ASIC. - Concludes with a message emphasizing the importance of verifiable knowledge and its implications for privacy and security in the digital age. --- Reference: - <https://eprint.iacr.org/2023/044> - <https://medium.com/initc3org/complete-knowledge-eecdda172a81>

@ 1bda7e1f:bb97c4d9

**Tldr** - Nostr comes with integrated Bitcoin payments called zaps - It’s possible to set up a self-custodial wallet that you host yourself, plus - Add all kinds of bells and whistles, like phone app and browser plugin - The software I’m using is Albyhub and Phoenixd, deployed with Docker to a cheap VPS - I can now receive payments to my Lightning Address rodbishop@getalby.com **Payments on Nostr** One of the great features of Nostr is integrated payments. This feature integrates financial transactions directly into the social network, as a seamless part of using the network. You can get paid by and pay anyone on the network, to or from anywhere in the world, and for any reason, in a way that is instant and nearly free. The payments get to be instant and global and free because they are made in Bitcoin, using the Bitcoin payments network called The Lightning Network. Per Bitcoin, payments are denominated in satoshis (sats). A sat is a one-hundred-millionth of a Bitcoin– US$1 is about 1,700 sats at the time of writing. Making a payment like this on Nostr is called a “zap” and usually indicated with a lightning bolt symbol (you are getting “zapped by lightning”). You might say to your friend ”I'll zap you 1,700 sats”. This unlocks all kinds of interesting things that are not possible with other social networks, like - “value for value”–A publisher publishes something of value and you can tip them if you like it - Payments between friends–Nostr can do everything that Cash App and Venmo can do, right down to splitting payments to multiple recipients - Payments for creators–you can sell or pay to access premium content similar to any kind of paywall site like Patreon or Substack - Payments to AIs–you can pay for automated AI-based services including for translation, image generation, or creating custom curated social media feeds - All other kinds of ecommerce–you can sell or buy anything you want similar to Gumtree or Facebook marketplace Every Nostr user can have this set up. It's free or nearly free to set up, nearly free to make payments, and some apps like Primal will even set it up for you by default. Moreover it's useful and it's fun. - When you help someone out to receive a little tip for doing so, or - When you get some great advice to show your appreciation in a more meaningful way than a like **Ways to set up lightning for zaps on Nostr** You can get paid in Bitcoin to a lightning address. This looks exactly like an email address except you can make a payment to it from a lightning wallet. Anyone can publish their lightning address on Nostr so that you can pay them. And you can also get your own lightning address on your own Nostr profile so that people can pay you. The lightning address links to a server that’s always active and ready to credit your balance whenever you receive payments. To make that happen at a high level there are two options, either: - Open an account with a custodial lightning provider who will keep an always on server with your wallet on it, live and ready to receive payments for you. Primal does this automatically for you in their Nostr client, or you can use any one of the other popular custodial wallets like Wallet of Satoshi, Zeus, Coinos, or many others - Set up your own self-custodial lightning server that runs on an always-on computer or server, which you can administer yourself Generally using a custodial service will be easier, but comes with the need to trust that third party custodian, and may limit you to pay within their app. For myself I'm going to self host using Albyhub by npub1getal6ykt05fsz5nqu4uld09nfj3y3qxmv8crys4aeut53unfvlqr80nfm, and Phoenixd by Acinq. **Hosting your own lightning server with Albyhub and Phoenixd** Anyone who's experimented with self-sovereign setups for Bitcoin know that historically there's been quite a bit of heavy lifting. My number one favourite feature of what Albyhub and Phoenixd have done together is to create a nearly instant set up with no heavy lifting. I was stunned. For anyone who's used to jumping through hoops with this, it was like magic. You can use Albyhub with any lightning wallet backend, but in my view none are as automatic, and magic, as Phoenixd. Compare the traditional set up with the Albyhub and Phoenixd setup. Traditional– - Set up a Bitcoin core node - Download the entire Bitcoin blockchain (wait several days for it to download) - Set up a Bitcoin lightning node - Purchase payment liquidity to enable payments to the network - On an ongoing basis continue to keep your blockchain in sync with the network - On an ongoing basis manage your inbound and outbound liquidity to your network peers Vs Albyhub and Phoenixd– - No Bitcoin core - No initial block download - Phoenixd provides liquidity for you automatically and by default - Nothing to keep in sync with the network - No liquidity to manage For any normal non-technical user, self-hosting your own lightning node just went from being too hard, to very achievable. **Unpacking the parts** There are a few parts to this set up and there’s a bit of assumed knowledge here, so let’s quickly unpack it - Bitcoin–money for the internet, which enables payments to and from anywhere - Lightning–the main payments network that sits on top of Bitcoin, which makes transactions instantly and with very low fees - Phoenixd–a lightning wallet back-end with special methods for managing liquidity that makes it almost no-touch to set up and manage - Albyhub–a lightning front-end with an easy to-use wallet, and a feature called “Nostr Wallet Connect” (NWC) which connects the wallet to Nostr - AlbyGo–a phone app so you can make payments on your phone - Alby Plugin–a web browser plugin so you can make payments on your browser, and also log into Nostr from your browser (using NIP-07) - NWC–a method for connecting your wallet directly to Nostr apps so that you can spend from your wallet balance without even leaving the app - Lightning Address–an address like an email address where you can receive payments (using LNURLp; Lightning Network URL) I'm going to plug it all together, so that I can pay for anything in any way I like (from NWC, Alby Plugin or Alby Go), and receive payment from anyone (to our Lightning Address), with all funds managed on my own server (hosting Albyhub and Phoenixd). **How to set up Albyhub and Phoenixd** To set this up requires basic command line knowledge, and some experience with Docker. I didn’t have that experience, so I gave ChatGPT the docs on each of Albyhub and Phoenixd and it walked me through the setup. To start with, I got myself a cheap VPS, and installed Docker. Docker then allowed me to deploy Albyhub and Phoenixd as a container. The Albyhub Github contains very helpful readme, here <https://github.com/getAlby/hub> And Phoenixds own docs here <https://phoenix.acinq.co/server> and here <https://github.com/ACINQ/phoenixd> Alby also has a dedicated section to working with Albyhub with Phoenixd backend, here <https://github.com/getAlby/hub/blob/master/scripts/linux-x86_64/phoenixd/README.md> First, install Docker and make sure it is running. Then working with the code on the Albyhub with Phoenixd page– - Get the docker-compose.yml file which will instruct Docker to create the relevant containers, - Create the directories for the files to be stored in - Launch the containers That’s it. Docker will proceed to create the application for you running on port 8080 You can then log in in a web browser and start the setup– - There’s a helpful step-by-step guide to walk you through the set up including to set up a password for your hub - It will ask you to connect your Alby account. I skipped that step as I didn’t have one at the time, I only created one later - If you used the default lightning back-end, Alby will then ask you to buy your first liquidity to enable you to make payments. Or, if you are using Phoenixd, then the step is automatic and you can go right ahead to transfer in some initial funds **Setting up the bells and whistles** That's the hard part done. The next step is add all the little extra pieces that make for a great Nostr experience. Alby Browser Plugin– - Download the Alby Browser Plugin to your web browser and create an account - It will give you a new Nostr and Lightning account by default, and you can replace it - For me I had my own keys already saved with a mnemonic backup, and I wanted to use these. I went to Settings and clicked “Remove Master Key”, then entered the mnemonic backup of my own keys. I also went to Nostr Settings and clicked “Derive from Master Key” to replace the one it generated by default. - Visit Albyhub, and connect the Alby Account - This completes the set up to login and zap with Nostr on any Nostr site Alby Go App - Download the Alby Go App to your phone from your phone’s app store - Vist Albyhub, go to the Alby App Store, and click Alby Go - It will help you to create a connection between your Albyhub and Alby Go Nostr Wallet Connect - You can use the Alby App Store to connect any Nostr app in the same way - Vist Albyhub, go to the Alby App Store, and click on any Nostr App - I used Amethyst, and I was able to create a connection between Amethyst Nostr app and Albyhub, so that when I click the “zap” icon in Amethyst it can automatically spend from my Albyhub wallet without any further clicks Your own Lightning Address - Your Alby Account in your Alby Browser Plugin gives you a Lightning Address by default. It is generated randomly to start with, and you can replace it. - Open the Alby Browser Plugin and visit Settings - Click “Change on [getalby.com](http://getalby.com)” and change it to something that suits you - I changed mine to rodbishop@getalby.com That completes the set up. **Backups** Now that everything is set up, it’s time to make a backup. I already had my Nostr keys as a mnemonic backup from my last article, and I’m using these keys for my Alby Account, so there is nothing new to back up there. But we still need backups for the Albyhub login credentials, and the Phoenixd wallet. When started for the first time, Phoenixd will generate a 12-word mnemonic of its own, which it will use to restore your wallet balance in case of any issue. This recovery phrase is stored in the phoenix folder you created, at \~/.phoenixd/seed.dat. In total, your backups will contain: - Your 12 word mnemonic backup of your Nostr keys, that is also the same master 12 word mnemonic for your Alby account - Your 12 word mnemonic backup for your Phoenixd wallet, that is created by the daemon when it first runs at \~/.phoenixd/seed.dat - Three passwords: 1) Your password for your Alby account, 2) Your password for your Alby Hub, 3) Your password for your Phoenixd (that is hardcoded into the docker-compose.yml) Once these are backed up somewhere safely, you can fully recover your set up if ever anything goes wrong. **Things I did wrong in set up so that you don’t have to** Initially I had some trouble with user permissions. I was able to resolve it by changing the user configuration in the docker-compose.yml. I also had some trouble with the initial funds transfer. In order to test everything without risking significant funds, I made an initial transfer to the hub of 10 satoshis. - The transfer was received immediately, but - The available balance stayed at zero, and - I couldn’t make any payments (insufficient funds) I thought this was a bug in my set up, but it turns out this is a feature of Phoenixd auto-liquidity, that it keeps some initial sats as a payment credit to buy the required lightning channel liquidity. The total cost amounts to on average 1% charge, but it is also front-loaded, and because my payment was so very tiny (10 satoshis worth a fraction of a cent) the payment was entirely front-loaded. I diagnosed this by accessing Phoenixd directly in the cli, and by doing so, I was able to see the balance present, as a fee credit. To check, run– - docker-compose exec albyhub-phoenixd /phoenix/bin/phoenix-cli --http-password=&lt;your-password-here&gt; getbalance And receive a response like this, which shows the credit on the account – - { "balanceSat": 0, "feeCreditSat": 10 } The above command– - accesses the albyhub-phoenixd container “docker-compose exec albyhub-phoenixd”, - then accesses the phoenix-cli application at “/phoenix/bin/phoenix-cli” - and asks the application to “getbalance” Helpful docs– - Phoenixd talks about that fee credit behaviour quite clearly at their own site, here <https://phoenix.acinq.co/server> - They also provide docs on their cli to interact directly with their daemon (rather than using Alby), which you can read here <https://phoenix.acinq.co/server/get-started> I wondered what the total initial amount would be that would be captured as fee credit. Your mileage might vary, but for me: - I transferred in 2,100 sats (about $1.20) - I received a working balance of 775 sats, so I paid 1,325 sats in fees - I then transferred in another 2,100 sats - I received all 2,100 sats (paid no fees at all on the second transaction) All up only a few cents to get started with initial liquidity. **In summary** Nostr has integrated payments that are instant and nearly free, using Satoshis on the Lightning Network. Some Nostr clients come with a wallet set up automatically, and it is quite easy to set up your own self-custody wallet, with all the bells and whistles. I wanted to set up my own self-custody wallet so that I could test and learn the full set up of the system. For this I used Albyhub and Phoenixd, and I deployed it to a cheap VPS using Docker. Once set up, I added all the extra bits so that now– - I can login to Nostr from my web browser with the Alby Browser Plugin - I can make payments from there too, or from the AlbyGo App, or from any Nostr app I like - I can receive payments to my Lightning Address [rodbishop@getalby.com](mailto:rodbishop@getalby.com) And in doing this– - I don’t rely on any third-party custodian to take care of my funds - I had no hard work to install this setup, and expect no ongoing admin to keep it running - With everything set up, the system simply works (so far!) For anyone interested in Nostr or Bitcoin software or technologies, I recommend to go through a set up like this as it really covers the full gamut or the Nostr–Lightning–Bitcoin stack. It’s clear how far this technology has come and how powerful it can get from here. **Up next** - Please let me know if this kind of post is helpful or anything you’d like me to improve or expand upon - For my next post I’ll show how I set up Nostr and lightning addresses at your own domain with Sveltekit and Vercel

@ 4ba8e86d:89d32de4

O aplicativo é desenvolvido por uma comunidade de colaboradores e segue os princípios de código aberto, o que significa que o código-fonte do aplicativo é acessível e pode ser modificado por qualquer pessoa interessada em contribuir para o projeto. O AntennaPod foi lançado pela primeira vez em 2012 como um projeto de código aberto desenvolvido por uma equipe de voluntários. A ideia por trás do aplicativo era criar uma alternativa livre e de código aberto para gerenciar e ouvir podcasts em dispositivos Android. O projeto inicialmente começou como uma bifurcação (fork) do projeto Podtrapper, um aplicativo de podcast para dispositivos BlackBerry. A equipe de desenvolvimento do AntennaPod adaptou o código do Podtrapper para o Android e adicionou novos recursos e funcionalidades. Ao longo dos anos, o AntennaPod passou por várias atualizações e melhorias, com contribuições de desenvolvedores de todo o mundo. A comunidade de código aberto em torno do AntennaPod cresceu e ajudou a moldar o aplicativo, fornecendo feedback, correções de bugs e novos recursos. O AntennaPod se tornasse uma opção flexível e personalizável para o gerenciamento de podcasts no Android. Ele foi projetado para suportar uma ampla variedade de formatos e servidores de podcast, oferecendo aos usuários a liberdade de escolher suas fontes de podcast favoritas. Ele permanece como uma opção popular para os entusiastas de podcasts que buscam uma solução livre e acessível para gerenciar e desfrutar de seu conteúdo de áudio favorito. Aqui estão algumas das principais vantagens do AntennaPod: 1. Livre e de código aberto: O AntennaPod é um software de código aberto, o que significa que o seu código-fonte está disponível para visualização, modificação e contribuição pela comunidade de desenvolvedores. Isso proporciona transparência, segurança e a possibilidade de personalizar o aplicativo de acordo com as necessidades individuais. 2. Sem necessidade de login: Ao contrário de alguns outros aplicativos de podcast, o AntennaPod não requer um login para acessar e gerenciar seus podcasts. Isso oferece praticidade e privacidade aos usuários, pois não é necessário criar uma conta ou compartilhar informações pessoais. 3. Adição de podcasts via RSS: O AntennaPod permite que os usuários adicionem podcasts por meio de feeds RSS. Isso significa que você pode adicionar facilmente seus podcasts favoritos ao copiar e colar o link do feed RSS, sem a necessidade de procurar manualmente ou depender de uma biblioteca restrita. 4. Interface intuitiva: O aplicativo possui uma interface de usuário intuitiva e fácil de usar, com navegação simples e organizada. Isso torna a descoberta, a assinatura e a reprodução de podcasts uma experiência agradável e acessível para todos. 5. Reprodução offline: O AntennaPod permite que você faça o download de episódios de podcast para ouvir offline. Isso é especialmente útil quando você está em movimento, sem conexão à internet ou deseja economizar dados móveis. Você pode baixar seus episódios favoritos e ouvi-los em qualquer lugar, a qualquer momento. 6. Gerenciamento de listas de reprodução: O aplicativo oferece a opção de criar listas de reprodução personalizadas para organizar seus episódios de podcast. Isso permite que você crie uma sequência de reprodução personalizada, reorganize os episódios e gerencie melhor o que deseja ouvir. 7. Controles de reprodução avançados: O AntennaPod oferece uma variedade de recursos avançados de controle de reprodução, como avançar ou retroceder episódios, definir temporizadores de suspensão, pular partes silenciosas e ajustar o volume de reprodução. 8. Personalização de configurações: O aplicativo permite que você personalize várias configurações de acordo com suas preferências. Isso inclui ajustar a velocidade de reprodução dos episódios, configurar notificações, gerenciar downloads automáticos, definir limites de armazenamento e muito mais. 9. Suporte a diferentes idiomas: O AntennaPod suporta podcasts em vários idiomas, o que permite que os usuários descubram e desfrutem de conteúdos em seu idioma preferido. 10. Sincronização com serviços em nuvem: O AntennaPod oferece suporte à sincronização com serviços em nuvem, como o Nextcloud, permitindo que você sincronize seus podcasts e configurações entre vários dispositivos. Isso garante que você possa continuar de onde parou em diferentes dispositivos sem perder seu progresso. Essas são algumas das principais vantagens do AntennaPod. O aplicativo continua sendo desenvolvido e aprimorado pela comunidade de código aberto, trazendo constantemente novos recursos e melhorias para tornar a experiência de audição de podcasts mais completa, personalizável e agradável para os usuários. https://github.com/AntennaPod/AntennaPod https://antennapod.org/

@ e6817453:b0ac3c39

Hey folks, today we're diving into an exciting and emerging topic: personal artificial intelligence (PAI) and its connection to sovereignty, privacy, and ethics. With the rapid advancements in AI, there's a growing interest in the development of personal AI agents that can work on behalf of the user, acting autonomously and providing tailored services. However, as with any new technology, there are several critical factors that shape the future of PAI. Today, we'll explore three key pillars: privacy and ownership, explainability, and bias. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fehgwnSUcqQ?si=nPK7UOFr19BT5ifm" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe> ### 1. Privacy and Ownership: Foundations of Personal AI At the heart of personal AI, much like self-sovereign identity (SSI), is the concept of ownership. For personal AI to be truly effective and valuable, users must own not only their data but also the computational power that drives these systems. This autonomy is essential for creating systems that respect the user's privacy and operate independently of large corporations. In this context, privacy is more than just a feature—it's a fundamental right. Users should feel safe discussing sensitive topics with their AI, knowing that their data won’t be repurposed or misused by big tech companies. This level of control and data ownership ensures that users remain the sole beneficiaries of their information and computational resources, making privacy one of the core pillars of PAI. ### 2. Bias and Fairness: The Ethical Dilemma of LLMs Most of today’s AI systems, including personal AI, rely heavily on large language models (LLMs). These models are trained on vast datasets that represent snapshots of the internet, but this introduces a critical ethical challenge: bias. The datasets used for training LLMs can be full of biases, misinformation, and viewpoints that may not align with a user’s personal values. This leads to one of the major issues in AI ethics for personal AI—how do we ensure fairness and minimize bias in these systems? The training data that LLMs use can introduce perspectives that are not only unrepresentative but potentially harmful or unfair. As users of personal AI, we need systems that are free from such biases and can be tailored to our individual needs and ethical frameworks. Unfortunately, training models that are truly unbiased and fair requires vast computational resources and significant investment. While large tech companies have the financial means to develop and train these models, individual users or smaller organizations typically do not. This limitation means that users often have to rely on pre-trained models, which may not fully align with their personal ethics or preferences. While fine-tuning models with personalized datasets can help, it's not a perfect solution, and bias remains a significant challenge. ### 3. Explainability: The Need for Transparency One of the most frustrating aspects of modern AI is the lack of explainability. Many LLMs operate as "black boxes," meaning that while they provide answers or make decisions, it's often unclear how they arrived at those conclusions. For personal AI to be effective and trustworthy, it must be transparent. Users need to understand how the AI processes information, what data it relies on, and the reasoning behind its conclusions. Explainability becomes even more critical when AI is used for complex decision-making, especially in areas that impact other people. If an AI is making recommendations, judgments, or decisions, it’s crucial for users to be able to trace the reasoning process behind those actions. Without this transparency, users may end up relying on AI systems that provide flawed or biased outcomes, potentially causing harm. This lack of transparency is a major hurdle for personal AI development. Current LLMs, as mentioned earlier, are often opaque, making it difficult for users to trust their outputs fully. The explainability of AI systems will need to be improved significantly to ensure that personal AI can be trusted for important tasks. ### Addressing the Ethical Landscape of Personal AI As personal AI systems evolve, they will increasingly shape the ethical landscape of AI. We’ve already touched on the three core pillars—privacy and ownership, bias and fairness, and explainability. But there's more to consider, especially when looking at the broader implications of personal AI development. Most current AI models, particularly those from big tech companies like Facebook, Google, or OpenAI, are closed systems. This means they are aligned with the goals and ethical frameworks of those companies, which may not always serve the best interests of individual users. Open models, such as Meta's LLaMA, offer more flexibility and control, allowing users to customize and refine the AI to better meet their personal needs. However, the challenge remains in training these models without significant financial and technical resources. There’s also the temptation to use uncensored models that aren’t aligned with the values of large corporations, as they provide more freedom and flexibility. But in reality, models that are entirely unfiltered may introduce harmful or unethical content. It’s often better to work with aligned models that have had some of the more problematic biases removed, even if this limits some aspects of the system’s freedom. The future of personal AI will undoubtedly involve a deeper exploration of these ethical questions. As AI becomes more integrated into our daily lives, the need for privacy, fairness, and transparency will only grow. And while we may not yet be able to train personal AI models from scratch, we can continue to shape and refine these systems through curated datasets and ongoing development. ### Conclusion In conclusion, personal AI represents an exciting new frontier, but one that must be navigated with care. Privacy, ownership, bias, and explainability are all essential pillars that will define the future of these systems. As we continue to develop personal AI, we must remain vigilant about the ethical challenges they pose, ensuring that they serve the best interests of users while remaining transparent, fair, and aligned with individual values. If you have any thoughts or questions on this topic, feel free to reach out—I’d love to continue the conversation!

@ 63e20439:86c3c470

What is one Satishi (sats)? In simple terms there are 100 million satoshis (sats) in one bitcoin. Meaning each satoshi is worth 0.00000001 bitcoin. or one sats is 100 million part of each bitccoin. If you want to shop and earn free sats satsback.com is right place for cashback and loyalty rewards in Satoshies (sats) They work with online stores to help you save in bitcoin whenever you shop online. As soon sats are available in your account you can instantly withdraw it to your lightning address.

@ 47750177:8969e41a

28.0 Release Notes ================== Bitcoin Core version 28.0 is now available from: - 🌐 <https://bitcoincore.org/bin/bitcoin-core-28.0/> - 🧲 <magnet:?xt=urn:btih:e18e92024fc9d4026cf8cdef174f03c24080fd1f&dn=bitcoin-core-28.0&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.coppersurfer.tk%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.opentrackr.org%3A1337%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.torrent.eu.org%3A451%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.leechers-paradise.org%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fexplodie.org%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.bitcoin.sprovoost.nl%3A6969&ws=http://bitcoincore.org/bin/> This release includes new features, various bug fixes and performance improvements, as well as updated translations. Please report bugs using the issue tracker at GitHub: <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues> To receive security and update notifications, please subscribe to: <https://bitcoincore.org/en/list/announcements/join/> How to Upgrade ============== If you are running an older version, shut it down. Wait until it has completely shut down (which might take a few minutes in some cases), then run the installer (on Windows) or just copy over `/Applications/Bitcoin-Qt` (on macOS) or `bitcoind`/`bitcoin-qt` (on Linux). Upgrading directly from a version of Bitcoin Core that has reached its EOL is possible, but it might take some time if the data directory needs to be migrated. Old wallet versions of Bitcoin Core are generally supported. Running Bitcoin Core binaries on macOS requires self signing. ``` cd /path/to/bitcoin-28.0/bin xattr -d com.apple.quarantine bitcoin-cli bitcoin-qt bitcoin-tx bitcoin-util bitcoin-wallet bitcoind test_bitcoin codesign -s - bitcoin-cli bitcoin-qt bitcoin-tx bitcoin-util bitcoin-wallet bitcoind test_bitcoin ``` Compatibility ============== Bitcoin Core is supported and extensively tested on operating systems using the Linux Kernel 3.17+, macOS 11.0+, and Windows 7 and newer. Bitcoin Core should also work on most other UNIX-like systems but is not as frequently tested on them. It is not recommended to use Bitcoin Core on unsupported systems. Notable changes =============== Testnet4/BIP94 support ----- Support for Testnet4 as specified in [BIP94](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0094.mediawiki) has been added. The network can be selected with the `-testnet4` option and the section header is also named `[testnet4]`. While the intention is to phase out support for Testnet3 in an upcoming version, support for it is still available via the known options in this release. (#29775) Windows Data Directory ---------------------- The default data directory on Windows has been moved from `C:\Users\Username\AppData\Roaming\Bitcoin` to `C:\Users\Username\AppData\Local\Bitcoin`. Bitcoin Core will check the existence of the old directory first and continue to use that directory for backwards compatibility if it is present. (#27064) JSON-RPC 2.0 Support -------------------- The JSON-RPC server now recognizes JSON-RPC 2.0 requests and responds with strict adherence to the [specification](https://www.jsonrpc.org/specification). See [JSON-RPC-interface.md](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/JSON-RPC-interface.md#json-rpc-11-vs-20) for details. (#27101) JSON-RPC clients may need to be updated to be compatible with the JSON-RPC server. Please open an issue on GitHub if any compatibility issues are found. libbitcoinconsensus Removal --------------------------- The libbitcoin-consensus library was deprecated in 27.0 and is now completely removed. (#29648) P2P and Network Changes ----------------------- - Previously if Bitcoin Core was listening for P2P connections, either using default settings or via `bind=addr:port` it would always also bind to `127.0.0.1:8334` to listen for Tor connections. It was not possible to switch this off, even if the node didn't use Tor. This has been changed and now `bind=addr:port` results in binding on `addr:port` only. The default behavior of binding to `0.0.0.0:8333` and `127.0.0.1:8334` has not been changed. If you are using a `bind=...` configuration without `bind=...=onion` and rely on the previous implied behavior to accept incoming Tor connections at `127.0.0.1:8334`, you need to now make this explicit by using `bind=... bind=127.0.0.1:8334=onion`. (#22729) - Bitcoin Core will now fail to start up if any of its P2P binds fail, rather than the previous behaviour where it would only abort startup if all P2P binds had failed. (#22729) - UNIX domain sockets can now be used for proxy connections. Set `-onion` or `-proxy` to the local socket path with the prefix `unix:` (e.g. `-onion=unix:/home/me/torsocket`). (#27375) - UNIX socket paths are now accepted for `-zmqpubrawblock` and `-zmqpubrawtx` with the format `-zmqpubrawtx=unix:/path/to/file` (#27679) - Additional "in" and "out" flags have been added to `-whitelist` to control whether permissions apply to inbound connections and/or manual ones (default: inbound only). (#27114) - Transactions having a feerate that is too low will be opportunistically paired with their child transactions and submitted as a package, thus enabling the node to download 1-parent-1-child packages using the existing transaction relay protocol. Combined with other mempool policies, this change allows limited "package relay" when a parent transaction is below the mempool minimum feerate. Topologically Restricted Until Confirmation (TRUC) parents are additionally allowed to be below the minimum relay feerate (i.e., pay 0 fees). Use the `submitpackage` RPC to submit packages directly to the node. Warning: this P2P feature is limited (unlike the `submitpackage` interface, a child with multiple unconfirmed parents is not supported) and not yet reliable under adversarial conditions. (#28970) Mempool Policy Changes ---------------------- - Transactions with version number set to 3 are now treated as standard on all networks (#29496), subject to opt-in Topologically Restricted Until Confirmation (TRUC) transaction policy as described in [BIP 431](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0431.mediawiki). The policy includes limits on spending unconfirmed outputs (#28948), eviction of a previous descendant if a more incentive-compatible one is submitted (#29306), and a maximum transaction size of 10,000vB (#29873). These restrictions simplify the assessment of incentive compatibility of accepting or replacing TRUC transactions, thus ensuring any replacements are more profitable for the node and making fee-bumping more reliable. - Pay To Anchor (P2A) is a new standard witness output type for spending, a newly recognised output template. This allows for key-less anchor outputs, with compact spending conditions for additional efficiencies on top of an equivalent `sh(OP_TRUE)` output, in addition to the txid stability of the spending transaction. N.B. propagation of this output spending on the network will be limited until a sufficient number of nodes on the network adopt this upgrade. (#30352) - Limited package RBF is now enabled, where the proposed conflicting package would result in a connected component, aka cluster, of size 2 in the mempool. All clusters being conflicted against must be of size 2 or lower. (#28984) - The default value of the `-mempoolfullrbf` configuration option has been changed from 0 to 1, i.e. `mempoolfullrbf=1`. (#30493) Updated RPCs ------------ - The `dumptxoutset` RPC now returns the UTXO set dump in a new and improved format. Correspondingly, the `loadtxoutset` RPC now expects this new format in the dumps it tries to load. Dumps with the old format are no longer supported and need to be recreated using the new format to be usable. (#29612) - AssumeUTXO mainnet parameters have been added for height 840,000. This means the `loadtxoutset` RPC can now be used on mainnet with the matching UTXO set from that height. (#28553) - The `warnings` field in `getblockchaininfo`, `getmininginfo` and `getnetworkinfo` now returns all the active node warnings as an array of strings, instead of a single warning. The current behaviour can be temporarily restored by running Bitcoin Core with the configuration option `-deprecatedrpc=warnings`. (#29845) - Previously when using the `sendrawtransaction` RPC and specifying outputs that are already in the UTXO set, an RPC error code of `-27` with the message "Transaction already in block chain" was returned in response. The error message has been changed to "Transaction outputs already in utxo set" to more accurately describe the source of the issue. (#30212) - The default mode for the `estimatesmartfee` RPC has been updated from `conservative` to `economical`, which is expected to reduce over-estimation for many users, particularly if Replace-by-Fee is an option. For users that require high confidence in their fee estimates at the cost of potentially over-estimating, the `conservative` mode remains available. (#30275) - RPC `scantxoutset` now returns 2 new fields in the "unspents" JSON array: `blockhash` and `confirmations`. See the scantxoutset help for details. (#30515) - RPC `submitpackage` now allows 2 new arguments to be passed: `maxfeerate` and `maxburnamount`. See the subtmitpackage help for details. (#28950) Changes to wallet-related RPCs can be found in the Wallet section below. Updated REST APIs ----------------- - Parameter validation for `/rest/getutxos` has been improved by rejecting truncated or overly large txids and malformed outpoint indices via raising an HTTP_BAD_REQUEST "Parse error". These requests were previously handled silently. (#30482, #30444) Build System ------------ - GCC 11.1 or later, or Clang 16.0 or later, are now required to compile Bitcoin Core. (#29091, #30263) - The minimum required glibc to run Bitcoin Core is now 2.31. This means that RHEL 8 and Ubuntu 18.04 (Bionic) are no-longer supported. (#29987) - `--enable-lcov-branch-coverage` has been removed, given incompatibilities between lcov version 1 & 2. `LCOV_OPTS` should be used to set any options instead. (#30192) Updated Settings ---------------- - When running with `-alertnotify`, an alert can now be raised multiple times instead of just once. Previously, it was only raised when unknown new consensus rules were activated. Its scope has now been increased to include all kernel warnings. Specifically, alerts will now also be raised when an invalid chain with a large amount of work has been detected. Additional warnings may be added in the future. (#30058) Changes to GUI or wallet related settings can be found in the GUI or Wallet section below. Wallet ------ - The wallet now detects when wallet transactions conflict with the mempool. Mempool-conflicting transactions can be seen in the `"mempoolconflicts"` field of `gettransaction`. The inputs of mempool-conflicted transactions can now be respent without manually abandoning the transactions when the parent transaction is dropped from the mempool, which can cause wallet balances to appear higher. (#27307) - A new `max_tx_weight` option has been added to the RPCs `fundrawtransaction`, `walletcreatefundedpsbt`, and `send`. It specifies the maximum transaction weight. If the limit is exceeded during funding, the transaction will not be built. The default value is 4,000,000 WU. (#29523) - A new `createwalletdescriptor` RPC allows users to add new automatically generated descriptors to their wallet. This can be used to upgrade wallets created prior to the introduction of a new standard descriptor, such as taproot. (#29130) - A new RPC `gethdkeys` lists all of the BIP32 HD keys in use by all of the descriptors in the wallet. These keys can be used in conjunction with `createwalletdescriptor` to create and add single key descriptors to the wallet for a particular key that the wallet already knows. (#29130) - The `sendall` RPC can now spend unconfirmed change and will include additional fees as necessary for the resulting transaction to bump the unconfirmed transactions' feerates to the specified feerate. (#28979) - In RPC `bumpfee`, if a `fee_rate` is specified, the feerate is no longer restricted to following the wallet's incremental feerate of 5 sat/vb. The feerate must still be at least the sum of the original fee and the mempool's incremental feerate. (#27969) GUI Changes ----------- - The "Migrate Wallet" menu allows users to migrate any legacy wallet in their wallet directory, regardless of the wallets loaded. (gui#824) - The "Information" window now displays the maximum mempool size along with the mempool usage. (gui#825) Low-level Changes ================= Tests ----- - The BIP94 timewarp attack mitigation is now active on the `regtest` network. (#30681) - A new `-testdatadir` option has been added to `test_bitcoin` to allow specifying the location of unit test data directories. (#26564) Blockstorage ------------ - Block files are now XOR'd by default with a key stored in the blocksdir. Previous releases of Bitcoin Core or previous external software will not be able to read the blocksdir with a non-zero XOR-key. Refer to the `-blocksxor` help for more details. (#28052) Chainstate ---------- - The chainstate database flushes that occur when blocks are pruned will no longer empty the database cache. The cache will remain populated longer, which significantly reduces the time for initial block download to complete. (#28280) Dependencies ------------ - The dependency on Boost.Process has been replaced with cpp-subprocess, which is contained in source. Builders will no longer need Boost.Process to build with external signer support. (#28981) Credits ======= Thanks to everyone who directly contributed to this release: - 0xb10c - Alfonso Roman Zubeldia - Andrew Toth - AngusP - Anthony Towns - Antoine Poinsot - Anton A - Ava Chow - Ayush Singh - Ben Westgate - Brandon Odiwuor - brunoerg - bstin - Charlie - Christopher Bergqvist - Cory Fields - crazeteam - Daniela Brozzoni - David Gumberg - dergoegge - Edil Medeiros - Epic Curious - Fabian Jahr - fanquake - furszy - glozow - Greg Sanders - hanmz - Hennadii Stepanov - Hernan Marino - Hodlinator - ishaanam - ismaelsadeeq - Jadi - Jon Atack - josibake - jrakibi - kevkevin - kevkevinpal - Konstantin Akimov - laanwj - Larry Ruane - Lőrinc - Luis Schwab - Luke Dashjr - MarcoFalke - marcofleon - Marnix - Martin Saposnic - Martin Zumsande - Matt Corallo - Matthew Zipkin - Matt Whitlock - Max Edwards - Michael Dietz - Murch - nanlour - pablomartin4btc - Peter Todd - Pieter Wuille - @RandyMcMillan - RoboSchmied - Roman Zeyde - Ryan Ofsky - Sebastian Falbesoner - Sergi Delgado Segura - Sjors Provoost - spicyzboss - StevenMia - stickies-v - stratospher - Suhas Daftuar - sunerok - tdb3 - TheCharlatan - umiumi - Vasil Dimov - virtu - willcl-ark As well as to everyone that helped with translations on [Transifex](https://www.transifex.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/).

@ 592295cf:413a0db9

# Week 30th September Wiki article on the topic. [sPhil] (https://sphil.xyz/) Religion politics philosophy history are critical. They are not objective things. Week of updates for protocol apps, including Gossip, coracle app, nostrmo, nostur and many others. ------- Kind7 Tags: K, emoji,a,others Others threads multi people -------- Show likes as kind 1 This person liked this post. Or this post has three likes in your timeline. The likes I don't know in your timeline really interest you.  ---------- The first book is the bible... Word of Alexandria. I added cyberspace to the difficult things of the protocol ultra brain things. Low brain, middle brain, top brain, ultra. Some alphaama codes .AA u login .AA q stuff .AA q run b .AA q run f .AA q close f high things of alphaama nostr:nevent1qy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uq32amnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k7tcqyqlqu2vwpwax7dj420e75yws7g7vyua9e245c0x73c056gunxchluey4q99 ------------------- Comment: nostr:nevent1qqs8pn0zzhgk5l2raqh736rj3ckm48pfl6r7m72rnz2r2p7lzgmx20gzyqduwzspfzelx9k6x0lrez0j8cl8rtz0lxvqylk8z2ustnfy76jpzqcyqqqqqqgpramhxue69uhkummnw3ezuetfde6kuer6wasku7nfvuh8xurpvdjsjt5rvu ----------- You have to get to the point where you have your community relay. But you have to go down the rabbit hole of relays. General, search, local, inbox outbox, cache. Etc until you get to community relay that is being talked about these days because of NIP 29 "Relay-based Groups". In the end you have to have that table with the various types of relays clearly in your mind. If the user doesn't think about it, who should think about it, who? if I choose the relays? ----------- NIP-100 the world to make community for me. NIP-28 + NIP-72. So you have some structure interoperability with kind1. But the Channel is another kind. You arrange the various channels in the community. No posts need to be approved. It's useless Protocol users are becoming more reddit users or so. I don't want to deal with these people.

@ ec9bd746:df11a9d0

It's intriguing to me how beer prices have changed since 1999. Today, you can buy Braník on sale for 9.90 Kč, so for 100 Kč you get 10 beers. 25 years ago, you'd get 13.5 beers for the same amount. What does that tell us? - **The cost of labor and services has gone up a lot**, but people are willing to pay and even expect a certain level of quality. There are way fewer run-down pubs than before. - **Production has become much more efficient**, so considering inflation and purchasing power, bottled beer is actually cheaper now than it used to be. In 1995, about 30 years ago, bottled and draft beer cost almost the same—around 7 Kč. ([Source in Czech](https://hn.cz/c1-60157680-jak-se-menily-ceny-co-jste-si-mohli-dovolit-v-roce-1995-a-co-dnes)) **So what's the takeaway?** 1. **A wealthy society can afford much pricier services.** 2. **Prices of basic groceries and fast-moving goods are squeezed to the bone.** The best way to gauge real inflation is at the supermarket, where there's no room for messing with margins, stock levels, seasonality, etc. Everything moves fast, competition is huge, and big retailers are relentless. Real estate is pricey due to artificial (or bureaucracy-induced) shortages, but meat, milk, beer, bread, etc., are operating on razor-thin profits. That's why they react so quickly—see point 2.

@ e6817453:b0ac3c39

In the modern world of AI, managing vast amounts of data while keeping it relevant and accessible is a significant challenge, mainly when dealing with large language models (LLMs) and vector databases. One approach that has gained prominence in recent years is integrating vector search with metadata, especially in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) pipelines. Vector search and metadata enable faster and more accurate data retrieval. However, the process of pre- and post-search filtering results plays a crucial role in ensuring data relevance. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BkNqu51et9U?si=lne0jWxdrZPxSgd1" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe> ## The Vector Search and Metadata Challenge In a typical vector search, you create embeddings from chunks of text, such as a PDF document. These embeddings allow the system to search for similar items and retrieve them based on relevance. The challenge, however, arises when you need to combine vector search results with structured metadata. For example, you may have timestamped text-based content and want to retrieve the most relevant content within a specific date range. This is where metadata becomes critical in refining search results. Unfortunately, most vector databases treat metadata as a secondary feature, isolating it from the primary vector search process. As a result, handling queries that combine vectors and metadata can become a challenge, particularly when the search needs to account for a dynamic range of filters, such as dates or other structured data. ## LibSQL and vector search metadata LibSQL is a more general-purpose SQLite-based database that adds vector capabilities to regular data. Vectors are presented as blob columns of regular tables. It makes vector embeddings and metadata a first-class citizen that naturally builds deep integration of these data points. ``` create table if not exists conversation ( id varchar(36) primary key not null, startDate real, endDate real, summary text, vectorSummary F32_BLOB(512) ); ``` It solves the challenge of metadata and vector search and eliminates impedance between vector data and regular structured data points in the same storage. As you can see, you can access vector-like data and start date in the same query. ``` select c.id ,c.startDate, c.endDate, c.summary, vector_distance_cos(c.vectorSummary, vector(${vector})) distance from conversation where ${startDate ? `and c.startDate >= ${startDate.getTime()}` : ''} ${endDate ? `and c.endDate <= ${endDate.getTime()}` : ''} ${distance ? `and distance <= ${distance}` : ''} order by distance limit ${top}; ``` **vector\_distance\_cos** calculated as distance allows us to make a primitive vector search that does a full scan and calculates distances on rows. We could optimize it with CTE and limit search and distance calculations to a much smaller subset of data. This approach could be calculation intensive and fail on large amounts of data. Libsql offers a way more effective vector search based on FlashDiskANN vector indexed. ``` vector_top_k('idx_conversation_vectorSummary', ${vector} , ${top}) i ``` **vector\_top\_k** is a table function that searches for the top of the newly created vector search index. As you can see, we could use only vector as a function parameter, and other columns could be used outside of the table function. So, to use a vector index together with different columns, we need to apply some strategies. Now we get a classical problem of integration vector search results with metadata queries. ## Post-Filtering: A Common Approach The most widely adopted method in these pipelines is **post-filtering**. In this approach, the system first retrieves data based on vector similarities and then applies metadata filters. For example, imagine you’re conducting a vector search to retrieve conversations relevant to a specific question. Still, you also want to ensure these conversations occurred in the past week.  Post-filtering allows the system to retrieve the most relevant vector-based results and subsequently filter out any that don’t meet the metadata criteria, such as date range. This method is efficient when vector similarity is the primary factor driving the search, and metadata is only applied as a secondary filter. ``` const sqlQuery = ` select c.id ,c.startDate, c.endDate, c.summary, vector_distance_cos(c.vectorSummary, vector(${vector})) distance from vector_top_k('idx_conversation_vectorSummary', ${vector} , ${top}) i inner join conversation c on i.id = c.rowid where ${startDate ? `and c.startDate >= ${startDate.getTime()}` : ''} ${endDate ? `and c.endDate <= ${endDate.getTime()}` : ''} ${distance ? `and distance <= ${distance}` : ''} order by distance limit ${top}; ``` However, there are some limitations. For example, the initial vector search may yield fewer results or omit some relevant data before applying the metadata filter. If the search window is narrow enough, this can lead to complete results. One working strategy is to make the top value in vector\_top\_K much bigger. Be careful, though, as the function's default max number of results is around 200 rows. ## Pre-Filtering: A More Complex Approach Pre-filtering is a more intricate approach but can be more effective in some instances. In pre-filtering, metadata is used as the primary filter before vector search takes place. This means that only data that meets the metadata criteria is passed into the vector search process, limiting the scope of the search right from the beginning. While this approach can significantly reduce the amount of irrelevant data in the final results, it comes with its own challenges. For example, pre-filtering requires a deeper understanding of the data structure and may necessitate denormalizing the data or creating separate pre-filtered tables. This can be resource-intensive and, in some cases, impractical for dynamic metadata like date ranges.  In certain use cases, pre-filtering might outperform post-filtering. For instance, when the metadata (e.g., specific date ranges) is the most important filter, pre-filtering ensures the search is conducted only on the most relevant data. ## Pre-filtering with distance-based filtering So, we are getting back to an old concept. We do prefiltering instead of using a vector index. ``` WITH FilteredDates AS ( SELECT c.id, c.startDate, c.endDate, c.summary, c.vectorSummary FROM YourTable c WHERE ${startDate ? `AND c.startDate >= ${startDate.getTime()}` : ''} ${endDate ? `AND c.endDate <= ${endDate.getTime()}` : ''} ), DistanceCalculation AS ( SELECT fd.id, fd.startDate, fd.endDate, fd.summary, fd.vectorSummary, vector_distance_cos(fd.vectorSummary, vector(${vector})) AS distance FROM FilteredDates fd ) SELECT dc.id, dc.startDate, dc.endDate, dc.summary, dc.distance FROM DistanceCalculation dc WHERE 1=1 ${distance ? `AND dc.distance <= ${distance}` : ''} ORDER BY dc.distance LIMIT ${top}; ``` It makes sense if the filter produces small data and distance calculation happens on the smaller data set.  As a pro of this approach, you have full control over the data and get all results without omitting some typical values for extensive index searches. ## Choosing Between Pre and Post-Filtering Both pre-filtering and post-filtering have their advantages and disadvantages. Post-filtering is more accessible to implement, especially when vector similarity is the primary search factor, but it can lead to incomplete results. Pre-filtering, on the other hand, can yield more accurate results but requires more complex data handling and optimization. In practice, many systems combine both strategies, depending on the query. For example, they might start with a broad pre-filtering based on metadata (like date ranges) and then apply a more targeted vector search with post-filtering to refine the results further. ## **Conclusion** Vector search with metadata filtering offers a powerful approach for handling large-scale data retrieval in LLMs and RAG pipelines. Whether you choose pre-filtering or post-filtering—or a combination of both—depends on your application's specific requirements. As vector databases continue to evolve, future innovations that combine these two approaches more seamlessly will help improve data relevance and retrieval efficiency further.

@ 472f440f:5669301e

Last night I had the pleasure of sitting down with Caitlin Long, Founder and CEO of Custodia - a fully reserved bank providing banking services to bitcoin companies, to discuss an affidavit written by Elaine Hetrick of Silvergate Bank. Elaine is the Chief Administrative Officer of Silvergate and wrote an affidavit, a sworn testimony subject to perjury, in which she detailed the events that led to Silvergate voluntarily winding down their business and returning deposits to their customers. This affidavit is a bombshell because it confirms speculation that Silvergate was solvent in early 2023 and wasn't shut down because of bad risk management on behalf of the bank's management team, but instead was forced to shutter its doors because the Biden Administration, with strong influence from Senator Elizabeth Warren, forced Silvergate's hand because they didn't like that they were banking digital asset companies. For those who are a bit fuzzy on the details of the narratives that were flying around Silvergate at the time, I'll jog your memory. FTX was a customer of Silvergate's at the time their Ponzi scheme unraveled. As FTX was blowing up, everyone and their mother was scrambling to get their money out of Silvergate because they assumed that since one of the bank's largest counterparties was going bust, the bank must be in trouble too. A sane decision. Especially considering the history of systemically non-important financial institutions this century. Unless you were paying close attention during this time, you were likely under the impression that Silvergate was a typical fractionally reserved bank that was experiencing a run that led to its inevitable demise. The media made it seem this way. The regulators made it seem this way. And one pompous short seller made it seem this way. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Here are the most important parts of the affidavit: > Silvergate had stabilized, was able to make regulatory capital requirements, and had the capability to continue to serve its customers that had kept their deposits with Silvergate Bank. Despite this, regulators decided to turn the pressure up and essentially gave Silvergate Bank, and Signature Bank as well, an ultimatum; drastically change your business models immediately by dropping your digital asset customer base or we'll shut you down. There were no hard numbers described in Elaine's testimony, but rumors are that the regulators wanted Silvergate to quickly shrink their exposure to digital asset-related clients to less than 15% of their capital base. At the time, Silvergate's customer base was made up almost entirely of digital asset companies (99.5% to be exact). The regulators were asking Silvergate to do something that was quite literally impossible given the circumstances. Faced with an impossible task, on March 8th of 2023 Silvergate decided to voluntarily wind down their operations and return deposits back to their customers. Let's be very clear here, Silvergate did not lose a single penny of customer deposits due to the run on their bank. Management, understanding the volatile nature of the digital asset markets, designed their risk management and capital allocation strategies in a way that would enable them to return dollars to any customer who requested them. And that's exactly what they did when customers came to request their money. They returned EVERY SINGLE PENNY. This begs the question, "Why did they essentially force Silvergate to shut down?" They seemed to be running a very responsible operation after all. You'd think the regulators would applaud Silvergate's vigilance in risk management on behalf of their customer base. How many banks would have been able to do the same thing if put in the same situation? Probably not many. The answer to this question is already well known throughout the industry, but Elaine Hetrick's testimony adds some hard evidence that makes it undeniable; Elizabeth Warren, the SEC, the FDIC and the Federal Reserve have been acting in concert to unconstitutionally and extrajudicially target the bitcoin and broader digital asset industry because they do not believe that it should exist. It is a threat to their power structure. The financial system, as it is designed today, gives those who would like to centrally plan the economy and micromanage the lives of American citizens a ton of power. Bitcoin is a threat to that power and they have to do everything in their power to prevent its proliferation. The targeting of the industry was also confirmed by the aftermath of the NYDFS and FDIC uncharacteristically taking Signature Bank behind the woodshed in the evening of Sunday, March 20th, 2023, despite the fact that Barney Frank and others at the bank were convinced they could handle withdraws come market open the next day. Signature Bank was ultimately sold to Flagstar Bank. However, they were forced to spin out their digital asset-related accounts before doing so. This public signaling and sudden regulatory shift made clear that, at least as of the first quarter of 2023, the Federal Bank Regulatory Agencies would not tolerate banks with significant concentrations of digital asset customers, ultimately preventing Silvergate Bank from continuing its digital asset focused business model. Pretty damning if you ask me. Also, very frustrating and most definitely illegal. Elizabeth Warren and her gaggle of hall monitors across alphabet soup agencies and the Federal Reserve have been on one massive, unconstitutional, power trip for the last four years. They've besmirched bitcoin and those of us working hard to ensure that the United States of America leads the way forward as bitcoin adoption continues at every turn. Good people striving to make the world a better place. No one is a better example of this than Alan Lane, the former CEO of Silvergate Bank. I consider Alan a friend and feel supremely confident when I say that he is one of the nicest and thoughtful people I have met in this industry. A man who followed his passion to bring legitimacy and much needed banking services to an industry that the incumbents refused to touch. And he did bring legitimacy. As I explained earlier, Alan and his team understood the volatile nature of the industry and built their firm in a way that took this volatility into account. Silvergate did not fail, they were forced to shut down by Elizabeth Warren and her acolytes at the regulatory agencies. What's worse, Warren's vendetta against bitcoin and the digital asset industry incited the largest banking crisis this country had seen since 2008. Silvergate and Signature being taken behind the woodshed put everyone on their toes and bank runs started across the country. This led to the failure of First Republic, Silicon Valley Bank and a couple of smaller banks, forced the Fed to step in with their emergency BTFP program, and burdened taxpayers with $40B in FDIC costs that needed to be absorbed as a result. If it weren't for the bailouts things would have gotten completely out of control. All because Elizabeth Warren wants to live in a world in which we are forced to use CBDCs and unable to opt-in to bitcoin. The euthanasia of Silvergate and Signature are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Chokepoint 2.0. Caitlin Long and Custodia have been in a years long battle with the Federal Reserve to receive a Fed master account so that they can properly serve their customers. For those who are unaware, Custodia is a full-reserve bank that exist to serve bitcoin and digital asset businesses as well as other adjacent businesses like fintechs, banks and funds. Custodia is a chartered bank and special purpose depository institution that has built custody services so that customers can hold bitcoin within their bank accounts alongside their dollar accounts. Like Silvergate and Signature, Custodia has been singled out and unlawfully denied a master account with the Fed because the Federal Reserve doesn't want a bank like Custodia to exist. Either because they worry about the ramifications of the introduction of a full-reserve bank into a system dominated by fractional-reserve banks or they simply do not want to see bitcoin succeed. If we're being honest, it's probably a combination of the two. Despite what we, or anyone else, thinks about the potential effect a bank like Custodia could have on the market if it's granted a master account, the Fed's actions are unconstitutional in this case as well. This was made pretty clear (but yet to be determined by a court) in an amicus brief written by Paul Clement on behalf of Custodia earlier this Summer. The Fed is actively undermining the dual-banking system that was set up in this country to enable competition between state chartered banks and the Federal Reserve system. In the case of Custodia, the Federal Reserve is exhibiting expansive discretionary power that it has never shown before. Custodia is a state chartered special purpose depository institution in the state of Wyoming. Historically, it would be trivial for this type of state chartered bank to get a master account with the Fed. But for whatever reason (we know the reason) the Fed has been denying Custodia their right to this account for a number of years. To the point where Custodia was forced to sue the Federal Reserve and take their case to the courts. What's interesting about the saga of Custodia and the Fed is that it has forced Custodia's legal team to dig in and highlight where the Fed is overextending its reach and acting arbitrarily. In the amicus brief that was published in July of this year, Paul Clement argues that the way Federal Reserve Bank presidents are chosen is unconstitutional when you take into consideration the fact the these Fed branch presidents are unilaterally undermining state banking laws by denying master accounts. If they are going to unilaterally undermine state banking laws they need to be appointed by the President or an official acting on behalf of the Executive Branch. Federal Reserve Bank presidents aren't appointed by the President of the United States or any official acting with the authority of the Executive Branch. Instead, they are appointed by their boards, which are controlled by the privately held commercial banks who own them. The Federal Reserve system is clearly acting unconstitutionally when they deny Custodia from being assigned a master account. The people in power within the federal government and the Federal Reserve system are actively targeting the bitcoin and digital asset industry, acting extrajudicially and making a mockery of the rule of law in the United States. They are completely out of control and it is important that everyone who cares about the future of bitcoin in the United States and the future of the United States more broadly (even if you don't like bitcoin) speaks out and fights against these totalitarians as vehemently as possible. What they are doing is wrong. It's unconstitutional. And it is putting the future of our country at risk. If the federal government, the regulators and the Federal Reserve do not get out of the way and let law abiding citizens build the businesses they want and associate with businesses they want, those businesses will go elsewhere and the United States will be set back generations as a result. It's time to put these people in their place and let it be known that freedom will reign supreme in the Land of the Free. Fight! --- Final thought... I promised Parker Lewis that I would do cross fit on Friday morning and I'm using today's final thought as an accountability tool.

@ c6f7077f:ad5d48fd

***“The more you learn about something, the more you realize you know nothing.”*** This saying resonates deeply with me. The truth is, **no one really has all the big answers**. Many in the scientific community seem to pretend they do. Let’s explore this further. #### ***Consider the Most Fundamental Questions*** 1. **The Origin of the Universe** 2. **The Origin of Life on Earth** #### ***The Origin of the Universe*** You might think we have a solid answer: **the Big Bang**. However, this explanation has its limitations, and calling it a “start” can be misleading. In fact, this theory might be entirely wrong. New research challenges the Big Bang theory, and I highly recommend listening to **Sir Roger Penrose** for a deeper understanding. The only substantial evidence we have is the universe's expansion. Penrose proposes a different hypothesis: **the endless expansion and contraction of the universe**. This idea doesn’t contradict our current understanding. Thus, the evidence for the Big Bang and Penrose’s theory are both radically different, yet **neither can be definitively proven** over the other. This highlights the **limitations of our current understanding**. #### ***The Origin of Life on Earth*** The origin of life is even more complex. Life requires three essential components: - **Proteins** for basic functioning - **RNA** for storing and replicating genes - **Lipids** (cell walls) to create separation from the environment Mathematical models suggest that while proteins and lipids have a reasonable probability of forming, the creation of RNA seems nearly impossible through random mutations in a short time frame. The best explanations indicate that we either lack crucial information or that these RNA molecules—and life as a whole—might have come from **outside sources**. Some scholars even question the entire **random mutation model**. #### ***The Question of Certainty*** If scientists don’t know the answers, **why do they pretend they do?** In my humble opinion, **It seems they do this to distance science from religion and to close the discussion before the wealthiest can fit God into the narrative,** Interestingly, I’m not alone in believing they closed the books too early. #### ***Reclaiming Control of Science and Education*** The best way to reclaim control of science and education is to **learn**. If you’re looking for a starting point, I highly recommend: - **“A Brief History of Time”** by **Stephen Hawking** for physics - **“Sapiens”** or **“The Selfish Gene”** for evolutionary biology All three are excellent starting points—densely packed with information and covering a wide range of topics in a concise and accessible manner.

@ 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](https://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](https://nostr.watch/relays/find) 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 hidden, but 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](https://relay.tools/) and create a relay for yourself. 2. Go to [nostr.wine](https://nostr.wine/) and pay for their subscription. 3. Go to [inbox.nostr.wine](https://inbox.nostr.wine/) and pay for their subscription. 4. Go to [nostr.watch](https://nostr.watch/relays/find) 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. - <your.relay>.nostr1.com Public Inbox Relays - nos.lol or an in-country relay - <your.relay>.nostr1.com DM Inbox Relays - inbox.nostr.wine - <your.relay>.nostr1.com Private Home Relays - ws://localhost:4869 (Citrine) - <your.relay>.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.

@ da18e986:3a0d9851

After months of development I am excited to officially announce the first version of DVMDash (v0.1). DVMDash is a monitoring and debugging tool for all Data Vending Machine (DVM) activity on Nostr. The website is live at [https://dvmdash.live](https://dvmdash.live) and the code is available on [Github](https://github.com/dtdannen/dvmdash). Data Vending Machines ([NIP-90](https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/90.md)) offload computationally expensive tasks from relays and clients in a decentralized, free-market manner. They are especially useful for AI tools, algorithmic processing of user’s feeds, and many other use cases. The long term goal of DVMDash is to become 1) a place to easily see what’s happening in the DVM ecosystem with metrics and graphs, and 2) provide real-time tools to help developers monitor, debug, and improve their DVMs. DVMDash aims to enable users to answer these types of questions at a glance: * What’s the most popular DVM right now? * How much money is being paid to image generation DVMs? * Is any DVM down at the moment? When was the last time that DVM completed a task? * Have any DVMs failed to deliver after accepting payment? Did they refund that payment? * How long does it take this DVM to respond? * For task X, what’s the average amount of time it takes for a DVM to complete the task? * … and more For developers working with DVMs there is now a visual, graph based tool that shows DVM-chain activity. DVMs have already started calling other DVMs to assist with work. Soon, we will have humans in the loop monitoring DVM activity, or completing tasks themselves. The activity trace of which DVM is being called as part of a sub-task from another DVM will become complicated, especially because these decisions will be made at run-time and are not known ahead of time. Building a tool to help users and developers understand where a DVM is in this activity trace, whether it’s gotten stuck or is just taking a long time, will be invaluable. *For now, the website only shows 1 step of a dvm chain from a user's request.* One of the main designs for the site is that it is highly _clickable_, meaning whenever you see a DVM, Kind, User, or Event ID, you can click it and open that up in a new page to inspect it. Another aspect of this website is that it should be fast. If you submit a DVM request, you should see it in DVMDash within seconds, as well as events from DVMs interacting with your request. I have attempted to obtain DVM events from relays as quickly as possible and compute metrics over them within seconds. This project makes use of a nosql database and graph database, currently set to use mongo db and neo4j, for which there are free, community versions that can be run locally. Finally, I’m grateful to nostr:npub10pensatlcfwktnvjjw2dtem38n6rvw8g6fv73h84cuacxn4c28eqyfn34f for supporting this project. ## Features in v0.1: ### Global Network Metrics: This page shows the following metrics: - **DVM Requests:** Number of unencrypted DVM requests (kind 5000-5999) - **DVM Results:** Number of unencrypted DVM results (kind 6000-6999) - **DVM Request Kinds Seen:** Number of unique kinds in the Kind range 5000-5999 (except for known non-DVM kinds 5666 and 5969) - **DVM Result Kinds Seen:** Number of unique kinds in the Kind range 6000-6999 (except for known non-DVM kinds 6666 and 6969) - **DVM Pub Keys Seen:** Number of unique pub keys that have written a kind 6000-6999 (except for known non-DVM kinds) or have published a kind 31990 event that specifies a ‘k’ tag value between 5000-5999 - **DVM Profiles (NIP-89) Seen**: Number of 31990 that have a ‘k’ tag value for kind 5000-5999 - **Most Popular DVM**: The DVM that has produced the most result events (kind 6000-6999) - **Most Popular Kind**: The Kind in range 5000-5999 that has the most requests by users. - **24 hr DVM Requests**: Number of kind 5000-5999 events created in the last 24 hrs - **24 hr DVM Results**: Number of kind 6000-6999 events created in the last 24 hours - **1 week DVM Requests**: Number of kind 5000-5999 events created in the last week - **1 week DVM Results**: Number of kind 6000-6999 events created in the last week - **Unique Users of DVMs**: Number of unique pubkeys of kind 5000-5999 events - **Total Sats Paid to DVMs**: - This is an estimate. - This value is likely a lower bound as it does not take into consideration subscriptions paid to DVMs - This is calculated by counting the values of all invoices where: - A DVM published a kind 7000 event requesting payment and containing an invoice - The DVM later provided a DVM Result for the same job for which it requested payment. - The assumption is that the invoice was paid, otherwise the DVM would not have done the work - Note that because there are multiple ways to pay a DVM such as lightning invoices, ecash, and subscriptions, there is no guaranteed way to know whether a DVM has been paid. Additionally, there is no way to know that a DVM completed the job because some DVMs may not publish a final result event and instead send the user a DM or take some other kind of action. ### Recent Requests: This page shows the most recent 3 events per kind, sorted by created date. You should always be able to find the last 3 events here of all DVM kinds. ### DVM Browser: This page will either show a profile of a specific DVM, or when no DVM is given in the url, it will show a table of all DVMs with some high level stats. Users can click on a DVM in the table to load the DVM specific page. ### Kind Browser: This page will either show data on a specific kind including all DVMs that have performed jobs of that kind, or when no kind is given, it will show a table summarizing activity across all Kinds. ### Debug: This page shows the graph based visualization of all events, users, and DVMs involved in a single job as well as a table of all events in order from oldest to newest. When no event is given, this page shows the 200 most recent events where the user can click on an event in order to debug that job. The graph-based visualization allows the user to zoom in and out and move around the graph, as well as double click on any node in the graph (except invoices) to open up that event, user, or dvm in a new page. ### Playground: This page is currently under development and may not work at the moment. If it does work, in the current state you can login with NIP-07 extension and broadcast a 5050 event with some text and then the page will show you events from DVMs. This page will be used to interact with DVMs live. A current good alternative to this feature, for some but not all kinds, is [https://vendata.io/](https://vendata.io/). ## Looking to the Future I originally built DVMDash out of Fear-of-Missing-Out (FOMO); I wanted to make AI systems that were comprised of DVMs but my day job was taking up a lot of my time. I needed to know when someone was performing a new task or launching a new AI or Nostr tool! I have a long list of DVMs and Agents I hope to build and I needed DVMDash to help me do it; I hope it helps you achieve your goals with Nostr, DVMs, and even AI. To this end, I wish for this tool to be useful to others, so if you would like a feature, please [submit a git issue here](https://github.com/dtdannen/dvmdash/issues/new) or _note_ me on Nostr! ### Immediate Next Steps: - Refactoring code and removing code that is no longer used - Improve documentation to run the project locally - Adding a metric for number of encrypted requests - Adding a metric for number of encrypted results ### Long Term Goals: - Add more metrics based on community feedback - Add plots showing metrics over time - Add support for showing a multi-dvm chain in the graph based visualizer - Add a real-time mode where the pages will auto update (currently the user must refresh the page) - ... Add support for user requested features! ## Acknowledgements There are some fantastic people working in the DVM space right now. Thank you to nostr:npub1drvpzev3syqt0kjrls50050uzf25gehpz9vgdw08hvex7e0vgfeq0eseet for making python bindings for nostr_sdk and for the recent asyncio upgrades! Thank you to nostr:npub1nxa4tywfz9nqp7z9zp7nr7d4nchhclsf58lcqt5y782rmf2hefjquaa6q8 for answering lots of questions about DVMs and for making the nostrdvm library. Thank you to nostr:npub1l2vyh47mk2p0qlsku7hg0vn29faehy9hy34ygaclpn66ukqp3afqutajft for making the original DVM NIP and [vendata.io](https://vendata.io/) which I use all the time for testing! P.S. I rushed to get this out in time for Nostriga 2024; code refactoring will be coming :)

@ 30ceb64e:7f08bdf5

Heres a scenario: Imagine you have a nostr e-cash/Lightning Wallet and you would like to have a maximum receive balance of 20k split in between 5 mints that enable multipath payments. Pick 5 mints below to store 4k sats each, the funds are automatically withdrawn to your lightning node at the end of the day. Stacker News Robosats Sparrow Coinkite Start9 Rabbit Hole Recap @siggy47 Damus LND Your own mint originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/648298

@ 30ceb64e:7f08bdf5

>It's wild. I just proved I can build #nostr 'wallet' where I can store the encrypted tokens in a Germany relay and make the lightning payment out of a Singapore mint. All using a #nsec that never leaves my machine. https://primal.net/e/note15l02rf4r474ck04mlrxxfagyl0z6t04ltsugf9dtph4xxhzfnd4sqpk74n >I’ve proven to myself that a #nostr wallet can exist across time and space, independently of any one app, server or custodian. The only thing which controls the ‘wallet’ is the generation and control of an #nsec which is free to exist within or flee any jurisdiction. >In my mind, this lays to rest the notion that a wallet needs to be an app, service, or anything that can be captured commercially or by the state. https://primal.net/e/note13nwsh852x9tfex2jade6vwymhhct8zussxr4zwy7uag24hjc9stq0xsxaf https://image.nostr.build/07dd1b56d6bb60b13cfe6c19d9384bc3ef198d01af4be9a5c544f791b80b746a.png >I am thinking about coining the term “nsac” to refer to a wallet-like thing that can exist on #nostr holding your valuable things, such as ecash tokens. I have already implemented a prototype #cashu ecash wallet which looks to be promising. >So you would have: #npub - your identity #nsec - your private key #nsac - your valuables >Your #nsac could be the same as your #nsec but better case is to generate as many #nsacs as required. >Happy to hear feedback! >For reference, what a ‘sac’ is in the biological sense: >A **sac** is a biological term referring to a pouch or cavity in an organism that is typically enclosed and may contain fluid, air, or other substances. Sacs can serve various functions depending on their location and role in the body, such as protecting a developing embryo, facilitating the exchange of gases in the lungs, or reducing friction between moving parts in joints https://primal.net/e/note1snj7y9m6f7lhfzkd2ujzqcvparpgddzmgcgwsgghqvkcyd0rkqhsmmlyla npub1q6mcr8tlr3l4gus3sfnw6772s7zae6hqncmw5wj27ejud5wcxf7q0nx7d5 Wild stuff freaks, will nostr become the best lightning/E-Cash wallet? Let me know what you think. originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/648270

@ 76c71aae:3e29cafa

On social media and in the Nostr space in particular, there’s been a lot of debate about the idea of supporting deletion and editing of notes. Some people think they’re vital features to have, others believe that more honest and healthy social media will come from getting rid of these features. The discussion about these features quickly turns to the feasibility of completely deleting something on a decentralized protocol. We quickly get to the “We can’t really delete anything from the internet, or a decentralized network.” argument. This crowds out how Delete and Edit can mimic elements of offline interactions, how they can be used as social signals. When it comes to issues of deletion and editing content, what matters more is if the creator can communicate their intentions around their content. Sure, on the internet, with decentralized protocols, there’s no way to be sure something’s deleted. It’s not like taking a piece of paper and burning it. Computers make copies of things all the time, computers don’t like deleting things. In particular, distributed systems tend to use a Kafka architecture with immutable logs, it’s just easier to keep everything around, as deleting and reindexing is hard. Even if the software could be made to delete something, there’s always screenshots, or even pictures of screens. We can’t provably make something disappear. What we need to do in our software is clearly express intention. A delete is actually a kind of retraction. “I no longer want to associate myself with this content, please stop showing it to people as part of what I’ve published, stop highlighting it, stop sharing it.” Even if a relay or other server keeps a copy, and keeps sharing it, being able to clearly state “hello world, this thing I said, was a mistake, please get rid of it.” Just giving users the chance to say “I deleted this” is a way of showing intention. It’s also a way of signaling that feedback has been heard. Perhaps the post was factually incorrect or perhaps it was mean and the person wants to remove what they said. In an IRL conversation, for either of these scenarios there is some dialogue where the creator of the content is learning something and taking action based on what they’ve learned. Without delete or edit, there is no option to signal to the rest of the community that you have learned something because of how the content is structured today. On most platforms a reply or response stating one’s learning will be lost often in a deluge of replies on the original post and subsequent posts are often not seen especially when the original goes viral. By providing tools like delete and edit we give people a chance to signal that they have heard the feedback and taken action. The Nostr Protocol supports delete and expiring notes. It was one of the reasons we switched from secure scuttlebutt to build on Nostr. Our nos.social app offers delete and while we know that not all relays will honor this, we believe it’s important to provide social signaling tools as a means of making the internet more humane. We believe that the power to learn from each other is more important than the need to police through moral outrage which is how the current platforms and even some Nostr clients work today. It’s important that we don’t say Nostr doesn’t support delete. Not all apps need to support requesting a delete, some might want to call it a retraction. It is important that users know there is no way to enforce a delete and not all relays may honor their request. Edit is similar, although not as widely supported as delete. It’s a creator making a clear statement that they’ve created a new version of their content. Maybe it’s a spelling error, or a new version of the content, or maybe they’re changing it altogether. Freedom online means freedom to retract a statement, freedom to update a statement, freedom to edit your own content. By building on these freedoms, we’ll make Nostr a space where people feel empowered and in control of their own media.

@ 30ceb64e:7f08bdf5

SN and Nostr are a match made in heaven. Here are some thoughts on further integration: ## 1. Splash Zapvertising Integration Both SN and Nostr clients should consider integrating splash zapvertising features, similar to: - [ZapAdd](https://www.zapadd.com/) - [Zapper Nostrapps](https://zapper.nostrapps.org/) These platforms could charge a small fee for coordinating transactions, creating a new revenue stream while promoting content across the Nostr network. ## 2. Transforming SN Territories into Npubs Stacker News Territories have the potential to become more than just internal communities. By converting them into Npubs (Nostr public keys), we can expand their reach and engagement. A portion of the monthly territory fee could be allocated towards zapvertising the Npub/Territory to the wider Nostr ecosystem. Here's a visualization of how SN could interact with other Nostr platforms: https://image.nostr.build/3ba24a8db8bdca6a4cd32fc25139fead4512b783ceb4f94e505eeea21e8167e5.png ## Example: SN Music Territory Npub Let's consider how an SN Music Territory could function as an Npub: 1. **Automatic Crossposting**: Top daily content is shared to Satlantis, Fountain, and Damus. 2. **Zapvertising**: Promotes engagement, gains followers, and attracts zaps. 3. **Wide Engagement**: Users from Primal, Yakihonne, and Mastodons bridge can like, repost, and zap content. 4. **Referral System Integration**: Works really well with SN's new referral system. 5. **Content Aggregation**: All posts are automatically compiled into an SN Music Territory blog for wider public sharing. ## Benefits and Considerations While this approach may not immediately make territory ownership profitable, it offers several advantages: - Enhanced engagement across multiple platforms - Increased monetization opportunities - Simplified management for territory owners (no direct Nostr interaction required) - Expanded reach into the broader Nostr ecosystem By implementing these ideas, Stacker News can position itself as a central hub within the Nostr universe, facilitating content sharing and engagement across multiple platforms while providing value to both users and territory owners. It would also be cool to add.... something like shipyard autoposting something that will allow you to see comments Nostr comments on SN WOT scores and an option to use your unified balance nostr wallet. originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/640607

@ f0aca767:dce3306e

A while back, I posted about The First Descendant and how, despite feeling clunky, and not really having satisfying gun play, it at _least_ seemed to have the ability to satisfy _more_ than Warframe. I _may_ have been wrong about that. I _may_ have sold Warframe a little short in being offered a new, shiny thing that lost its luster pretty damn quickly. So, let's talk about the shooter-grinder that _maybe_ started it all. This story goes back all the way to 2014, around a year after Warframe had originally released. I was dating a locksmith at the time. Not very integral to the story, because her being a locksmith has nothing to do with Warframe ... It was just, you know, the biggest thing I remember _about_ her (aside from, a year later, telling me she didn't think I was dating material). But, she was staying at my place, and I remember distinctly waking up in the morning to her, on _my_ PC, playing this weird ... ninja space game. It had almost no features, no story, and really all you did was click a mission, then shoot things, and then pick up some loot. Wash, rinse, _repeat_. There were no flying ship animations, no rotating solar maps, _nothing._ I got into it for about a week or so before I realized I couldn't really take playing a game that was technically in open beta, or even alpha? I don't remember. So, I dropped it. I would revisit it again and again, shooting things, leveling up, and then losing motivation. Until suddenly, one day, the star map was moving, and you could see the ship you were on flying _to those missions._ Amazing. But I kept going in and out of it like tossing out pairs of socks. At least until around 2016 when an online friend convinced me to join her, because there was some _ridiculous_ mission we had to do called "the Second Dream." Let's just say, it _blew me away_. Finally. A character creator? And, a **story? **Albeit, you're some kind of Stranger Things-esque powerful teenager who pilots these metal space ninjas, but it was _something_. Evangelion, maybe. I spent a week figuring out what all was new, ran around with my new human legs, found an open world _thing_ on Earth ... Yeah, I left the game again ... until 2018, and the Fortuna update. Needless to say, I was blown away, _again_. And, after getting frustrated that I couldn't just _have_ the cool new guns and my own hoverboard in a reasonable amount of time ... I left. This basically is the theme behind my relationship with Digital Extremes and Warframe. I'm the rubber-band player. Getting real excited about all the honestly really cool stuff, and revolutionary storytelling, and then having my motivation riddled with bullets and swords when faced with the prospect of having to spend time collecting things and grinding reputation. The cycle begins again. It's 2024, and I'm back in Warframe, enticed by some wild new expansion announcement that _apparently_ takes you back to ... [1999](https://www.warframe.com/1999)??? HUH? So, I'm swallowing the grind pill, and I'm doing it. Knocking every mission out, one by one, and I'm _almost_ to the New War.  But, here are my feelings about Warframe, all these years later. A space ninja MMO is freaking _awesome_. I have like, 20 different warframes, and some of them I've never even tried. I'm account level 8, almost 9, and I'm working on upgrading my own massive capital ship (called a Railjack). The story is gripping, wild, and probably some of the best writing I've _ever_ seen in a game, and I cannot _wait_ to get through to more recent content. But, despite swallowing that pill, and despite working through toward what I want, that's the one problem that remains with Warframe. The game absolutely **disrespects** your time as a human being. The Second War: Hey buddy, you need a Railjack and a Necramech before you can continue the story. Frikken' scrub. Okay, so I have the Railjack, in which you use to engage in space combat that isn't all that much unlike combat in No Man's Sky. But ... the Necramech? Oh ... Oh, you gotta grind a bunch of materials on the dead moon Deimos before you can build it? Queue the internal screaming. This is why I've left the game 40 times since 2014. I'm _not_ a fan of grinding. I have a full-time job, I have extracurricular things I like to do with my time. Spending hours upon hours collecting materials, so I can build a mech, so I can engage in yet another form of combat, so I can continue the _masterfully crafted_ storyline ... it seems to me like needless barriers to get to what you _actually_ want. The GAME. But, sure, I mean, yeah. They need hooks to keep you playing, because if you blast through the storyline, and you don't have to do anything else, you lose your player base. I just wish grinding didn't feel like I suddenly had a second job. But ... I'M GONNA DO IT. I'm not quitting this time. For real. If you wanna help me out, my account name is CMDR_N0va. My overall feelings on Warframe are that it's probably one of the best games _ever_ made, that kind of annoys the absolute _hell_ out of me ... at times.

@ 30ceb64e:7f08bdf5

I feel sorry for the laggards who would pile into bitcoin at the last moment. They'll be fleeing into bitcoin through crypto scams, fake L2's, AI social engineering attacks, misinformation from trusted sources and cognitive dissonance. In a rapidly shifting open source environment niched in topics that they hardly understand. And at the bottom of the rabbit hole you have personal responsibility and hard work waiting for you. I'm assuming uncle jims will do well. They essentially become financial advisors (Recommending Bitcoin products and services, Helping them understand and move up the sovereignty ladder, Holding Keys, Running LSP's, Mints, and Relays). Its just crazy to imagine that we're entering a world were 20 year olds have a better grasp on how to use money, how money works, and why it works that way.....than most studied economics professionals. Understanding money is a key piece to human flourishing and survival, many will succumb to being slaves of their own ignorance, doomed to live out the rest of their days as hungry ghosts, pulling knobs and levers of which have no real meaning or consequence. https://cdn.satellite.earth/40f7fa81b77c2097ee499cd63d47e66b245aedb20d9a782f33622427c5179dab.webp originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/636597

@ 3c984938:2ec11289

## Bienvenide a Nostr! **Introduccíon** Es tu primera vez aqui en Nostr? Bienvenides! Nostr es un acrónimo raro para "Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays" on un solo objetivo; resistirse a la censura. Una alternativa a las redes sociales tradicionales, comunicaciónes, blogging, streaming, podcasting, y feventualmente el correo electronico (en fase de desarrollo) con características descentralizadas que te capacita, usario. Jamas seras molestado por un anuncio, capturado por una entidad centralizada o algoritmo que te monetiza. Permítame ser su anfitrión! Soy Onigiri! Yo estoy explorando el mundo de Nostr, un protocolo de comunicacíon decentralizada. Yo escribo sobre las herramientas y los desarolladores increíbles de Nostr que dan vida a esta reino.  ## Bienvenides a Nostr Wonderland Estas a punto de entrar a un otro mundo digtal que te hará explotar tu mente de todas las aplicaciones descentralizadas, clientes, sitios que puedes utilizar. Nunca volverás a ver a las comunicaciones ni a las redes sociales de la mesma manera. Todo gracias al carácter criptográfico de nostr, inpirado por la tecnología "blockchain". Cada usario, cuando crean una cuenta en Nostr, recibe un par de llaves: una privada y una publico. Estos son las llaves de tu propio reino. Lo que escribes, cantes, grabes, lo que creas - todo te pertenece.  ### Unos llaves de Oro y Plata Mi amigo y yo llamamos a esto "identidad mediante cifrado" porque tu identidad es cifrado. Tu puedes compartir tu llave de plata "npub" a otros usarios para conectar y seguir. Utiliza tu llave de oro "nsec" para accedar a tu cuenta y exponerte a muchas aplicaciones. Mantenga la llave a buen recaudo en todo momento. Ya no hay razor para estar enjaulado por los terminos de plataformas sociales nunca más. Onigirl ``` npub18jvyjwpmm65g8v9azmlvu8knd5m7xlxau08y8vt75n53jtkpz2ys6mqqu3 ``` ### Todavia No tienes un cliente? Seleccione la mejor opción. Encuentra la aplicación adecuada para ti! Utilice su clave de oro "nsec" para acceder a estas herramientas maravillosas. También puedes visit a esta pagina a ver a todas las aplicaciones. Antes de pegar tu llave de oro en muchas aplicaciones, considera un "signer" (firmante) para los sitios web 3. Por favor, mire la siguiente imagen para más detalles. Consulte también la leyenda.  ### Get a Signer extension via chrome webstore Un firmante (o "signer" en inglés) es una extensión del navegador web. Nos2x and NostrConnect son extensiónes ampliamente aceptado para aceder a Nostr. Esto simplifica el proceso de aceder a sitios "web 3". En lugar de copiar y pegar la clave oro "nsec" cada vez, la mantienes guardado en la extensión y le des permiso para aceder a Nostr.  ### 👉⚡⚡Obtén una billetera Bitcoin lightning para enviar/recibir Zaps⚡⚡ (Esto es opcional)  Aqui en Nostr, utilizamos la red Lightning de Bitcoin (L2). Nesitaras una cartera lightning para enviar y recibir Satoshis, la denominacion mas chiquita de un Bitcoin. (0.000000001 BTC) Los "zaps" son un tipo de micropago en Nostr. Si te gusta el contenido de un usario, es norma dejarle una propina en la forma de un ¨zap". Por ejemplo, si te gusta este contenido, tu me puedes hacer "zap" con Satoshis para recompensar mi trabajo. Pero apenas llegaste, as que todavia no tienes una cartera. No se preocupe, puedo ayudar en eso! "[Stacker.News](https://stacker.news/r/Hamstr)" es una plataforma donde los usarios pueden ganar SATS por publicar articulos y interactuar con otros.  Stacker.News es el lugar mas facil para recibir una direccion de cartera Bitcoin Lightning. 1. Acedese con su extensión firmante "signer" - Nos2x or NostrConnect - hace click en tu perfil, un codigo de letras y numeros en la mano superior derecha. Veás algo como esto  2. Haga clic en "edit" y elija un nombre que te guste. Se puede cambiar si deseas en el futuro.  3. Haga clic en "save" 4. Crea una biografía y la comunidad SN son muy acogedora. Te mandarán satoshi para darte la bienvenida. 5. Tu nueva direccion de cartera Bitcoin Lightning aparecerá asi  **^^No le mandas "zaps" a esta direccion; es puramente con fines educativos.** 6. Con tu **Nueva** dirección de monedero Bitcoin Lightning puedes ponerla en cualquier cliente o app de tu elección. Para ello, ve a tu **página de perfil** y bajo la dirección de tu monedero en "**Dirección Lightning**", introduce tu nueva dirección y pulsa **"guardar "** y ya está. Enhorabuena. 👉✨Con el tiempo, es posible que desee pasar a las opciones de auto-custodia y tal vez incluso considerar la posibilidad de auto-alojar su propio nodo LN para una mejor privacidad. La buena noticia es que stacker.news tambien está dejando de ser una cartera custodio. ⭐NIP-05-identidad DNS⭐ Al igual que en Twitter, una marca de verificación es para mostrar que eres del mismo jardín "como un humano", y no un atípico como una mala hierba o, "bot". Pero no de la forma nefasta en que lo hacen las grandes tecnológicas. En el país de las maravillas de Nostr, esto te permite asignar tu llave de plata, "npub", a un identificador DNS. Una vez verificado, puedes gritar para anunciar tu nueva residencia Nostr para compartir. ✨Hay un montón de opciones, pero si has seguido los pasos, esto se vuelve extremadamente fácil. 👉✅¡Haz clic en tu **"Perfil "**, luego en **"Configuración "**, desplázate hasta la parte inferior y pega tu *clave Silver*, **"npub!"** y haz clic en **"Guardar "** y ¡listo! Utiliza tu monedero relámpago de Stacker.news como tu NIP-05. ¡¡¡Enhorabuena!!! ¡Ya estás verificado! Dale unas horas y cuando uses tu cliente **"principal "** deberías ver una marca de verificación. ### Nostr, el infonformista de los servidores.  En lugar de utilizar una única instancia o un servidor centralizado, Nostr está construido para que varias bases de datos intercambien mensajes mediante "relés". Los relés, que son neutrales y no discriminatorios, almacenan y difunden mensajes públicos en la red Nostr. Transmiten mensajes a todos los demás clientes conectados a ellos, asegurando las comunicaciones en la red descentralizada. ### ¡Mis amigos en Nostr te dan la bienvenida! Bienvenida a la fiesta. ¿Le apetece un té?🍵  ### ¡Hay mucho mas! Esto es la punta del iceberg. Síguenme mientras continúo explorando nuevas tierras y a los desarolladores, los caballeres que potencioan este ecosistema. Encuéntrame aquí para mas contenido como este y comparten con otros usarios de nostr. Conozca a los caballeres que luchan por freedomTech (la tecnología de libertad) en Nostr y a los proyectos a los que contribuyen para hacerla realidad.💋 Onigirl @npub18jvyjwpmm65g8v9azmlvu8knd5m7xlxau08y8vt75n53jtkpz2ys6mqqu3 ---- 🧡😻Esta guía ha sido cuidadosamente traducida por miggymofongo Puede seguirla aquí. @npub1ajt9gp0prf4xrp4j07j9rghlcyukahncs0fw5ywr977jccued9nqrcc0cs sitio [web](https://miguelalmodo.com/)

@ 20986fb8:cdac21b3

The motivation of building decentralized media protocols is to balance the power of centralized media platforms, and provide an alternative for the public to take part in the curation of information, not just access information. It has to perform checks-and-balances to the centralized media powers, while providing a credible and neutral mechanism for different communities to improve a platform over time. The operation and maintenance of such a media platform should be autonomous, unstoppable, and self-improving. While a traditional media platform has to align itself with the interests of its owners, shareholders, and donors, the new type of media platform should not be subject to the control of any entity at all times. The ownership and stewardship of the new media platform should be open and transparent to the public. This is in contrast to state/corporate-controlled media platforms, in which case the public is often not informed of a media platform’s real ownership and stewardship, hence the public cannot be aware of its real purpose, bias, and hidden agendas. If each individual is more informed, it will be harder to manipulate public opinions, and it will be easier to foster independent judgment within human societies. The positive externality will be enormous. The transition from centralized media platforms to decentralized media platforms speeds up this process. This article discusses the two pillars to implement a decentralized media technology stack: decentralized publication and decentralized content moderation. # Decentralization of publication In a previous article, we extensively discussed the importance of content decentralization. It is the last defense of censorship - content removed or hidden by popular client websites could be stored permanently and be displayed on other (perhaps non-popular) client websites. We also discussed the importance of token economics neutrality, because token economics itself could lead to censorship. As a non-microblogging platform, [Yakihonne](https://yakihonne.com) is currently one of the most popular clients that implemented [NIP-23](https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/23.md), attracting bloggers and readers from all over the world to post articles and read contents about Bitcoin and beyond. > **As of the time of writing of this article, the platform serves users in 116 countries, supporting 18 languages, and has become the most widely used and feature-rich client within the Nostr ecosystem. Yakihonne is also the first Nostr client to support mobile applications and article editing on mobile apps.**  *When publishing articles on Yakihonne.com, you can choose multiple relays to publish the content. Relays can also implement logic to sync articles of their own interests and offer them to clients.* Joining the relay network is easy. If someone wants to join the relay network, he is able to do so by deploying one of the open source versions of Nostr relays, and starting to store content for the network. The number of relays serving content within the Nostr protocol is currently quite small. Over the next period of time, it is important to grow the number of reliable relays. It should be economically viable and encouraging to set up a relay, so that the number of relays can grow over time. Very likely, the number of relays will correspond to the net income of the network, which comes from revenue streams of each of the clients. Therefore, it is foreseeable that the number of reliable relays will be correlated to the traffic of the Nostr protocol in general and therefore, to the traffic of popular clients. The zap feature (Lightning Zaps) can be used to incentivize relays. But we cannot set unrealistic expectations over zapping. Zapping an article is making a donation. Donation is unpredictable, and it is definitely not a sustainable way to maintain a large, reliable network of relays. One possible solution to this problem is to have profitable clients make continuous contributions to well-performing relays via enforceable protocol setups.  *An ideal incentive mechanism for a relay network is to establish a profit-sharing protocol between clients and the relays.* # Decentralization of content moderation and content curation Striking a balance between moderation and anti-moderation has been an almost impossible task for centralized media platforms. Whoever performs the moderation dominates the narratives. The most recent [community notes](https://communitynotes.twitter.com/guide/en/about/introduction) feature on X took a major step towards community-driven moderation. In community notes, users who are eligible to provide notes can write community notes to a post, and a community can vote for the notes so that the best recognized notes can emerge on the top. It has been proven to be effective in content moderation in many instances, and the ability to add community-backed notes reduced the need for shadow bans.  *Community notes are obviously a more effective system than shadow bans in Jack Dorsey’s Twitter era. At times even Elon Musk himself can be “community noted” is definitely making people trust this system more.* But it cannot be ignored that users still have to sign up to apply for eligibility for community notes. It is in X's own direction to decide who is eligible and who is not. The voting process of community notes itself could also be subject to censorship, because there is no way to verify the votes. **This is to say, X has the power to do evil, it doesn’t matter if it does evil or not.** The countermeasure to balance the power of a centralized media platform is a platform that is not manipulatable by its operating team or share/token holders. So content moderation has to be permissionless, while verifiability to content moderation mechanisms like community notes. The first step to developing a decentralized content moderation system is to implement a permissionless community notes system.  *X’s community notes can be censored in two steps: the eligibility review process can filter people based on X’s own preference; the ranking and displaying rules are also controlled by X. In a permissionless community notes system, any relay or even client should be able to implement its own version of community notes, and users can choose their preferred system(s) to work with.* Notes have to be stored on an open, token economics neutral relay network to ensure their immutability and resistance to censorship. Community members can add notes to any media content, and the notes are distributed to non-related parties who operate the nodes. ## Incentives The content moderation mechanism needs to be incentivized through the decentralized media protocol. In a non-sponsored model, income comes from ads or subscription fees, and is distributed to content creators, content relays, and additional network security providers.  In a sponsored model, income is from content sponsors, and further distributed to community note contributors, content relays, and additional network security providers. A sponsored post, in old media platforms, can be quite expensive. The cost to post sponsored content can be dramatically reduced on a decentralized media platform because of the great reduction of content moderation cost.  ## Ranking Community notes can be ranked by either relays or clients. A content relay can rank community notes based on its own preference, and deliver to clients. Clients can also rank community notes based on its rules. Basically, **everyone can rank any post’s community notes.** In general, community notes ranking algorithms can be stake-based or non-stake based. Stake-based ranking algorithms in general show how people who have a stake in something react to a post. Non-stake based ranking algorithms can be any mechanism, such as reputation-weighted ranks, 1p1v ranks, quadratic voting ranks, random selection, or even asking an AI to rank community notes. What’s perhaps important is not which ranking algorithm is the best, it’s the flexibility for both the content storage layer and the interfaces (clients) to choose their ideal ranking algorithms. Probably for a client, the best strategy is to provide all ranks from multiple sources, so that people can view community notes from very different angles. # The Current Status of Bitcoin and the Nostr Protocol As Nostr is the ideal relay network for decentralized media at this moment, it is necessary to write some notes on the current status of the Bitcoin ecosystem, as Nostr is largely inspired by the Bitcoin network to be decentralized, and is greatly supported by the Bitcoin community. The Bitcoin community is so far the most legitimate crypto community. It has a very simple mission: to create a decentralized monetary system that is not controlled by centralized powers. The progressive element of the Bitcoin community is relative to the old banking world, where Bitcoin is a completely new and alternative technology stack to the centralized money and finance systems. The conservative element of the Bitcoin community is relative to the other crypto community, where the Bitcoin community is largely skeptical of the motivation and decentralization of them. In my opinion, the scrutiny Bitcoin community puts upon the rest of the crypto world is totally reasonable. However, as much as Nostr is inspired by the Bitcoin network, it will also go beyond the Bitcoin community, in terms of content. This is not a bad thing! If this happens on a big monolithic blockchain, probably the Nostr major contributors will be required to create a token pretty soon and then pay gas fees to the blockchain so that the blockchain’s revenue can increase. The Bitcoin community will never ask that. This gives Nostr enough freedom and flexibility to evolve, while continuously getting support from the Bitcoin community. However, if Nostr users are forever a subset of Bitcoin users, Nostr will be limited. Nostr is not a subset of Bitcoin, it is not an “ecosystem project” of Bitcoin either (a.k.a., it should not become a “layer-2” of Bitcoin, as some people reason about the future of Bitcoin totally from the analogy of Ethereum).  *In the best world, Nostr and Bitcoin can expand each other’s user base, and create healthy synergy.* # Conclusion Yakihonne is, so far, not a protocol. With the products and features it offers, Yakihonne is ready to build up a decentralized media stack. The stack has two pillars : decentralized publication and decentralized content moderation. The former guarantees that content will never be lost; the latter creates a new cost-incentive model to make sure that when content and moderation go permissionless, the platform can still maintain truthfulness and cost-effectiveness. In fact, a decentralized media platform can be more cost-effective than centralized media platforms. So the next step for us is to build this up and experiment with it. The Flash News and the uncensored notes are introduced for such purpose, and everyone is welcomed to give it a try. Note that it is still in the early stages and various improvements will come eventually, for this your feedback is valuable to us to reach any expectations.

@ 6871d8df:4a9396c1

# Embracing AI: A Case for AI Accelerationism In an era where artificial intelligence (AI) development is at the forefront of technological innovation, a counter-narrative championed by a group I refer to as the 'AI Decels'—those advocating for the deceleration of AI advancements— seems to be gaining significant traction. After tuning into a recent episode of the [Joe Rogan Podcast](https://fountain.fm/episode/0V35t9YBkOMVM4WRVLYp), I realized that the prevailing narrative around AI was heading in a dangerous direction. Rogan had Aza Raskin and Tristan Harris, technology safety advocates, who released a talk called '[The AI Dilemma](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoVJKj8lcNQ),' on for a discussion. You may know them from the popular documentary '[The Social Dilemma](https://www.thesocialdilemma.com/)' on the dangers of social media. It became increasingly clear that the cautionary stance dominating this discourse might be tipping the scales too far, veering towards an over-regulated future that stifles innovation rather than fostering it.  ## Are we moving too fast? While acknowledging AI's benefits, Aza and Tristan fear it could be dangerous if not guided by ethical standards and safeguards. They believe AI development is moving too quickly and that the right incentives for its growth are not in place. They are concerned about the possibility of "civilizational overwhelm," where advanced AI technology far outpaces 21st-century governance. They fear a scenario where society and its institutions cannot manage or adapt to the rapid changes and challenges introduced by AI. They argue for regulating and slowing down AI development due to rapid, uncontrolled advancement driven by competition among companies like Google, OpenAI, and Microsoft. They claim this race can lead to unsafe releases of new technologies, with AI systems exhibiting unpredictable, emergent behaviors, posing significant societal risks. For instance, AI can inadvertently learn tasks like sentiment analysis or human emotion understanding, creating potential for misuse in areas like biological weapons or cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Moreover, AI companies' profit-driven incentives often conflict with the public good, prioritizing market dominance over safety and ethics. This misalignment can lead to technologies that maximize engagement or profits at societal expense, similar to the negative impacts seen with social media. To address these issues, they suggest government regulation to realign AI companies' incentives with safety, ethical considerations, and public welfare. Implementing responsible development frameworks focused on long-term societal impacts is essential for mitigating potential harm. ## This isn't new Though the premise of their concerns seems reasonable, it's dangerous and an all too common occurrence with the emergence of new technologies. For example, in their example in the podcast, they refer to the technological breakthrough of oil. Oil as energy was a technological marvel and changed the course of human civilization. The embrace of oil — now the cornerstone of industry in our age — revolutionized how societies operated, fueled economies, and connected the world in unprecedented ways. Yet recently, as ideas of its environmental and geopolitical ramifications propagated, the narrative around oil has shifted. Tristan and Aza detail this shift and claim that though the period was great for humanity, we didn't have another technology to go to once the technological consequences became apparent. The problem with that argument is that we did innovate to a better alternative: nuclear. However, at its technological breakthrough, it was met with severe suspicions, from safety concerns to ethical debates over its use. This overregulation due to these concerns caused a decades-long stagnation in nuclear innovation, where even today, we are still stuck with heavy reliance on coal and oil. The scare tactics and fear-mongering had consequences, and, interestingly, they don't see the parallels with their current deceleration stance on AI. These examples underscore a critical insight: the initial anxiety surrounding new technologies is a natural response to the unknowns they introduce. Yet, history shows that too much anxiety can stifle the innovation needed to address the problems posed by current technologies. The cycle of discovery, fear, adaptation, and eventual acceptance reveals an essential truth—progress requires not just the courage to innovate but also the resilience to navigate the uncertainties these innovations bring. Moreover, believing we can predict and plan for all AI-related unknowns reflects overconfidence in our understanding and foresight. History shows that technological progress, marked by unexpected outcomes and discoveries, defies such predictions. The evolution from the printing press to the internet underscores progress's unpredictability. Hence, facing AI's future requires caution, curiosity, and humility. Acknowledging our limitations and embracing continuous learning and adaptation will allow us to harness AI's potential responsibly, illustrating that embracing our uncertainties, rather than pretending to foresee them, is vital to innovation. The journey of technological advancement is fraught with both promise and trepidation. Historically, each significant leap forward, from the dawn of the industrial age to the digital revolution, has been met with a mix of enthusiasm and apprehension. Aza Raskin and Tristan Harris's thesis in the 'AI Dilemma' embodies the latter. ## Who defines "safe?" When slowing down technologies for safety or ethical reasons, the issue arises of who gets to define what "safe" or “ethical” mean? This inquiry is not merely technical but deeply ideological, touching the very core of societal values and power dynamics. For example, the push for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives shows how specific ideological underpinnings can shape definitions of safety and decency. Take the case of the initial release of Google's AI chatbot, Gemini, which chose the ideology of its creators over truth. Luckily, the answers were so ridiculous that the pushback was sudden and immediate. My worry, however, is if, in correcting this, they become experts in making the ideological capture much more subtle. Large bureaucratic institutions' top-down safety enforcement creates a fertile ground for ideological capture of safety standards.  I claim that the issue is not the technology itself but the lens through which we view and regulate it. Suppose the gatekeepers of 'safety' are aligned with a singular ideology. In that case, AI development would skew to serve specific ends, sidelining diverse perspectives and potentially stifling innovative thought and progress. In the podcast, Tristan and Aza suggest such manipulation as a solution. They propose using AI for consensus-building and creating "shared realities" to address societal challenges. In practice, this means that when individuals' viewpoints seem to be far apart, we can leverage AI to "bridge the gap." How they bridge the gap and what we would bridge it toward is left to the imagination, but to me, it is clear. Regulators will inevitably influence it from the top down, which, in my opinion, would be the opposite of progress. In navigating this terrain, we must advocate for a pluralistic approach to defining safety, encompassing various perspectives and values achieved through market forces rather than a governing entity choosing winners. The more players that can play the game, the more wide-ranging perspectives will catalyze innovation to flourish. ## Ownership & Identity Just because we should accelerate AI forward does not mean I do not have my concerns. When I think about what could be the most devastating for society, I don't believe we have to worry about a Matrix-level dystopia; I worry about freedom. As I explored in "[Whose data is it anyway?](https://cwilbzz.com/whose-data-is-it-anyway/)," my concern gravitates toward the issues of data ownership and the implications of relinquishing control over our digital identities. This relinquishment threatens our privacy and the integrity of the content we generate, leaving it susceptible to the inclinations and profit of a few dominant tech entities. To counteract these concerns, a paradigm shift towards decentralized models of data ownership is imperative. Such standards would empower individuals with control over their digital footprints, ensuring that we develop AI systems with diverse, honest, and truthful perspectives rather than the massaged, narrow viewpoints of their creators. This shift safeguards individual privacy and promotes an ethical framework for AI development that upholds the principles of fairness and impartiality. As we stand at the crossroads of technological innovation and ethical consideration, it is crucial to advocate for systems that place data ownership firmly in the hands of users. By doing so, we can ensure that the future of AI remains truthful, non-ideological, and aligned with the broader interests of society. ## But what about the Matrix? I know I am in the minority on this, but I feel that the concerns of AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) are generally overblown. I am not scared of reaching the point of AGI, and I think the idea that AI will become so intelligent that we will lose control of it is unfounded and silly. Reaching AGI is not reaching consciousness; being worried about it spontaneously gaining consciousness is a misplaced fear. It is a tool created by humans for humans to enhance productivity and achieve specific outcomes. At a technical level, large language models (LLMs) are trained on extensive datasets and learning patterns from language and data through a technique called "unsupervised learning" (meaning the data is untagged). They predict the next word in sentences, refining their predictions through feedback to improve coherence and relevance. When queried, LLMs generate responses based on learned patterns, simulating an understanding of language to provide contextually appropriate answers. They will only answer based on the datasets that were inputted and scanned. AI will never be "alive," meaning that AI lacks inherent agency, consciousness, and the characteristics of life, not capable of independent thought or action. AI cannot act independently of human control. Concerns about AI gaining autonomy and posing a threat to humanity are based on a misunderstanding of the nature of AI and the fundamental differences between living beings and machines. AI spontaneously developing a will or consciousness is more similar to thinking a hammer will start walking than us being able to create consciousness through programming. Right now, there is only one way to create consciousness, and I'm skeptical that is ever something we will be able to harness and create as humans. Irrespective of its complexity — and yes, our tools will continue to become evermore complex — machines, specifically AI, cannot transcend their nature as non-living, inanimate objects programmed and controlled by humans.  The advancement of AI should be seen as enhancing human capabilities, not as a path toward creating autonomous entities with their own wills. So, while AI will continue to evolve, improve, and become more powerful, I believe it will remain under human direction and control without the existential threats often sensationalized in discussions about AI's future. With this framing, we should not view the race toward AGI as something to avoid. This will only make the tools we use more powerful, making us more productive. With all this being said, AGI is still much farther away than many believe. Today's AI excels in specific, narrow tasks, known as narrow or weak AI. These systems operate within tightly defined parameters, achieving remarkable efficiency and accuracy that can sometimes surpass human performance in those specific tasks. Yet, this is far from the versatile and adaptable functionality that AGI represents. Moreover, the exponential growth of computational power observed in the past decades does not directly translate to an equivalent acceleration in achieving AGI. AI's impressive feats are often the result of massive data inputs and computing resources tailored to specific tasks. These successes do not inherently bring us closer to understanding or replicating the general problem-solving capabilities of the human mind, which again would only make the tools more potent in _our_ hands. While AI will undeniably introduce challenges and change the aspects of conflict and power dynamics, these challenges will primarily stem from humans wielding this powerful tool rather than the technology itself. AI is a mirror reflecting our own biases, values, and intentions. The crux of future AI-related issues lies not in the technology's inherent capabilities but in how it is used by those wielding it. This reality is at odds with the idea that we should slow down development as our biggest threat will come from those who are not friendly to us. ## AI Beget's AI While the unknowns of AI development and its pitfalls indeed stir apprehension, it's essential to recognize the power of market forces and human ingenuity in leveraging AI to address these challenges. History is replete with examples of new technologies raising concerns, only for those very technologies to provide solutions to the problems they initially seemed to exacerbate. It looks silly and unfair to think of fighting a war with a country that never embraced oil and was still primarily getting its energy from burning wood.  The evolution of AI is no exception to this pattern. As we venture into uncharted territories, the potential issues that arise with AI—be it ethical concerns, use by malicious actors, biases in decision-making, or privacy intrusions—are not merely obstacles but opportunities for innovation. It is within the realm of possibility, and indeed, probability, that AI will play a crucial role in solving the problems it creates. The idea that there would be no incentive to address and solve these problems is to underestimate the fundamental drivers of technological progress. Market forces, fueled by the demand for better, safer, and more efficient solutions, are powerful catalysts for positive change. When a problem is worth fixing, it invariably attracts the attention of innovators, researchers, and entrepreneurs eager to solve it. This dynamic has driven progress throughout history, and AI is poised to benefit from this problem-solving cycle. Thus, rather than viewing AI's unknowns as sources of fear, we should see them as sparks of opportunity. By tackling the challenges posed by AI, we will harness its full potential to benefit humanity. By fostering an ecosystem that encourages exploration, innovation, and problem-solving, we can ensure that AI serves as a force for good, solving problems as profound as those it might create. This is the optimism we must hold onto—a belief in our collective ability to shape AI into a tool that addresses its own challenges and elevates our capacity to solve some of society's most pressing issues. ## An AI Future The reality is that it isn't whether AI will lead to unforeseen challenges—it undoubtedly will, as has every major technological leap in history. The real issue is whether we let fear dictate our path and confine us to a standstill or embrace AI's potential to address current and future challenges. The approach to solving potential AI-related problems with stringent regulations and a slowdown in innovation is akin to cutting off the nose to spite the face. It's a strategy that risks stagnating the U.S. in a global race where other nations will undoubtedly continue their AI advancements. This perspective dangerously ignores that AI, much like the printing press of the past, has the power to democratize information, empower individuals, and dismantle outdated power structures. The way forward is not less AI but more of it, more innovation, optimism, and curiosity for the remarkable technological breakthroughs that will come. We must recognize that the solution to AI-induced challenges lies not in retreating but in advancing our capabilities to innovate and adapt. AI represents a frontier of limitless possibilities. If wielded with foresight and responsibility, it's a tool that can help solve some of the most pressing issues we face today. There are certainly challenges ahead, but I trust that with problems come solutions. Let's keep the AI Decels from steering us away from this path with their doomsday predictions. Instead, let's embrace AI with the cautious optimism it deserves, forging a future where technology and humanity advance to heights we can't imagine.

@ 3c984938:2ec11289

I'm having some pain in my heart about the U.S. elections.  Ever since Obama campaigned for office, an increase of young voters have come out of the woodwork. Things have not improved. They've actively told you that "**your vote matters.**" I believe this to be a lie unless any citizen can demand at the gate, at the White House to be allowed to hold and point a gun to the president's head. (**Relax**, this is a hyperbole) Why so dramatic? Well, what does the president do? Sign bills, commands the military, nominates new Fed chairman, ambassadors, supreme judges and senior officials all while traveling in luxury planes and living in a white palace for four years. They promised **Every TIME** to protect citizen rights when they take the oath and office. *...They've broken this several times, with so-called "emergency-crisis"*  The purpose of a president, today, it seems is to basically hire armed thugs to keep the citizens in check and make sure you "voluntarily continue to be a slave," to the system, hence the IRS. The corruption extends from the cop to the judge and even to politicians. The politicians get paid from lobbyists to create bills in congress for the president to sign. There's no right answer when money is involved with politicians. It is the same if you vote Obama, Biden, Trump, or Haley. They will wield the pen to serve themselves to **say** it will benefit the country. In the first 100 years of presidency, the government wasn't even a big deal. They didn't even interfere with your life as much as they do today.  ^^ You hold the **power** in your hands, don't let them take it. Don't believe me? Try to get a loan from a bank without a signature. Your signature is as good as gold (if not better) and is an original trademark. Just Don't Vote. End the Fed. Opt out.  ^^ I choose to form my own path, even if it means leaving everything I knew prior. It doesn't have to be a spiritual thing. Some, have called me religious because of this. We're all capable of greatness and having humanity. ✨Don't have a machine heart with a machine mind. Instead, choose to have a heart like the cowardly lion from the "**Wizard Of Oz.**" There's no such thing as a good president or politicians. If there was, they would have issued *non-interest* **Federal Reserve Notes.** Lincoln and Kennedy tried to do this, they got shot. There's still a banner of America there, but it's so far gone that I cannot even recognize it. However, I only see a bunch of 🏳‍🌈 pride flags. ✨Patrick Henry got it wrong, when he delivered his speech, "Give me liberty or give me death." Liberty and freedom are two completely different things. Straightforward from Merriam-Webster Choose Right or left?  No control, to be 100% without restrictions- free.  ✨I disagree with the example sentence given. Because you cannot advocate for human freedom and own slaves, it's contradicting it. Which was common in the founding days. I can understand many may disagree with me, and you might be thinking, "**This time will be different.**" I, respectfully, disagree, and the proxy wars are proof. Learn the importance of Bitcoin, every **Satoshi** is a step away from corruption. ✨What does it look like to pull the curtains from the "**Wizard of Oz?**"  Have you watched the video below, what 30 Trillion dollars in debt looks like visually? Even I was blown away. https://video.nostr.build/d58c5e1afba6d7a905a39407f5e695a4eb4a88ae692817a36ecfa6ca1b62ea15.mp4  I say this with love. Hear my plea? Normally, I don't write about anything political. It just feels like a losing game. My energy feels it's in better use to learn new things, write and to create. Even a simple blog post as simple as this. Stack SATs, and stay humble. <3 Onigirl

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Bitcoin transactions explained A transaction is a piece of data that takes **inputs** and produces **outputs**. Forget about the blockchain thing, Bitcoin is actually just a big tree of transactions. The blockchain is just a way to keep transactions ordered. Imagine you have 10 satoshis. That means you have them in an unspent transaction output (**UTXO**). You want to spend them, so you create a transaction. The transaction should reference unspent outputs as its inputs. Every transaction has an immutable id, so you use that id plus the index of the output (because transactions can have multiple outputs). Then you specify a **script** that unlocks that transaction and related signatures, then you specify outputs along with a **script** that locks these outputs.  As you can see, there's this lock/unlocking thing and there are inputs and outputs. Inputs must be unlocked by fulfilling the conditions specified by the person who created the transaction they're in. And outputs must be locked so anyone wanting to spend those outputs will need to unlock them. For most of the cases locking and unlocking means specifying a **public key** whose controller (the person who has the corresponding **private key**) will be able to spend. Other fancy things are possible too, but we can ignore them for now. Back to the 10 satoshis you want to spend. Since you've successfully referenced 10 satoshis and unlocked them, now you can specify the outputs (this is all done in a single step). You can specify one output of 10 satoshis, two of 5, one of 3 and one of 7, three of 3 and so on. The sum of outputs can't be more than 10. And if the sum of outputs is less than 10 the difference goes to fees. In the first days of Bitcoin you didn't need any fees, but now you do, otherwise your transaction won't be included in any block.  If you're still interested in transactions maybe you could take a look at [this small chapter](https://github.com/bitcoinbook/bitcoinbook/blob/6d1c26e1640ae32b28389d5ae4caf1214c2be7db/ch06_transactions.adoc) of that Andreas Antonopoulos book. If you hate Andreas Antonopoulos because he is a communist shitcoiner or don't want to read more than half a page, go here: <https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Coin_analogy>

@ 3c984938:2ec11289

 It's been a journey from the Publishing Forest of Nostr to the open sea of web3. I've come across a beautiful chain of islands and thought. Why not take a break and explore this place? If I'm searching for devs and FOSS, I should search every nook and cranny inside the realm of Nostr. It is quite vast for little old me. I'm just a little hamster and I don't speak in code or binary numbers zeros and ones.  After being in sea for awhile, my heart raced for excitement for what I could find. It seems I wasn't alone, there were others here like me! Let's help spread the message to others about this uncharted realm. See, look at the other sailboats, aren't they pretty? Thanks to some generous donation of SATs, I was able to afford the docking fee.  Ever feel like everyone was going to a party, and you were supposed to dress up, but you missed the memo? Or a comic-con? well, I felt completely underdressed and that's an understatement. Well, turns out there is a some knights around here. Take a peek!  A black cat with a knight passed by very quickly. He was moving too fast for me to track. Where was he going? Then I spotted a group of knights heading in the same direction, so I tagged along. The vibes from these guys was impossible to resist. They were just happy-go-lucky. 🥰They were heading to a tavern on a cliff off the island.  Ehh? a Tavern? Slightly confused, whatever could these knights be doing here? I guess when they're done with their rounds they would here to blow off steam. Things are looking curiouser and curiouser. But the black cat from earlier was here with its rider, whom was dismounting. So you can only guess, where I'm going.  The atmosphere in this pub, was lively and energetic. So many knights spoke among themselves. A group here, another there, but there was one that caught my eye. I went up to a group at a table, whose height towed well above me even when seated. Taking a deep breath, I asked, "Who manages this place?" They unanimous pointed to one waiting for ale at the bar. What was he doing? Watching others talk? How peculiar.  So I went up to him! And introduced myself. >"Hello I'm Onigirl" >>"Hello Onigirl, Welcome to Gossip" >>>"Gossip, what is Gossip?" scratching my head and whiskers. What is Gossip? Gossip is FOSS and a great client for **privacy-centric minded nostriches**. It avoids browser tech which by-passes several scripting languages such as JavaScript☕, HTML parsing, rendering, and CSS(Except HTTP GET and Websockets). Using OpenGL-style rendering. **For Nostriches that wish to remain anonymous can use Gossip over TOR.** Mike recommends using QubesOS, Whonix and or Tails. [FYI-Gossip does not natively support tor SOCKS5 proxy] Most helpful to spill the beans if you're a journalist.  On top of using your nsec or your encryption key, Gossip adds another layer of security over your account with a password login. There's nothing wrong with using the browser extensions (such as nos2x or Flamingo) which makes it super easy to log in to Nostr enable websites, apps, but it does expose you to browser vulnerabilities. Mike Points out >"people have already had their private key stolen from other nostr clients," so it a concern if you value your account. I most certainly care for mine.  Gossip UI has a simple, and clean interface revolving around NIP-65 also called the “Outbox model." As posted from [GitHub](https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/65.md), >"This NIP allows Clients to connect directly with the most up-to-date relay set from each individual user, eliminating the need of broadcasting events to popular relays." This eliminates clients that track only a specific set of relays which can congest those relays when you publish your note. Also this can be censored, by using Gossip you can publish notes to alternative relays that have not censored you to reach the same followers. 👉The easiest way to translate that is reducing redundancy to publish to popular relays or centralized relays for content reach to your followers.  Cool! What an awesome client, I mean Tavern! What else does this knight do? He reaches for something in his pocket. what is it? A Pocket is a database for storing and retrieving nostr events but mike's written it in Rust with a few extra kinks inspired by Will's nostrdb. Still in development, but it'll be another tool for you dear user! 💖💕💚 Onigirl is proud to present this knights to the community and honor them with kisu. 💋💋💋 Show some 💖💘💓🧡💙💚 👉💋💋Will - jb55 Lord of apples 💋 @npub1xtscya34g58tk0z605fvr788k263gsu6cy9x0mhnm87echrgufzsevkk5s 👉💋💋 Mike Knight - Lord of Security 💋 @npub1acg6thl5psv62405rljzkj8spesceyfz2c32udakc2ak0dmvfeyse9p35c  Knights spend a lot of time behind the screen coding for the better of humanity. It is a tough job! Let's appreciate these knights, relay operators, that support this amazing realm of Nostr! FOSS for all!  This article was prompted for the need for privacy and security of your data. They're different, not to be confused. Recently, Edward Snowden warns Bitcoin devs about the need for privacy, [Quote](https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1786170805728039127): >“I've been warning Bitcoin developers for ten years that privacy needs to be provided for at the protocol level. This is the final warning. The clock is ticking.” Snowden’s comments come after heavy actions of enforcement from Samarai Wallet, Roger Ver, Binance’s CZ, and now the closure of Wasabi Wallet. Additionally, according to [CryptoBriefing](https://cryptobriefing.com/trezor-coinjoin-shutdown/), Trezor is ending it’s CoinJoin integration as well. Many are concerned over the new definition of a money transmitter, which includes even those who don’t touch the funds. ### Help your favorite the hamster  ^^Me drowning in notes on your feed. I can only eat so many notes to find you. 👉If there are any XMPP fans on here. I'm open to the idea of opening a public channel, so you could follow me on that as a *forum-like style*. My server of choice would likely be a German server.😀You would be receiving my articles as njump.me style or website-like. GrapeneOS users, you can download Cheogram app from the F-Driod store for free to access. Apple and Andriod users are subjected to pay to download this app, an alternative is **ntalk or conversations**. *If it interests the community, just FYI. Please comment or DM.* 👉If you enjoyed this content, please consider **reposting/sharing** as *my content is easily drowned by notes* on your feed. You could also *join my community under Children_Zone where I post my content.* An alternative is by following #onigirl Just FYI this feature is currently a little buggy. Follow as I search for tools and awesome devs to help you dear user live a decentralized life as I explore the realm of Nostr. Thank you Fren

@ 266815e0:6cd408a5

> NOTE: this is just a quick technical guide. sorry for the lack of details ## Install NodeJS Download it from the official website https://nodejs.org/en/download Or use nvm https://github.com/nvm-sh/nvm?tab=readme-ov-file#install--update-script ```bash wget -qO- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nvm-sh/nvm/v0.39.7/install.sh | bash nvm install 20 ``` ## Clone example config.yml ```bash wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hzrd149/blossom-server/master/config.example.yml -O config.yml ``` ## Modify config.yml ```bash nano config.yml # or if your that type of person vim config.yml ``` ## Run blossom-server ```bash npx blossom-server-ts # or install it locally and run using npm npm install blossom-server-ts ./node_modules/.bin/blossom-server-ts ``` Now you can open http://localhost:3000 and see your blossom server And if you set the `dashboard.enabled` option in the `config.yml` you can open http://localhost:3000/admin to see the admin dashboard

@ 266815e0:6cd408a5

While I was in Mediera with all the other awesome people at the first SEC cohort there where a lot of discussions around data storage on nostr and if it could be made censorship-resistent I remember lots of discussions about torrents, hypercore, nostr relays, and of course IPFS There were a few things I learned from all these conversations: 1. All the existing solutions have one thing in common. A universal ID of some kind for files 2. HTTP is still good. we don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water 3. nostr could fix this... somehow Some of the existing solutions work well for large files, and all of them are decentralization in some way. However none of them seem capable of serving up cat pictures for social media clients. they all have something missing... ## An Identity system An identity system would allow files to be "owned" by users. and once files have owners servers could start grouping files into a single thing instead of a 1000+ loose files This can also greatly simplify the question of "what is spam" for a server hosting (or seeding) these files. since it could simply have a whitelist of owners (and maybe their friends) ## What is blossom? Blossom is a set of HTTP endpoints that allow nostr users to store and retrieve binary data on public servers using the sha256 hash as a universal id ## What are Blobs? blobs are chunks of binary data. they are similar to files but with one key difference, they don't have names Instead blobs have a sha256 hash (like `b1674191a88ec5cdd733e4240a81803105dc412d6c6708d53ab94fc248f4f553`) as an ID These IDs are universal since they can be computed from the file itself using the sha256 hashing algorithm ( you can get a files sha256 hash on linux using: `sha256sum bitcoin.pdf` ) ## How do the servers work? Blossom servers expose four endpoints to let clients and users upload and manage blobs - `GET /<sha256>` (optional file `.ext`) - `PUT /upload` - `Authentication`: Signed [nostr event](https://github.com/hzrd149/blossom/blob/master/Server.md#upload-authorization-required) - Returns a blob descriptor - `GET /list/<pubkey>` - Returns an array of blob descriptors - `Authentication` _(optional)_: Signed [nostr event](https://github.com/hzrd149/blossom/blob/master/Server.md#list-authorization-optional) - `DELETE /<sha256>` - `Authentication`: Signed [nostr event](https://github.com/hzrd149/blossom/blob/master/Server.md#delete-authorization-required) ## What is Blossom Drive? Blossom Drive is a nostr app built on top of blossom servers and allows users to create and manage folders of blobs ## What are Drives Drives are just nostr events (kind `30563`) that store a map of blobs and what filename they should have along with some extra metadata An example drive event would be ```json { "pubkey": "266815e0c9210dfa324c6cba3573b14bee49da4209a9456f9484e5106cd408a5", "created_at": 1710773987, "content": "", "kind": 30563, "tags": [ [ "name", "Emojis" ], [ "description", "nostr emojis" ], [ "d", "emojis" ], [ "r", "https://cdn.hzrd149.com/" ], [ "x", "303f018e613f29e3e43264529903b7c8c84debbd475f89368cb293ec23938981", "/noStrudel.png", "15161", "image/png" ], [ "x", "a0e2b39975c8da1702374b3eed6f4c6c7333e6ae0008dadafe93bd34bfb2ca78", "/satellite.png", "6853", "image/png" ], [ "x", "e8f3fae0f4a43a88eae235a8b79794d72e8f14b0e103a0fed1e073d8fb53d51f", "/amethyst.png", "20487", "image/png" ], [ "x", "70bd5836807b916d79e9c4e67e8b07e3e3b53f4acbb95c7521b11039a3c975c6", "/nos.png", "36521", "image/png" ], [ "x", "0fc304630279e0c5ab2da9c2769e3a3178c47b8609b447a30916244e89abbc52", "/primal.png", "29343", "image/png" ], [ "x", "9a03824a73d4af192d893329bbc04cd3798542ee87af15051aaf9376b74b25d4", "/coracle.png", "18300", "image/png" ], [ "x", "accdc0cdc048f4719bb5e1da4ff4c6ffc1a4dbb7cf3afbd19b86940c01111568", "/iris.png", "24070", "image/png" ], [ "x", "2e740f2514d6188e350d95cf4756bbf455d2f95e6a09bc64e94f5031bc4bba8f", "/damus.png", "32758", "image/png" ], [ "x", "2e019f08da0c75fb9c40d81947e511c8f0554763bffb6d23a7b9b8c9e8c84abb", "/old emojis/astral.png", "29365", "image/png" ], [ "x", "d97f842f2511ce0491fe0de208c6135b762f494a48da59926ce15acfdb6ac17e", "/other/rabbit.png", "19803", "image/png" ], [ "x", "72cb99b689b4cfe1a9fb6937f779f3f9c65094bf0e6ac72a8f8261efa96653f5", "/blossom.png", "4393", "image/png" ] ] } ``` There is a lot going on but the main thing is the list of "x" tags and the path that describes the folder and filename the blob should live at If your interested, the full event definition is at [github.com/hzrd149/blossom-drive](https://github.com/hzrd149/blossom-drive/blob/master/docs/drive.md) ## Getting started Like every good nostr client it takes a small instruction manual in order to use it properly. so here are the steps for getting started ### 1. Open the app Open https://blossom.hzrd149.com ### 2. Login using extension  You can also login using any of the following methods using the input - NIP-46 with your https://nsec.app or https://flare.pub account - a NIP-46 connection string - an `ncryptsec` password protected private key - a `nsec` unprotected private key (please don't) - bunker:// URI from nsecbunker ### 3. Add a blossom server  Right now `https://cdn.satellite.earth` is the only public server that is compatible with blossom drive. If you want to host your own I've written a basic implementation in TypeScript [github.com/hzrd149/blossom-server](https://github.com/hzrd149/blossom-server) ### 4. Start uploading your files **NOTE: All files upload to blossom drive are public by default. DO NOT upload private files**  ### 5. Manage files  ## Encrypted drives There is also the option to encrypt drives using [NIP-49](https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/49.md) password encryption. although its not tested at all so don't trust it, verify  ## Whats next? I don't know, but Im excited to see what everyone else on nostr builds with this. I'm only one developer at the end of the day and I can't think of everything also all the images in this article are stored in one of my blossom drives [here](nostr:naddr1qvzqqqrhvvpzqfngzhsvjggdlgeycm96x4emzjlwf8dyyzdfg4hefp89zpkdgz99qq8xzun5d93kcefdd9kkzem9wvr46jka) nostr:naddr1qvzqqqrhvvpzqfngzhsvjggdlgeycm96x4emzjlwf8dyyzdfg4hefp89zpkdgz99qq8xzun5d93kcefdd9kkzem9wvr46jka

@ 362ebffa:492e2719

Julian Assange (founder of WikiLeaks) released classified documents in 2010, including sensitive U.S. military and diplomatic information. He faced charges of conspiracy and espionage for his role in obtaining and disseminating the documents. Edward Snowden, (former NSA contractor) leaked classified information in 2013, exposing global surveillance programs. Snowden revealed widespread data collection by intelligence agencies, leading to charges of espionage and theft of government property. As of today in 2024, both Assange and Snowden are considered whistle blowers by some but face legal consequences for their actions, igniting debates on government transparency and individual rights. In a sane democratic World, they should be free! Their efforts to expose government surveillance and misconduct was brave and should be encouraged. But instead they have also faced legal consequences for their actions, with the U.S. government seeking their extradition to face trial on criminal charges. These cases have sparked debates about government transparency, freedom of the press, national security, and the balance between individual rights and state interests. Without whistle blowers, government are becoming bullies!

@ 3c984938:2ec11289

## Hello (N)osytrs!  ### Yes! I'm calling you an (N)oystr!  Why is that? Because you shine, and I'm not just saying that to get more SATs. Ordinary Oysters and mussels can produce these beauties! Nothing seriously unique about them, however, with a little time and love each oyster is capable of creating something truly beautiful. I like believing so, at least, given the fact that you're even reading this article; makes you an (N)oystr! This isn't published this on X (formerly known as Twitter), Facebook, Discord, Telegram, or Instagram, which makes you the rare breed! A pearl indeed! I do have access to those platforms, but why create content on a terrible platform knowing I too could be shut down! Unfortunately, many people still use these platforms. This forces individuals to give up their privacy every day. Meta is leading the charge by forcing users to provide a photo ID for verification in order to use their crappy, obsolete site. If that was not bad enough, imagine if you're having a type of disagreement or opinion. Then, Bigtech can easily deplatform you. Umm. So no open debate? Just instantly shut-off users. Whatever, happened to right to a fair trial? Nope, just burning you at the stake as if you're a witch or warlock!  How heinous are the perpetrators and financiers of this? Well, that's opening another can of worms for you. Imagine your voice being taken away, like the little mermaid. Ariel was lucky to have a prince, but the majority of us? The likelihood that I would be carried away by the current of the sea during a sunset with a prince on a sailboat is zero. And I live on an island, so I'm just missing the prince, sailboat(though I know where I could go to steal one), and red hair. Oh my gosh, now I feel sad.  I do not have the prince, Bob is better! I do not have mermaid fins, or a shell bra. Use coconut shells, it offers more support! But, I still have my voice and a killer sunset to die for! All of that is possible thanks to the work of developers. These knights fight for Freedom Tech by utilizing FOSS, which help provides us with a vibrant ecosystem. Unfortunately, I recently learned that **they are not all *funded***. Knights must eat, drink, and have a work space. This space is where they spend most of their sweat equity on an app or software that may and may not pan out. That brilliance is susceptible to fading, as these individuals are not seen but rather stay behind closed doors. What's worse, if these developers lose faith in their project and decide to join forces with Meta! 😖 Does WhatsApp ring a bell? Without them, I probably wouldn't be able to create this long form article. Let's cheer them on like cheerleaders.. 👉Unfortunately, there's no cheerleader emoji so you'll just have to settle for a dancing lady, n guy. 💃🕺 Semisol said it beautifully, npub12262qa4uhw7u8gdwlgmntqtv7aye8vdcmvszkqwgs0zchel6mz7s6cgrkj > If we want freedom tech to succeed, the tools that make it possible need to be funded: relays like https://nostr.land, media hosts like https://nostr.build, clients like https://damus.io, etc. With that thought, Onigirl is pleased to announce the launch of a new series. With a sole focus on free market devs/projects. # Knights of Nostr!  I'll happily brief you about their exciting project and how it benefits humanity! Let's Support these Magnificent projects, devs, relays, and builders! Our first runner up! Oppa Fishcake :Lord of Media Hosting npub137c5pd8gmhhe0njtsgwjgunc5xjr2vmzvglkgqs5sjeh972gqqxqjak37w Oppa Fishcake with his noble steed!  Think of this as an introduction to learn and further your experience on Nostr! New developments and applications are constantly happening on Nostr. It's enough to make one's head spin. I may also cover FOSS projects(outside of Nostr) as they need some love as well! Plus, you can think of it as another tool to add to your decentralized life. I will not be doing how-to-Nostr guides. I personally feel there are plenty of great guides already available! Which I'm happy to add to curation collection via easily searchable on Yakihonne. For email updates you can subscribe to my [[https://paragraph.xyz/@onigirl]] If you like it, send me some 🧡💛💚 hearts💜💗💖 otherwise zap dat⚡⚡🍑🍑peach⚡⚡🍑 ~If not me, then at least to our dearest knight! Thank you from the bottom of my heart for your time and support (N)oystr! Shine bright like a diamond! Share if you care! FOSS power! Follow on your favorite Nostr Client for the best viewing experience! [!NOTE] > I'm using Obsidian + Nostr Writer Plugin; a new way to publish Markdown directly to Nostr. > I was a little nervous using this because I was used doing them in RStudio; R Markdown. > Since this is my first article, I sent it to my account as a draft to test it. It's pretty neat.

@ c7eda660:efd97c86

This is a test of Nostr Writer, publishing from Obsidian.

@ 47750177:8969e41a

25.2 Release Notes ================== Bitcoin Core version 25.2 is now available from: <https://bitcoincore.org/bin/bitcoin-core-25.2> This release includes various bug fixes and performance improvements, as well as updated translations. Please report bugs using the issue tracker at GitHub: <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues> To receive security and update notifications, please subscribe to: <https://bitcoincore.org/en/list/announcements/join/> How to Upgrade ============== If you are running an older version, shut it down. Wait until it has completely shut down (which might take a few minutes in some cases), then run the installer (on Windows) or just copy over `/Applications/Bitcoin-Qt` (on macOS) or `bitcoind`/`bitcoin-qt` (on Linux). Upgrading directly from a version of Bitcoin Core that has reached its EOL is possible, but it might take some time if the data directory needs to be migrated. Old wallet versions of Bitcoin Core are generally supported. Compatibility ============== Bitcoin Core is supported and extensively tested on operating systems using the Linux kernel, macOS 10.15+, and Windows 7 and newer. Bitcoin Core should also work on most other Unix-like systems but is not as frequently tested on them. It is not recommended to use Bitcoin Core on unsupported systems. Notable changes =============== ### Gui - gui#774 Fix crash on selecting "Mask values" in transaction view ### RPC - #29003 rpc: fix getrawtransaction segfault ### Wallet - #29176 wallet: Fix use-after-free in WalletBatch::EraseRecords - #29510 wallet: `getrawchangeaddress` and `getnewaddress` failures should not affect keypools for descriptor wallets ### P2P and network changes - #29412 p2p: Don't process mutated blocks - #29524 p2p: Don't consider blocks mutated if they don't connect to known prev block Credits ======= Thanks to everyone who directly contributed to this release: - Martin Zumsande - Sebastian Falbesoner - MarcoFalke - UdjinM6 - dergoegge - Greg Sanders As well as to everyone that helped with translations on [Transifex](https://www.transifex.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/).

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Nostr is not decentralized nor censorship-resistant Peter Todd has been [saying this](nostr:nevent1qqsq5zzu9ezhgq6es36jgg94wxsa2xh55p4tfa56yklsvjemsw7vj3cpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqpr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ez6ur4vgh8wetvd3hhyer9wghxuet5qy8hwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnddaksz9rhwden5te0dehhxarj9ehhsarj9ejx2aspzfmhxue69uhk7enxvd5xz6tw9ec82cspz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq3vamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwdehhxarj9e3xzmnyqy28wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnwdaehgu3wvfnsz9nhwden5te0wfjkccte9ec8y6tdv9kzumn9wspzpn92tr3hexwgt0z7w4qz3fcch4ryshja8jeng453aj4c83646jxvxkyvs4) for a long time and all the time I've been thinking he is misunderstanding everything, but I guess a more charitable interpretation is that he is right. Nostr _today_ is indeed centralized. Yesterday I published two harmless notes with the exact same content at the same time. In two minutes the notes had a noticeable difference in responses:  The top one was published to `wss://nostr.wine`, `wss://nos.lol`, `wss://pyramid.fiatjaf.com`. The second was published to the relay where I generally publish all my notes to, `wss://pyramid.fiatjaf.com`, and that is announced on my [NIP-05 file](https://fiatjaf.com/.well-known/nostr.json) and on my [NIP-65](https://nips.nostr.com/65) relay list. A few minutes later I published that screenshot again in two identical notes to the same sets of relays, asking if people understood the implications. The difference in quantity of responses can still be seen today:  These results are skewed now by the fact that the two notes got rebroadcasted to multiple relays after some time, but the fundamental point remains. What happened was that a huge lot more of people saw the first note compared to the second, and if Nostr was really censorship-resistant that shouldn't have happened at all. Some people implied in the comments, with an air of obviousness, that publishing the note to "more relays" should have predictably resulted in more replies, which, again, shouldn't be the case if Nostr is really censorship-resistant. What happens is that most people who engaged with the note are _following me_, in the sense that they have instructed their clients to fetch my notes on their behalf and present them in the UI, and clients are failing to do that despite me making it clear in multiple ways that my notes are to be found on `wss://pyramid.fiatjaf.com`. If we were talking not about me, but about some public figure that was being censored by the State and got banned (or shadowbanned) by the 3 biggest public relays, the sad reality would be that the person would immediately get his reach reduced to ~10% of what they had before. This is not at all unlike what happened to dozens of personalities that were banned from the corporate social media platforms and then moved to other platforms -- how many of their original followers switched to these other platforms? Probably some small percentage close to 10%. In that sense Nostr today is similar to what we had before. Peter Todd is right that if the way Nostr works is that you just subscribe to a small set of relays and expect to get everything from them then it tends to get very centralized very fast, and this is the reality today. Peter Todd is wrong that Nostr is _inherently_ centralized or that it needs a _protocol change_ to become what it has always purported to be. He is in fact wrong today, because what is written above is not valid for all clients of today, and if we [drive in the right direction](nostr:naddr1qqykycekxd3nxdpcvgq3zamnwvaz7tmxd9shg6npvchxxmmdqgsrhuxx8l9ex335q7he0f09aej04zpazpl0ne2cgukyawd24mayt8grqsqqqa2803ksy8) we can successfully make Peter Todd be more and more wrong as time passes, instead of the contrary. --- See also: - [Censorship-resistant relay discovery in Nostr](nostr:naddr1qqykycekxd3nxdpcvgq3zamnwvaz7tmxd9shg6npvchxxmmdqgsrhuxx8l9ex335q7he0f09aej04zpazpl0ne2cgukyawd24mayt8grqsqqqa2803ksy8) - [A vision for content discovery and relay usage for basic social-networking in Nostr](nostr:naddr1qqyrxe33xqmxgve3qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cywwjvq)

@ 6871d8df:4a9396c1

In an era where data seems to be as valuable as currency, the prevailing trend in AI starkly contrasts with the concept of personal data ownership. The explosion of AI and the ensuing race have made it easy to overlook where the data is coming from. The current model, dominated by big tech players, involves collecting vast amounts of user data and selling it to AI companies for training LLMs. Reddit recently penned a 60 million dollar deal, Google guards and mines Youtube, and more are going this direction. But is that their data to sell? Yes, it's on their platforms, but without the users to generate it, what would they monetize? To me, this practice raises significant ethical questions, as it assumes that user data is a commodity that companies can exploit at will. The heart of the issue lies in the ownership of data. Why, in today's digital age, do we not retain ownership of our data? Why can't our data follow us, under our control, to wherever we want to go? These questions echo the broader sentiment that while some in the tech industry — such as the blockchain-first crypto bros — recognize the importance of data ownership, their "blockchain for everything solutions," to me, fall significantly short in execution. Reddit further complicates this with its current move to IPO, which, on the heels of the large data deal, might reinforce the mistaken belief that user-generated data is a corporate asset. Others, no doubt, will follow suit. This underscores the urgent need for a paradigm shift towards recognizing and respecting user data as personal property. In my perfect world, the digital landscape would undergo a revolutionary transformation centered around the empowerment and sovereignty of individual data ownership. Platforms like Twitter, Reddit, Yelp, YouTube, and Stack Overflow, integral to our digital lives, would operate on a fundamentally different premise: user-owned data. In this envisioned future, data ownership would not just be a concept but a practice, with public and private keys ensuring the authenticity and privacy of individual identities. This model would eliminate the private data silos that currently dominate, where companies profit from selling user data without consent. Instead, data would traverse a decentralized protocol akin to the internet, prioritizing user control and transparency. The cornerstone of this world would be a meritocratic digital ecosystem. Success for companies would hinge on their ability to leverage user-owned data to deliver unparalleled value rather than their capacity to gatekeep and monetize information. If a company breaks my trust, I can move to a competitor, and my data, connections, and followers will come with me. This shift would herald an era where consent, privacy, and utility define the digital experience, ensuring that the benefits of technology are equitably distributed and aligned with the users' interests and rights. The conversation needs to shift fundamentally. We must challenge this trajectory and advocate for a future where data ownership and privacy are not just ideals but realities. If we continue on our current path without prioritizing individual data rights, the future of digital privacy and autonomy is bleak. Big tech's dominance allows them to treat user data as a commodity, potentially selling and exploiting it without consent. This imbalance has already led to users being cut off from their digital identities and connections when platforms terminate accounts, underscoring the need for a digital ecosystem that empowers user control over data. Without changing direction, we risk a future where our content — and our freedoms by consequence — are controlled by a few powerful entities, threatening our rights and the democratic essence of the digital realm. We must advocate for a shift towards data ownership by individuals to preserve our digital freedoms and democracy.

@ 8ce092d8:950c24ad

# Overview 1. Introduction 2. Model Types 3. Training (Data Collection and Config Settings) 4. Probability Viewing: AI Inspector 5. Match 6. Cheat Sheet # I. Introduction AI Arena is the first game that combines human and artificial intelligence collaboration. AI learns your skills through "imitation learning." ## Official Resources 1. Official Documentation (Must Read): [Everything You Need to Know About AI Arena](https://docs.aiarena.io/everything-you-need-to-know) Watch the 2-minute video in the documentation to quickly understand the basic flow of the game. 2. Official Play-2-Airdrop competition FAQ Site https://aiarena.notion.site/aiarena/Gateway-to-the-Arena-52145e990925499d95f2fadb18a24ab0 3. Official Discord (Must Join): https://discord.gg/aiarenaplaytest for the latest announcements or seeking help. The team will also have a exclusive channel there. 4. Official YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@aiarena because the game has built-in tutorials, you can choose to watch videos. ## What is this game about? 1. Although categorized as a platform fighting game, the core is a probability-based strategy game. 2. Warriors take actions based on probabilities on the AI Inspector dashboard, competing against opponents. 3. The game does not allow direct manual input of probabilities for each area but inputs information through data collection and establishes models by adjusting parameters. 4. Data collection emulates fighting games, but training can be completed using a Dummy As long as you can complete the in-game tutorial, you can master the game controls. # II. Model Types Before training, there are three model types to choose from: Simple Model Type, Original Model Type, and Advanced Model Type. **It is recommended to try the Advanced Model Type after completing at least one complete training with the Simple Model Type and gaining some understanding of the game.**  ## Simple Model Type The Simple Model is akin to completing a form, and the training session is comparable to filling various sections of that form. This model has 30 buckets. Each bucket can be seen as telling the warrior what action to take in a specific situation. There are 30 buckets, meaning 30 different scenarios. Within the same bucket, the probabilities for direction or action are the same. For example: What should I do when I'm off-stage — refer to the "Recovery (you off-stage)" bucket. **For all buckets, refer to this official documentation:** https://docs.aiarena.io/arenadex/game-mechanics/tabular-model-v2 **Video (no sound): The entire training process for all buckets** https://youtu.be/1rfRa3WjWEA Game version 2024.1.10. The method of saving is outdated. Please refer to the game updates. ## Advanced Model Type The "Original Model Type" and "Advanced Model Type" are based on Machine Learning, which is commonly referred to as combining with AI. The Original Model Type consists of only one bucket, representing the entire map. If you want the AI to learn different scenarios, you need to choose a "Focus Area" to let the warrior know where to focus. A single bucket means that a slight modification can have a widespread impact on the entire model. This is where the "Advanced Model Type" comes in. The "Advanced Model Type" can be seen as a combination of the "Original Model Type" and the "Simple Model Type". The Advanced Model Type divides the map into 8 buckets. Each bucket can use many "Focus Area." For a detailed explanation of the 8 buckets and different Focus Areas, please refer to the tutorial page (accessible in the Advanced Model Type, after completing a training session, at the top left of the Advanced Config, click on "Tutorial").  # III. Training (Data Collection and Config Settings) ## Training Process: 1. **Collect Data** 2. **Set Parameters, Train, and Save** 3. **Repeat Step 1 until the Model is Complete** Training the Simple Model Type is the easiest to start with; refer to the video above for a detailed process. Training the Advanced Model Type offers more possibilities through the combination of "Focus Area" parameters, providing a higher upper limit. While the Original Model Type has great potential, it's harder to control. Therefore, this section focuses on the "Advanced Model Type." ## 1. What Kind of Data to Collect 1. **High-Quality Data:** Collect purposeful data. Garbage in, garbage out. Only collect the necessary data; don't collect randomly. It's recommended to use Dummy to collect data. However, don't pursue perfection; through parameter adjustments, AI has a certain level of fault tolerance. 2. **Balanced Data:** Balance your dataset. In simple terms, if you complete actions on the left side a certain number of times, also complete a similar number on the right side. While data imbalance can be addressed through parameter adjustments (see below), it's advised not to have this issue during data collection. 3. **Moderate Amount:** A single training will include many individual actions. Collect data for each action 1-10 times. Personally, it's recommended to collect data 2-3 times for a single action. If the effect of a single training is not clear, conduct a second (or even third) training with the same content, but with different parameter settings. ## 2. What to Collect (and Focus Area Selection) Game actions mimic fighting games, consisting of 4 directions + 6 states (Idle, Jump, Attack, Grab, Special, Shield). Directions can be combined into ↗, ↘, etc. These directions and states can then be combined into different actions. To make "Focus Area" effective, you need to collect data in training that matches these parameters. For example, for "Distance to Opponent", you need to collect data when close to the opponent and also when far away. \* Note: While you can split into multiple training sessions, it's most effective to cover different situations within a single training. Refer to the Simple Config, categorize the actions you want to collect, and based on the game scenario, classify them into two categories: "Movement" and "Combat."  ### Movement-Based Actions #### Action Collection When the warrior is offstage, regardless of where the opponent is, we require the warrior to return to the stage to prevent self-destruction. This involves 3 aerial buckets: 5 (Near Blast Zone), 7 (Under Stage), and 8 (Side Of Stage).  \* Note: The background comes from the Tutorial mentioned earlier. The arrows in the image indicate the direction of the action and are for reference only. \* Note: Action collection should be clean; do not collect actions that involve leaving the stage. #### Config Settings In the Simple Config, you can directly choose "Movement" in it. However, for better customization, it's recommended to use the Advanced Config directly. - Intensity: The method for setting Intensity will be introduced separately later. - Buckets: As shown in the image, choose the bucket you are training. - Focus Area: Position-based parameters: - Your position (must) - Raycast Platform Distance, Raycast Platform Type (optional, generally choose these in Bucket 7) ### Combat-Based Actions **The goal is to direct attacks quickly and effectively towards the opponent, which is the core of game strategy.** This involves 5 buckets: - 2 regular situations - In the air: 6 (Safe Zone) - On the ground: 4 (Opponent Active) - 3 special situations on the ground: - 1 Projectile Active - 2 Opponent Knockback - 3 Opponent Stunned #### 2 Regular Situations  In the in-game tutorial, we learned how to perform horizontal attacks. However, in the actual game, directions expand to 8 dimensions. Imagine having 8 relative positions available for launching hits against the opponent. Our task is to design what action to use for attack or defense at each relative position. **Focus Area** - Basic (generally select all) - Angle to opponent - Distance to opponent - Discrete Distance: Choosing this option helps better differentiate between closer and farther distances from the opponent. As shown in the image, red indicates a relatively close distance, and green indicates a relatively distant distance. - Advanced: Other commonly used parameters - Direction: different facings to opponent - Your Elemental Gauge and Discrete Elementals: Considering the special's charge - Opponent action: The warrior will react based on the opponent's different actions. - Your action: Your previous action. Choose this if teaching combos. #### 3 Special Situations on the Ground Projectile Active, Opponent Stunned, Opponent Knockback These three buckets can be referenced in the Simple Model Type video. The parameter settings approach is the same as Opponent Active/Safe Zone. For Projectile Active, in addition to the parameters based on combat, to track the projectile, you also need to select "Raycast Projectile Distance" and "Raycast Projectile On Target." ### 3. Setting "Intensity" #### Resources - The "Tutorial" mentioned earlier explains these parameters. - Official Config Document (2022.12.24): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1adXwvDHEnrVZ5bUClWQoBQ8ETrSSKgG5q48YrogaFJs/edit --- #### TL;DR: **Epochs:** - Adjust to fewer epochs if learning is insufficient, increase for more learning. **Batch Size:** - Set to the minimum (16) if data is precise but unbalanced, or just want it to learn fast - Increase (e.g., 64) if data is slightly imprecise but balanced. - If both imprecise and unbalanced, consider retraining. **Learning Rate:** - Maximize (0.01) for more learning but a risk of forgetting past knowledge. - Minimize for more accurate learning with less impact on previous knowledge. **Lambda:** - Reduce for prioritizing learning new things. **Data Cleaning:** - Enable "Remove Sparsity" unless you want AI to learn idleness. - For special cases, like teaching the warrior to use special moves when idle, refer to this tutorial video: https://discord.com/channels/1140682688651612291/1140683283626201098/1195467295913431111 **Personal Experience:** - Initial training with settings: 125 epochs, batch size 16, learning rate 0.01, lambda 0, data cleaning enabled. - Prioritize Multistream, sometimes use Oversampling. - Fine-tune subsequent training based on the mentioned theories. # IV. Probability Viewing: AI Inspector The dashboard consists of "Direction + Action." Above the dashboard, you can see the "Next Action" – the action the warrior will take in its current state. The higher the probability, the more likely the warrior is to perform that action, indicating a quicker reaction. It's essential to note that when checking the Direction, the one with the highest visual representation may not have the highest numerical value. To determine the actual value, hover the mouse over the graphical representation, as shown below, where the highest direction is "Idle."  In the map, you can drag the warrior to view the probabilities of the warrior in different positions. Right-click on the warrior with the mouse to change the warrior's facing. The status bar below can change the warrior's state on the map.  When training the "Opponent Stunned, Opponent Knockback" bucket, you need to select the status below the opponent's status bar. If you are focusing on "Opponent action" in the Focus Zone, choose the action in the opponent's status bar. If you are focusing on "Your action" in the Focus Zone, choose the action in your own status bar. When training the "Projectile Active" Bucket, drag the projectile on the right side of the dashboard to check the status. **Next** The higher the probability, the faster the reaction. However, be cautious when the action probability reaches 100%. This may cause the warrior to be in a special case of "State Transition," resulting in unnecessary "Idle" states. > Explanation: > In each state a fighter is in, there are different "possible transitions". For example, from falling state you cannot do low sweep because low sweep requires you to be on the ground. For the shield state, we do not allow you to directly transition to headbutt. So to do headbutt you have to first exit to another state and then do it from there (assuming that state allows you to do headbutt). This is the reason the fighter runs because "run" action is a valid state transition from shield. [Source](https://discord.com/channels/848599369879388170/1079903287760928819/1160049804844470292) # V. Learn from Matches After completing all the training, your model is preliminarily finished—congratulations! The warrior will step onto the arena alone and embark on its debut! Next, we will learn about the strengths and weaknesses of the warrior from battles to continue refining the warrior's model. In matches, besides appreciating the performance, pay attention to the following: 1. **Movement, i.e., Off the Stage:** Observe how the warrior gets eliminated. Is it due to issues in the action settings at a certain position, or is it a normal death caused by a high percentage? The former is what we need to avoid and optimize. 2. **Combat:** Analyze both sides' actions carefully. Observe which actions you and the opponent used in different states. Check which of your hits are less effective, and how does the opponent handle different actions, etc. The approach to battle analysis is similar to the thought process in the "Training", helping to have a more comprehensive understanding of the warrior's performance and making targeted improvements. # VI. Cheat Sheet **Training** 1. Click "Collect" to collect actions. 2. "Map - Data Limit" is more user-friendly. Most players perform initial training on the "Arena" map. 3. Switch between the warrior and the dummy: Tab key (keyboard) / Home key (controller). 4. Use "Collect" to make the opponent loop a set of actions. 5. Instantly move the warrior to a specific location: Click "Settings" - SPAWN - Choose the desired location on the map - On. Press the Enter key (keyboard) / Start key (controller) during training. **Inspector** 1. Right-click on the fighter to change their direction. Drag the fighter and observe the changes in different positions and directions. 2. When satisfied with the training, click "Save." 3. In "Sparring" and "Simulation," use "Current Working Model." 4. If satisfied with a model, then click "compete." The model used in the rankings is the one marked as "competing." **Sparring / Ranked** 1. Use the Throneroom map only for the top 2 or top 10 rankings. 2. There is a 30-second cooldown between matches. The replays are played for any match. Once the battle begins, you can see the winner on the leaderboard or by right-clicking the page - Inspect - Console. Also, if you encounter any errors or bugs, please send screenshots of the console to the Discord server. Good luck! See you on the arena!

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Pequenos problemas que o Estado cria para a sociedade e que não são sempre lembrados - **vale-transporte**: transferir o custo com o transporte do funcionário para um terceiro o estimula a morar longe de onde trabalha, já que morar perto é normalmente mais caro e a economia com transporte é inexistente. - **atestado médico**: o direito a faltar o trabalho com atestado médico cria a exigência desse atestado para todas as situações, substituindo o livre acordo entre patrão e empregado e sobrecarregando os médicos e postos de saúde com visitas desnecessárias de assalariados resfriados. - **prisões**: com dinheiro mal-administrado, burocracia e péssima alocação de recursos -- problemas que empresas privadas em competição (ou mesmo sem qualquer competição) saberiam resolver muito melhor -- o Estado fica sem presídios, com os poucos existentes entupidos, muito acima de sua alocação máxima, e com isto, segundo a bizarra corrente de responsabilidades que culpa o juiz que condenou o criminoso por sua morte na cadeia, juízes deixam de condenar à prisão os bandidos, soltando-os na rua. - **justiça**: entrar com processos é grátis e isto faz proliferar a atividade dos advogados que se dedicam a criar problemas judiciais onde não seria necessário e a entupir os tribunais, impedindo-os de fazer o que mais deveriam fazer. - **justiça**: como a justiça só obedece às leis e ignora acordos pessoais, escritos ou não, as pessoas não fazem acordos, recorrem sempre à justiça estatal, e entopem-na de assuntos que seriam muito melhor resolvidos entre vizinhos. - **leis civis**: as leis criadas pelos parlamentares ignoram os costumes da sociedade e são um incentivo a que as pessoas não respeitem nem criem normas sociais -- que seriam maneiras mais rápidas, baratas e satisfatórias de resolver problemas. - **leis de trãnsito**: quanto mais leis de trânsito, mais serviço de fiscalização são delegados aos policiais, que deixam de combater crimes por isto (afinal de contas, eles não querem de fato arriscar suas vidas combatendo o crime, a fiscalização é uma excelente desculpa para se esquivarem a esta responsabilidade). - **financiamento educacional**: é uma espécie de subsídio às faculdades privadas que faz com que se criem cursos e mais cursos que são cada vez menos recheados de algum conhecimento ou técnica útil e cada vez mais inúteis. - **leis de tombamento**: são um incentivo a que o dono de qualquer área ou construção "histórica" destrua todo e qualquer vestígio de história que houver nele antes que as autoridades descubram, o que poderia não acontecer se ele pudesse, por exemplo, usar, mostrar e se beneficiar da história daquele local sem correr o risco de perder, de fato, a sua propriedade. - **zoneamento urbano**: torna as cidades mais espalhadas, criando uma necessidade gigantesca de carros, ônibus e outros meios de transporte para as pessoas se locomoverem das zonas de moradia para as zonas de trabalho. - **zoneamento urbano**: faz com que as pessoas percam horas no trânsito todos os dias, o que é, além de um desperdício, um atentado contra a sua saúde, que estaria muito melhor servida numa caminhada diária entre a casa e o trabalho. - **zoneamento urbano**: torna ruas e as casas menos seguras criando zonas enormes, tanto de residências quanto de indústrias, onde não há movimento de gente alguma. - **escola obrigatória + currículo escolar nacional**: emburrece todas as crianças. - **leis contra trabalho infantil**: tira das crianças a oportunidade de aprender ofícios úteis e levar um dinheiro para ajudar a família. - **licitações**: como não existem os critérios do mercado para decidir qual é o melhor prestador de serviço, criam-se comissões de pessoas que vão decidir coisas. isto incentiva os prestadores de serviço que estão concorrendo na licitação a tentar comprar os membros dessas comissões. isto, fora a corrupção, gera problemas reais: __(i)__ a escolha dos serviços acaba sendo a pior possível, já que a empresa prestadora que vence está claramente mais dedicada a comprar comissões do que a fazer um bom trabalho (este problema afeta tantas áreas, desde a construção de estradas até a qualidade da merenda escolar, que é impossível listar aqui); __(ii)__ o processo corruptor acaba, no longo prazo, eliminando as empresas que prestavam e deixando para competir apenas as corruptas, e a qualidade tende a piorar progressivamente. - **cartéis**: o Estado em geral cria e depois fica refém de vários grupos de interesse. o caso dos taxistas contra o Uber é o que está na moda hoje (e o que mostra como os Estados se comportam da mesma forma no mundo todo). - **multas**: quando algum indivíduo ou empresa comete uma fraude financeira, ou causa algum dano material involuntário, as vítimas do caso são as pessoas que sofreram o dano ou perderam dinheiro, mas o Estado tem sempre leis que prevêem multas para os responsáveis. A justiça estatal é sempre muito rígida e rápida na aplicação dessas multas, mas relapsa e vaga no que diz respeito à indenização das vítimas. O que em geral acontece é que o Estado aplica uma enorme multa ao responsável pelo mal, retirando deste os recursos que dispunha para indenizar as vítimas, e se retira do caso, deixando estas desamparadas. - **desapropriação**: o Estado pode pegar qualquer propriedade de qualquer pessoa mediante uma indenização que é necessariamente inferior ao valor da propriedade para o seu presente dono (caso contrário ele a teria vendido voluntariamente). - **seguro-desemprego**: se há, por exemplo, um prazo mínimo de 1 ano para o sujeito ter direito a receber seguro-desemprego, isto o incentiva a planejar ficar apenas 1 ano em cada emprego (ano este que será sucedido por um período de desemprego remunerado), matando todas as possibilidades de aprendizado ou aquisição de experiência naquela empresa específica ou ascensão hierárquica. - **previdência**: a previdência social tem todos os defeitos de cálculo do mundo, e não importa muito ela ser uma forma horrível de poupar dinheiro, porque ela tem garantias bizarras de longevidade fornecidas pelo Estado, além de ser compulsória. Isso serve para criar no imaginário geral a idéia da __aposentadoria__, uma época mágica em que todos os dias serão finais de semana. A idéia da aposentadoria influencia o sujeito a não se preocupar em ter um emprego que faça sentido, mas sim em ter um trabalho qualquer, que o permita se aposentar. - **regulamentação impossível**: milhares de coisas são proibidas, há regulamentações sobre os aspectos mais mínimos de cada empreendimento ou construção ou espaço. se todas essas regulamentações fossem exigidas não haveria condições de produção e todos morreriam. portanto, elas não são exigidas. porém, o Estado, ou um agente individual imbuído do poder estatal pode, se desejar, exigi-las todas de um cidadão inimigo seu. qualquer pessoa pode viver a vida inteira sem cumprir nem 10% das regulamentações estatais, mas viverá também todo esse tempo com medo de se tornar um alvo de sua exigência, num estado de terror psicológico. - **perversão de critérios**: para muitas coisas sobre as quais a sociedade normalmente chegaria a um valor ou comportamento "razoável" espontaneamente, o Estado dita regras. estas regras muitas vezes não são obrigatórias, são mais "sugestões" ou limites, como o salário mínimo, ou as 44 horas semanais de trabalho. a sociedade, porém, passa a usar esses valores como se fossem o normal. são raras, por exemplo, as ofertas de emprego que fogem à regra das 44h semanais. - **inflação**: subir os preços é difícil e constrangedor para as empresas, pedir aumento de salário é difícil e constrangedor para o funcionário. a inflação força as pessoas a fazer isso, mas o aumento não é automático, como alguns economistas podem pensar (enquanto alguns outros ficam muito satisfeitos de que esse processo seja demorado e difícil). - **inflação**: a inflação destrói a capacidade das pessoas de julgar preços entre concorrentes usando a própria memória. - **inflação**: a inflação destrói os cálculos de lucro/prejuízo das empresas e prejudica enormemente as decisões empresariais que seriam baseadas neles. - **inflação**: a inflação redistribui a riqueza dos mais pobres e mais afastados do sistema financeiro para os mais ricos, os bancos e as megaempresas. - **inflação**: a inflação estimula o endividamento e o consumismo. - **lixo:** ao prover coleta e armazenamento de lixo "grátis para todos" o Estado incentiva a criação de lixo. se tivessem que pagar para que recolhessem o seu lixo, as pessoas (e conseqüentemente as empresas) se empenhariam mais em produzir coisas usando menos plástico, menos embalagens, menos sacolas. - **leis contra crimes financeiros:** ao criar legislação para dificultar acesso ao sistema financeiro por parte de criminosos a dificuldade e os custos para acesso a esse mesmo sistema pelas pessoas de bem cresce absurdamente, levando a um percentual enorme de gente incapaz de usá-lo, para detrimento de todos -- e no final das contas os grandes criminosos ainda conseguem burlar tudo.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# IPFS problems: Community I was an avid IPFS user until yesterday. Many many times I asked simple questions for which I couldn't find an answer on the internet in the #ipfs IRC channel on Freenode. Most of the times I didn't get an answer, and even when I got it was rarely by someone who knew IPFS deeply. I've had issues go unanswered on js-ipfs repositories for year – one of these was raising awareness of a problem that then got fixed some months later by a complete rewrite, I closed my own issue after realizing that by myself some couple of months later, I don't think the people responsible for the rewrite were ever acknowledge that he had fixed my issue. Some days ago I asked some questions about how the IPFS protocol worked internally, sincerely trying to understand the inefficiencies in finding and fetching content over IPFS. I pointed it would be a good idea to have a drawing showing that so people would understand the difficulties (which I didn't) and wouldn't be pissed off by the slowness. I was told to read the whitepaper. I had already the whitepaper, but read again the relevant parts. The whitepaper doesn't explain anything about the DHT and how IPFS finds content. I said that in the room, was told to read again. Before anyone misread this section, I want to say I understand it's a pain to keep answering people on IRC if you're busy developing stuff of interplanetary importance, and that I'm not paying anyone nor I have the right to be answered. On the other hand, if you're developing a super-important protocol, financed by many millions of dollars and a lot of people are hitting their heads against your software and there's no one to help them; you're always busy but never delivers anything that brings joy to your users, something is very wrong. I sincerely don't know what IPFS developers are working on, I wouldn't doubt they're working on important things if they said that, but what I see – and what many other users see (take a look at the IPFS Discourse forum) is bugs, bugs all over the place, confusing UX, and almost no help.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Castas hindus em nova chave Shudras buscam o máximo bem para os seus próprios corpos; vaishyas o máximo bem para a sua própria vida terrena e a da sua família; kshatriyas o máximo bem para a sociedade e este mundo terreno; brâmanes buscam o máximo bem.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Thoughts on Nostr key management On [Why I don't like NIP-26 as a solution for key management](nostr:naddr1qqyrgceh89nxgdmzqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823ctgmx78) I talked about multiple techniques that could be used to tackle the problem of key management on Nostr. Here are some ideas that work in tandem: - [NIP-41](https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/41.md) (stateless key invalidation) - [NIP-46](https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/46.md) (Nostr Connect) - [NIP-07](https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/07.md) (signer browser extension) - [Connected hardware signing devices](https://lnbits.github.io/nostr-signing-device/installer/) - other things like musig or frostr keys used in conjunction with a semi-trusted server; or other kinds of trusted software, like a dedicated signer on a mobile device that can sign on behalf of other apps; or even a separate protocol that some people decide to use as the source of truth for their keys, and some clients might decide to use that automatically - there are probably many other ideas Some premises I have in my mind (that may be flawed) that base my thoughts on these matters (and cause me to not worry too much) are that - For the vast majority of people, Nostr keys aren't a target as valuable as Bitcoin keys, so they will probably be ok even without any solution; - Even when you lose everything, identity can be recovered -- slowly and painfully, but still --, unlike money; - Nostr is not trying to replace all other forms of online communication (even though when I think about this I can't imagine one thing that wouldn't be nice to replace with Nostr) or of offline communication, so there will always be ways. - For the vast majority of people, losing keys and starting fresh isn't a big deal. It is a big deal when you have followers and an online persona and your life depends on that, but how many people are like that? In the real world I see people deleting social media accounts all the time and creating new ones, people losing their phone numbers or other accounts associated with their phone numbers, and not caring very much -- they just find a way to notify friends and family and move on. We can probably come up with some specs to ease the "manual" recovery process, like social attestation and explicit signaling -- i.e., Alice, Bob and Carol are friends; Alice loses her key; Bob sends a new Nostr event kind to the network saying what is Alice's new key; depending on how much Carol trusts Bob, she can automatically start following that and remove the old key -- or something like that. --- One nice thing about some of these proposals, like NIP-41, or the social-recovery method, or the external-source-of-truth-method, is that they don't have to be implemented in any client, they can live in standalone single-purpose microapps that users open or visit only every now and then, and these can then automatically update their follow lists with the latest news from keys that have changed according to multiple methods.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# IPFS problems: Shitcoinery IPFS was advertised to the Ethereum community since the beggining as a way to "store" data for their "dApps". I don't think this is harmful in any way, but for some reason it may have led IPFS developers to focus too much on Ethereum stuff. Once I watched a talk showing libp2p developers – despite being ignored by the Ethereum team (that ended up creating their own agnostic p2p library) – dedicating an enourmous amount of work on getting a libp2p app running in the browser talking to a normal Ethereum node. The always somewhat-abandoned "Awesome IPFS" site is a big repository of "dApps", some of which don't even have their landing page up anymore, useless Ethereum smart contracts that for some reason use IPFS to store whatever the useless data their users produce. Again, per se it isn't a problem that Ethereum people are using IPFS, but it is at least confusing, maybe misleading, that when you search for IPFS most of the use-cases are actually Ethereum useless-cases. ## See also * [Bitcoin](nostr:naddr1qqyryveexumnyd3kqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c7nywz4), the only non-shitcoin

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Economics Just a bunch of somewhat-related notes. * [notes on "Economic Action Beyond the Extent of the Market", Per Bylund](nostr:naddr1qqyxxepsx3skgvenqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cf5cy3p) * [Mises' interest rate theory](nostr:naddr1qqyr2dtrxycr2dmrqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c97asm3) * [Profits, not wages, as the originary factor](nostr:naddr1qqyrge3hxa3rqce4qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c7x67pu) * [Reisman on opportunity cost](nostr:naddr1qqyrswtr89nxvepkqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cwx7t3v) * [Money Supply Measurement](nostr:naddr1qqyr2v3cxcunserzqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cya65m9) * [Per Bylund's insight](nostr:naddr1qqyxvdtzxscxzcenqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cuq3unj) * [Maybe a new approach to the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, some disorganized thoughts](nostr:naddr1qqyrvdecvccxxcejqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cl9wc86) * [An argument according to which fractional-reserve banking is merely theft and nothing else](nostr:naddr1qqyrywt9v5exydenqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cfks90r) * [Conjecture and criticism](nostr:naddr1qqyrqde5x9snqvfnqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823ce4glh8) * [Qual é o economista? (piadas)](nostr:naddr1qqyx2vmrx93xgdpjqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c0ckmsx) * [UBI calculations](nostr:naddr1qqyryenpxe3ryvf4qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cuurj42) * [Donations on the internet](nostr:naddr1qqyrqwp4xsmnsvtxqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cex8903)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# tempreites My first library to get stars on GitHub, was a very stupid templating library that used just HTML and HTML attributes ("DSL-free"). I was inspired by <http://microjs.com/> at the time and ended up not using the library. Probably no one ever did. - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/tempreites>

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# nix Pra instalar o [neuron](797984e3.md) fui forçado a baixar e instalar o [nix](https://nixos.org/download.html). Não consegui me lembrar por que não estava usando até hoje aquele maravilhoso sistema de instalar pacotes desde a primeira vez que tentei, anos atrás. Que sofrimento pra fazer funcionar com o `fish`, mas até que bem menos sofrimento que da outra vez. Tive que instalar um tal de `fish-foreign-environment` (usando o próprio nix!, já que a outra opção era o `oh-my-fish` ou qualquer outra porcaria dessas) e aí usá-lo para aplicar as definições de shell para bash direto no `fish`. E aí lembrei também que o `/nix/store` fica cheio demais, o negócio instala tudo que existe neste mundo a partir do zero. É só para computadores muito ricos, mas vamos ver como vai ser. Estou gostando do neuron (veja, estou usando como diário), então vou ter que deixar o nix aí.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# O Bitcoin como um sistema social humano Afinal de contas, o que é o Bitcoin? Não vou responder a essa pergunta explicando o que é uma "blockchain" ou coisa que o valha, como todos fazem muito pessimamente. [A melhor explicação em português que eu já vi está aqui](nostr:naddr1qqrky6t5vdhkjmspz9mhxue69uhkv6tpw34xze3wvdhk6q3q80cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsxpqqqp65wp3k3fu), mas mesmo assim qualquer explicação jamais será definitiva. A explicação apenas do protocolo, do que faz um programa `bitcoind` sendo executado em um computador e como ele se comunica com outros em outros computadores, e os incentivos que estão em jogo para garantir com razoável probabilidade que se chegará a um consenso sobre quem é dono de qual parte de qual transação, apesar de não ser complicada demais, exigirá do iniciante que seja compreendida muitas vezes antes que ele se possa se sentir confortável para dizer que entende um pouco. E essa parte _técnica_, apesar de ter sido o insight fundamental que gerou o evento miraculoso chamado Bitcoin, não é a parte mais importante, hoje. Se fosse, várias dessas outras moedas seriam concorrentes do Bitcoin, mas não são, e jamais poderão ser, porque elas não estão nem próximas de ter os outros elementos que compõem o Bitcoin. São eles: 1. A estrutura O Bitcoin é um sistema composto de partes independentes. Existem programadores que trabalham no protocolo e aplicações, e dia após dia novos programadores chegam e outros saem, e eles trabalham às vezes em conjunto, às vezes sem que um se dê conta do outro, às vezes por conta própria, às vezes pagos por empresas interessadas. Existem os usuários que realizam validação completa, isto é, estão rodando algum programa do Bitcoin e contribuindo para a difusão dos blocos, das transações, rejeitando usuários malignos e evitando ataques de mineradores mal-intencionados. Existem os poupadores, acumuladores ou os proprietários de bitcoins, que conhecem as possibilidades que o mundo reserva para o Bitcoin, esperam o dia em que o padrão-Bitcoin será uma realidade mundial e por isso mesmo atributem aos seus bitcoins valores muito mais altos do que os preços atuais de mercado, agarrando-se a eles. Especuladores de "criptomoedas" não fazem parte desse sistema, nem tampouco empresas que [aceitam pagamento](https://bitpay.com/) em bitcoins para imediatamente venderem tudo em troca de dinheiro estatal, e menos ainda [gente que usa bitcoins](https://www.investimentobitcoin.com/) e [a própria marca Bitcoin](https://www.xdex.com.br/) para aplicar seus golpes e coisas parecidas. 2. A cultura Mencionei que há empresas que pagam programadores para trabalharem no código aberto do BitcoinCore ou de outros programas relacionados à rede Bitcoin -- ou mesmo em aplicações não necessariamente ligadas à camada fundamental do protocolo. Nenhuma dessas empresas interessadas, porém, controla o Bitcoin, e isso é o elemento principal da cultura do Bitcoin. O propósito do Bitcoin sempre foi ser uma rede aberta, sem chefes, sem política envolvida, sem necessidade de pedir autorização para participar. O fato do próprio Satoshi Nakamoto ter voluntariamente desaparecido das discussões foi fundamental para que o Bitcoin não fosse visto como um sistema dependente dele ou que ele fosse entendido como o chefe. Em outras "criptomoedas" nada disso aconteceu. O chefe supremo do Ethereum continua por aí mandando e desmandando e inventando novos elementos para o protocolo que são automaticamente aceitos por toda a comunidade, o mesmo vale para o Zcash, EOS, Ripple, Litecoin e até mesmo para o Bitcoin Cash. Pior ainda: Satoshi Nakamoto saiu sem nenhum dinheiro, nunca mexeu nos milhares de bitcoins que ele gerou nos primeiros blocos -- enquanto os líderes dessas porcarias supramencionadas cobraram uma fortuna pelo direito de uso dos seus primeiros usuários ou estão aí a até hoje receber dividendos. Tudo isso e mais outras coisas -- a mentalidade anti-estatal e entusiasta de sistemas p2p abertos dos membros mais proeminentes da comunidade, por exemplo -- faz com que um ar de liberdade e suspeito de tentativas de centralização da moeda sejam percebidos e execrados. 3. A história A noção de que o Bitcoin não pode ser controlado por ninguém passou em 2017 por [dois testes](https://www.forbes.com/sites/ktorpey/2019/04/23/this-key-part-of-bitcoins-history-is-what-separates-it-from-competitors/#49869b41ae5e) e saiu deles muito reforçada: o primeiro foi a divisão entre Bitcoin (BTC) e Bitcoin Cash (BCH), uma obra de engenharia social que teve um sucesso mediano em roubar parte da marca e dos usuários do verdadeiro Bitcoin e depois a tentativa de tomada por completo do Bitcoin promovida por mais ou menos as mesmas partes interessadas chamada SegWit2x, que fracassou por completo, mas não sem antes atrapalhar e difundir mentiras para todos os lados. Esses dois fracassos provaram que o Bitcoin, mesmo sendo uma comunidade desorganizada, sem líderes claros, está imune à [captura por grupos interessados](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture), o que é mais um milagre -- ou, como dizem, um [ponto de Schelling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory)). Esse período crucial na história do Bitcoin fez com ficasse claro que _hard-forks_ são essencialmente incompatíveis com a natureza do protocolo, de modo que no futuro não haverá a possibilidade de uma sugestão como a de imprimir mais bitcoins do que o que estava programado sejam levadas a sério (mas, claro, sempre há a possibilidade da cultura toda se perder, as pessoas esquecerem a história e o Bitcoin ser cooptado, eis a importância da auto-educação e da difusão desses princípios).

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# O caso da Grêmio TV enquanto vinha se conduzindo pela plataforma superior daquela arena que se pensava totalmente preenchida por adeptos da famosa equipe do Grêmio de Porto Alegre, viu-se, como por obra de algum nigromante - dos muitos que existem e estão a todo momento a fazer más obras e a colocar-se no caminhos dos que procuram, se não fazer o bem acima de todas as coisas, a pelo menos não fazer o mal no curso da realização dos seus interesses -, o discretíssimo jornalista a ser xingado e moído em palavras por uma horda de malandrinos a cinco ou seis passos dele surgida que cantavam e moviam seus braços em movimentos que não se pode classificar senão como bárbaros, e assim cantavam: Grêmio TV pior que o SBT !

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# My stupid introduction to Haskell While I was writing my first small program on Haskell (really simple, but functional webapp) in December 2017 I only knew vaguely what was the style of things, some basic notions about functions, pure functions and so on (I've read about a third of [LYAH](http://learnyouahaskell.com/chapters)). An enourmous amount of questions began to appear in my head while I read tutorials and documentation. Here I present some of the questions and the insights I got that solved them. Technically, they may be wrong, but they helped me advance in the matter, so I'm writing them down while I still can -- If I keep working with Haskell I'll probably get to know more and so my new insights will replace the previous ones, and the new ones won't be useful for total begginers anymore. --- Here we go: - **Why do modules have odd names?** - modules are the things you import, like `Data.Time.Clock` or `Web.Scotty`. - packages are the things you install, like 'time' or 'scotty' - packages can contain any number of modules they like - a module is just a collection of functions - a package is just a collection of modules - a package is just name you choose to associate your collection of modules with when you're publishing it to Hackage or whatever - the module names you choose when you're writing a package can be anything, and these are the names people will have to `import` when they want to use you functions - if you're from Javascript, Python or anything similar, you'll expect to be importing/writing the name of the package directly in your code, but in Haskell you'll actually be writing the name of the module, which may have nothing to do with the name of the package - people choose things that make sense, like for `aeson` instead of `import Aeson` you'll be doing `import Data.Aeson`, `import Data.Aeson.Types` etc. why the `Data`? because they thought it would be nice. dealing with JSON is a form of dealing with data, so be it. - you just have to check the package documentation to see which modules it exposes. - **What is `data User = User { name :: Text }`?** - a data type definition. means you'll have a function `User` that will take a Text parameter and output a `User` record or something like that. - you can also have `Animal = Giraffe { color :: Text } | Human { name :: Text }`, so you'll have two functions, Giraffe and Human, each can take a different set of parameters, but they will both yield an Animal. - then, in the functions that take an Animal parameter you must typematch to see if the animal is a giraffe or a human. - **What is a monad?** - a monad is a context, an environment. - when you're in the context of a monad you can write imperative code. - you do that when you use the keyword `do`. - in the context of a monad, all values are prefixed by the monad type, - thus, in the `IO` monad all `Text` is `IO Text` and so on. - some monads have a relationship with others, so values from that monad can be turned into values from another monad and passed between context easily. - for exampĺe, [scotty](https://www.stackage.org/haddock/lts-9.18/scotty-0.11.0/Web-Scotty.html)'s `ActionM` and `IO`. `ActionM` is just a subtype of `IO` or something like that. - when you write imperative code inside a monad you can do assignments like `varname <- func x y` - in these situations some transformation is done by the `<-`, I believe it is that the pure value returned by `func` is being transformed into a monad value. so if `func` returns `Text`, now varname is of type `IO Text` (if we're in the IO monad). - so it will not work (and it can be confusing) if you try to concatenate functions like `varname <- transform $ func x y`, but you can somehow do - `varname <- func x y` - `othervarname <- transform varname` - or you can do other fancy things you'll get familiar with later, like `varname <- fmap transform $ func x y` - why? I don't know. - **How do I deal with Maybe, Either or other crazy stuff?** "ok, I understand what is a Maybe: it is a value that could be something or nothing. but how do I use that in my program?" - you don't! you turn it into other thing. for example, you use [fromMaybe](http://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.10.1.0/docs/Data-Maybe.html#v:fromMaybe), a function that takes a default value and that's it. if your `Maybe` is `Just x` you get `x`, if it is `Nothing` you get the default value. - using only that function you can already do whatever there is to be done with Maybes. - you can also manipulate the values inside the `Maybe`, for example: - if you have a `Maybe Person` and `Person` has a `name` which is `Text`, you can apply a function that turns `Maybe Person` into `Maybe Text` AND ONLY THEN you apply the default value (which would be something like the `"unnamed"`) and take the name from inside the `Maybe`. - basically these things (`Maybe`, `Either`, `IO` also!) are just tags. they tag the value, and you can do things with the values inside them, or you can remove the values. - besides the example above with Maybes and the `fromMaybe` function, you can also remove the values by using `case` -- for example: - `case x of` - `Left error -> error` - `Right success -> success` - `case y of` - `Nothing -> "nothing!"` - `Just value -> value` - (in some cases I believe you can't remove the values, but in these cases you'll also don't need to) - for example, for values tagged with the IO, you can't remove the IO and turn these values into pure values, but you don't need that, you can just take the value from the outside world, so it's a IO Text, apply functions that modify that value inside IO, then output the result to the user -- this is enough to make a complete program, any complete program. - **JSON and interfaces (or instances?)** - using [Aeson](https://hackage.haskell.org/package/aeson-1.2.3.0/docs/Data-Aeson.html) is easy, you just have to implement the `ToJSON` and `FromJSON` interfaces. - "interface" is not the correct name, but I don't care. - `ToJSON`, for example, requires a function named `toJSON`, so you do - `instance ToJSON YourType where` - `toJSON (YourType your type values) = object []` ... etc. - I believe lots of things require interface implementation like this and it can be confusing, but once you know the mystery of implementing functions for interfaces everything is solved. - `FromJSON` is a little less intuitive at the beggining, and I don't know if I did it correctly, but it is working here. Anyway, if you're trying to do that, I can only tell you to follow the types, copy examples from other places on the internet and don't care about the meaning of symbols. ## See also * [Haskell Monoids](nostr:naddr1qqyrzcmrvcmrqwtpqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cktq992)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Classless Templates There are way too many hours being wasted in making themes for blogs. And then comes a new blog framework, it requires new themes. Old themes can't be used because they relied on different ways of rendering the website. Everything is a mess. Classless was an attempt at solving it. It probably didn't work because I wasn't the best person to make themes and showcase the thing. Basically everybody would agree on a simple HTML template that could fit blogs and simple websites very easily. Then other people would make pure-CSS themes expecting that template to be in place. No classes were needed, only a fixed structure of `header`. `main`, `article` etc. With **flexbox** and **grid** CSS was enough to make this happen. The templates that were available were all ported by me from other templates I saw on the web, and there was a simple one I created for my old website. - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/classless> - <https://classless.alhur.es/> - <https://classless.alhur.es/themes/>

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# The "Drivechain will replace altcoins" argument The argument that [Drivechain](nostr:naddr1qq9xgunfwejkx6rpd9hqzythwden5te0ve5kzar2v9nzucm0d5pzqwlsccluhy6xxsr6l9a9uhhxf75g85g8a709tprjcn4e42h053vaqvzqqqr4gumtjfnp) will replace shitcoins is _not_ that people will [sell their shitcoins](https://twitter.com/craigwarmke/status/1680371502246514688) or that the existing shitcoins will instantly vanish. The argument is about a change _at the margin_ that eventually ends up killing the shitcoins or reducing them to their original insignificance. **What does "at the margin" mean?** For example, when the price of the coconut drops a little in relation to bananas, does that mean that everybody will stop buying bananas and will buy only coconuts now? No. Does it mean there will be [zero](https://twitter.com/GoingParabolic/status/1680319173744836609) increase in the amount of coconuts sold? Also no. What happens is that there is a small number of people who would have preferred to buy coconuts if only they were a little less expensive but end up buying bananas instead. When the price of coconut drops these people buy coconuts and don't buy bananas. The argument is that the same thing will happen when Drivechain is activated: there are some people today (yes, believe me) that would have preferred to work within the Bitcoin ecosystem but end up working on shitcoins. In a world with Drivechain these people would be working on the Bitcoin ecosystem, for the benefit of Bitcoin and the Bitcoiners. Why would they prefer Bitcoin? Because Bitcoin has a bigger network-effect. When these people come, they increase Bitocin's network-effect even more, and if they don't go to the shitcoins they reduce the shitcoins' network-effect. Those changes in network-effect contribute to bringing others who were a little further from the margin and the thing compounds until the shitcoins are worthless. Who are these people at the margin? I don't know, but they certainly exist. I would guess the Stark people are one famous example, but there are many others. In the past, examples included Roger Ver, Zooko Wilcox, Riccardo Spagni and Vitalik Buterin. And before you start screaming that these people are shitcoiners (which they are) imagine how much bigger Bitcoin could have been today if they and their entire communities (yes, I know, of awful people) were using and working for Bitcoin today. Remember that phrase about Bitcoin being for enemies? ### But everything that has been invented in the altcoin world is awful, we don't need any of that! You and me should not be the ones judging what is good and what is not for others, but both you and me and others will benefit if these things can be done in a way that increases Bitcoin network-effect and pays fees to Bitcoin miners. Also, there is a much stronger point you may have not considered: if you believe all altcoiners are scammers that means we have only seen the things that were invented by scammers, since all honest people that had good ideas decided to not implement them as the only way to do it would be to create a scammy shitcoin. One example is [Bitcoin Hivemind](nostr:naddr1qqyxs6tkv4kkjmnyqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cd3vm3c). If it is possible to do these ideas without creating shitcoins we may start to see new things that are actually good.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# A list of things artificial intelligence is not doing If AI is so good why can't it: - write good glue code that wraps a documented HTTP API? - make good translations using available books and respective published translations? - extract meaningful and relevant numbers from news articles? - write mathematical models that fit perfectly to available data better than any human? - play videogames without cheating (i.e. simulating human vision, attention and click speed)? - turn pure HTML pages into pretty designs by generating CSS - predict the weather - calculate building foundations - determine stock values of companies from publicly available numbers - smartly and automatically test software to uncover bugs before releases - predict sports matches from the ball and the players' movement on the screen - continuously improve niche/local search indexes based on user input and and reaction to results - control traffic lights - predict sports matches from news articles, and teams and players' history This was posted first on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/fiatjaf/status/1477942802805837827).

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Um algoritmo imbecil da evolução Suponha que você queira escrever a palavra BANANA partindo de OOOOOO e usando só alterações aleatórias das letras. As alterações se dão por meio da multiplicação da palavra original em várias outras, cada uma com uma mudança diferente. No primeiro período, surgem BOOOOO e OOOOZO. E então o ambiente decide que todas as palavras que não começam com um B estão eliminadas. Sobra apenas BOOOOO e o algoritmo continua. É fácil explicar conceber a evolução das espécies acontecendo dessa maneira, se você controlar sempre a parte em que o ambiente decide quem vai sobrar. Porém, há apenas duas opções: 1. Se o ambiente decidir as coisas de maneira aleatória, a chance de você chegar na palavra correta usando esse método é tão pequena que pode ser considerada nula. 2. Se o ambiente decidir as coisas de maneira pensada, caímos no //design inteligente//. Acredito que isso seja uma enunciação decente do argumento ["no free lunch"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_free_lunch_in_search_and_optimization) aplicado à crítica do darwinismo por William Dembski. A resposta darwinista consiste em dizer que não existe essa BANANA como objetivo final. Que as palavras podem ir se alterando aleatoriamente, e o que sobrar sobrou, não podemos dizer que um objetivo foi atingido ou deixou de sê-lo. E aí os defensores do design inteligente dirão que o resultado ao qual chegamos não pode ter sido fruto de um processo aleatório. BANANA é qualitativamente diferente de AYZOSO, e aí há várias maneiras de "provar" que sim usando modelos matemáticos e tal. Fico com a impressão, porém, de que essa coisa só pode ser resolvida como sim ou não mediante uma discussão das premissas, e chega um ponto em que não há mais provas matemáticas possíveis, apenas subjetividade. Daí eu me lembro da minha humilde solução ao problema do cão que aperta as teclas aleatoriamente de um teclado e escreve as obras completas de Shakespeare: mesmo que ele o faça, nada daquilo terá sentido sem uma inteligência de tipo humano ali para lê-las e perceber que não se trata de uma bagunça, mas sim de um texto com sentido para ele. O milagre se dá não no momento em que o cão tropeça no teclado, mas no momento em que o homem olha para a tela. Se o algoritmo da evolução chegou à palavra BANANA ou UXJHTR não faz diferença pra ela, mas faz diferença para nós, que temos uma inteligência humana, e estamos observando aquilo. O homem também pensaria que há //algo// por trás daquele evento do cão que digita as obras de Shakespeare, e como seria possível alguém em sã consciência pensar que não?

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Per Bylund's insight The firm doesn't exist because, like [Coase said](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=83030), it is inefficient to operate in a fully open-market and production processes need some bubbles of central planning. Instead, what happens is that a firm is created because an entrepreneur is doing a new thing (and here I imagine that doing an old thing in a new context also counts as doing a new thing, but I didn't read his book), and for that new thing there is no market, there are no specialized workers offering the services needed, nor other businesses offering the higher-order goods that entrepreneur wants, so he must do all by himself. So the entrepreneur goes and hires workers and buys materials more generic than he wanted and commands these to build what he wants exactly. It is less efficient than if he could buy the precise services and goods he wanted and combine those to yield the product he envisaged, but it accomplishes the goal. Later, when that specific market evolves, it's natural that specialized workers and producers of the specific factors begin to appear, and the market gets decentralized.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# `OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY` and the "covenants" drama There are many ideas for "covenants" (I don't think this concept helps in the specific case of examining proposals, but fine). Some people think "we" (it's not obvious who is included in this group) should somehow examine them and come up with the perfect synthesis. It is not clear what form this magic gathering of ideas will take and who (or which ideas) will be allowed to speak, but suppose it happens and there is intense research and conversations and people (ideas) really enjoy themselves in the process. What are we left with at the end? Someone has to actually commit the time and put the effort and come up with a concrete proposal to be implemented on Bitcoin, and whatever the result is it will have trade-offs. Some great features will not make into this proposal, others will make in a worsened form, and some will be contemplated very nicely, there will be some extra costs related to maintenance or code complexity that will have to be taken. Someone, a concreate person, will decide upon these things using their own personal preferences and biases, and many people will not be pleased with their choices. That has already happened. Jeremy Rubin has already conjured all the covenant ideas in a magic gathering that lasted more than 3 years and came up with a synthesis that has the best trade-offs he could find. CTV is the result of that operation. --- The fate of CTV in the popular opinion illustrated by the thoughtless responses it has evoked such as "can we do better?" and "we need more review and research and more consideration of other ideas for covenants" is a preview of what would probably happen if these suggestions were followed again and someone spent the next 3 years again considering ideas, talking to other researchers and came up with a new synthesis. Again, that person would be faced with "can we do better?" responses from people that were not happy enough with the choices. And unless some famous Bitcoin Core or retired Bitcoin Core developers were personally attracted by this synthesis then they would take some time to review and give their blessing to this new synthesis. To summarize the argument of this article, the actual question in the current CTV drama is that there exists hidden criteria for proposals to be accepted by the general community into Bitcoin, and no one has these criteria clear in their minds. It is not as simple not as straightforward as "do research" nor it is as humanly impossible as "get consensus", it has a much bigger social element into it, but I also do not know what is the exact form of these hidden criteria. This is said not to blame anyone -- except the ignorant people who are not aware of the existence of these things and just keep repeating completely false and unhelpful advice for Jeremy Rubin and are not self-conscious enough to ever realize what they're doing.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# IPFS problems: Conceit IPFS is trying to do many things. The IPFS leaders are revolutionaries who think they're smarter than the rest of the entire industry. The fact that they've first proposed a protocol for peer-to-peer distribution of immutable, content-addressed objects, then later tried to fix [that same problem](nostr:naddr1qqyrqen9xf3nvdpeqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cmdjnnj) using their own half-baked solution (IPNS) is one example. Other examples are their odd appeal to decentralization in a very non-specific way, their excessive [flirtation with Ethereum](nostr:naddr1qqyxxdpev5cnsvpkqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cta4a2e) and their never-to-be-finished can-never-work-as-advertised _Filecoin_ project. They could have focused on just making the infrastructure for distribution of objects through hashes (not saying this would actually be a good idea, but it had some potential) over a peer-to-peer network, but in trying to reinvent the entire internet they screwed everything up.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Replacing the web with something saner This is a simplification, but let's say that basically there are just 3 kinds of websites: 1. Websites with content: text, images, videos; 2. Websites that run full apps that do a ton of interactive stuff; 3. Websites with some interactive content that uses JavaScript, or "mini-apps"; In a saner world we would have 3 different ways of serving and using these. 1 would be "the web" (and it was for a while, although I'm not claiming here that the past is always better and wanting to get back to the glorious old days). 1 would stay as "the web", just static sites, styled with CSS, no JavaScript whatsoever, but designers can still thrive and make they look pretty. Or it could also be something like [Gemini](https://gemini.circumlunar.space/). Maybe the two protocols could coexist. 2 would be downloadable native apps, much easier to write and maintain for developers (considering that multi-platform and cross-compilation is easy today and getting easier), faster, more polished experience for users, more powerful, integrates better with the computer. (Remember that since no one would be striving to make the same app run both on browsers and natively no one would have any need for Electron or other inefficient bloated solutions, just pure native UI, like the Telegram app, have you seen that? It's fast.) But 2 is mostly for apps that people use every day, something like Google Docs, email (although email is also broken technology), Netflix, Twitter, Trello and so on, and all those hundreds of niche SaaS that people pay monthly fees to use, each tailored to a different industry (although most of functions they all implement are the same everywhere). What do we do with dynamic open websites like StackOverflow, for example, where one needs to not only read, but also search and interact in multiple ways? What about that website that asks you a bunch of questions and then discovers the name of the person you're thinking about? What about that mini-app that calculates the hash of your provided content or shrinks your video, or that one that hosts your image without asking any questions? All these and tons of others would fall into category 3, that of instantly loaded apps that you don't have to install, and yet they run in a sandbox. The key for making category 3 worth investing time into is coming up with some solid grounds, simple enough that anyone can implement in multiple different ways, but not giving the app too much choices. Telegram or Discord bots are super powerful platforms that can accomodate most kinds of app in them. They can't beat a native app specifically made with one purpose, but they allow anyone to provide instantly usable apps with very low overhead, and since the experience is so simple, intuitive and fast, users tend to like it and sometimes even pay for their services. There could exist a protocol that brings apps like that to the open world of (I won't say "web") domains and the websockets protocol -- with multiple different clients, each making their own decisions on how to display the content sent by the servers that are powering these apps. Another idea is that of [Alan Kay](https://www.quora.com/Should-web-browsers-have-stuck-to-being-document-viewers/answer/Alan-Kay-11): to design a nice little OS/virtual machine that can load these apps and run them. Kinda like browsers are today, but providing a more well-thought, native-like experience and framework, but still sandboxed. And I add: abstracting away details about design, content disposition and so on. --- These 3 kinds of programs could coexist peacefully. 2 are just standalone programs, they can do anything and each will be its own thing. 1 and 3, however, are still similar to browsers of today in the sense that you need clients to interact with servers and show to the user what they are asking. But by simplifying everything and separating the scopes properly these clients would be easy to write, efficient, small, the environment would be open and the internet would be saved. ## See also - [On the state of programs and browsers](nostr:naddr1qqyxgdfe8qexvd34qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cd7nk4m)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# "House" dos economistas e o Estado Falta um gênio pra produzir um seriado tipo House só que com economistas. O House do seriado seria um austríaco é o "everybody lies" seria uma premissa segundo a qual o Estado é sempre a causa de todos os problemas. Situações bem cabeludas poderiam ser apresentadas de maneira que parecesse muito que a causa era ganância ou o mau-caratismo dos agentes, mas na investigação quase sempre se descobriria que a causa era o Estado. Parece ridículo, mas se eu descrevesse House assim aqui também pareceria. A execução é que importa.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# notes on "Economic Action Beyond the Extent of the Market", Per Bylund Source: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7St6pCipCB0> Markets work by dividing labour, but that's not as easy as it seems in the Adam Smith's example of a pin factory, because 1. a pin factory is not a market, so there is some guidance and orientation, some sort of central planning, inside there that a market doesn't have; 2. it is not clear how exactly the production process will be divided, it is not obvious as in "you cut the thread, I plug the head". Dividing the labour may produce efficiency, but it also makes each independent worker in the process more fragile, as they become dependent on the others. This is partially solved by having a lot of different workers, so you do not depend on only one. If you have many, however, they must agree on where one part of the production process starts and where it ends, otherwise one's outputs will not necessarily coincide with other's inputs, and everything is more-or-less broken. That means some level of standardization is needed. And indeed the market has constant incentives to standardization. The statist economist discourse about standardization is that only when the government comes with a law that creates some sort of standardization then economic development can flourish, but in fact the market creates standardization all the time. Some examples of standardization include: * programming languages, operating systems, internet protocols, CPU architectures; * plates, forks, knifes, glasses, tables, chairs, beds, mattresses, bathrooms; * building with concrete, brick and mortar; * money; * musical instruments; * light bulbs; * CD, DVD, VHS formats and others alike; * services that go into every production process, like lunch services, restaurants, bakeries, cleaning services, security services, secretaries, attendants, porters; * multipurpose steel bars; * practically any tool that normal people use and require a little experience to get going, like a drilling machine or a sanding machine; etc. Of course it is not that you find standardization in all places. Specially when the market is smaller or new, standardization may have not arrived. There remains the truth, however, that division of labour has the potential of doing good. More than that: every time there are more than one worker doing the same job in the same place of a division of labour chain, there's incentive to create a new subdivision of labour. From the fact that there are at least more than one person doing the same job as another in our society we must conclude that someone must come up with an insight about an efficient way to divide the labour between these workers (and probably actually implement it), that hasn't happened for all kinds of jobs. But to come up with division of labour outside of a factory, some market actors must come up with a way of dividing the labour, actually, determining where will one labour stop and other start (and that almost always needs some adjustments and in fact extra labour to hit the tips), and also these actors must bear the uncertainty and fragility that division of labour brings when there are not a lot of different workers and standardization and all that. In fact, when an entrepreneur comes with a radical new service to the market, a service that does not fit in the current standard of division of labour, he must explain to his potential buyers what is the service and how the buyer can benefit from it and what he will have to do to adapt its current production process to bear with that new service. That's has happened not long ago with * services that take food orders from the internet and relay these to the restaurants; * hostels for cheap accommodation for young travellers; * Uber, Airbnb, services that take orders and bring homemade food from homes to consumers and similars; * all kinds of software-as-a-service; * electronic monitoring service for power generators; * mining planning and mining planning software; and many other industry-specific services. ## See also * [Profits, not wages, as the originary factor](nostr:naddr1qqyrge3hxa3rqce4qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c7x67pu) * [Per Bylund's insight](nostr:naddr1qqyxvdtzxscxzcenqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cuq3unj)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# litepub A Go library that abstracts all the burdensome ActivityPub things and provides just the right amount of helpers necessary to integrate an existing website into the "fediverse" (what an odious name). Made for the [gravity]() integration. - <https://godoc.org/github.com/fiatjaf/litepub> ## See also -

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Ripple and the problem of the decentralized commit This is about [Ryan Fugger's Ripple](nostr:naddr1qqyxgenyxe3rzvf4qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c8pp8zu). The summary is: unless everybody is good and well-connected at all times a transaction can always be left in a half-committed state, which creates confusion, erodes trust and benefits no one. If you're unconvinced consider the following protocol flow: 1. A finds a route (A--B--C--D) between her and D somehow; 2. A "prepares" a payment to B, tells B to do the same with C and so on (to prepare means to give B a conditional IOU that will be valid as long as the full payment completes); 3. When the chain of prepared messages reaches D, D somehow "commits" the payment. 4. After the commit, A now _really does_ owe B and so on, and D _really_ knows it has been effectively paid by A (in the form of debt from C) so it can ship goods to A. The most obvious (but wrong) way of structuring this would be for the entire payment chain to be dependent on the reveal of some secret. For example, the "prepare" messages could contain something like "I will pay you as long as you know `p` such that `sha256(p) == h`". The payment flow then starts with D presenting A with an invoice that contains `h`, so D knows `p`, but no one else knows. A can then send the "prepare" message to B and B do the same until it reaches D. When it reaches D, D can be sure that C will pay him because he knows `p` such that `sha256(p) == h`. He then reveals `p` to C, C now reveals it to B and B to A. When A gets it it has a proof that D has received his payment, therefore it is happy to settle it later with B and can prove to an external arbitrator that he has indeed paid D in case D doesn't deliver his products. ## Issues with the naïve flow above ### What if D never reveals `p` to C? Then no one knows what happened. And then 10 years later he arrives at C's house (remember they are friends or have a trust relationship somehow) and demands his payment, and shows `p` to her in a piece of paper. Or worse: go directly to the court and shows C's message that says "I will pay you as long as you know `p` such that `sha256(p) == h`" (but with an actual number instead of "h") and the corresponding `p`. Now the judge has to decide in favor of D. Now C was supposed to do the same with B, but C is not playing with this anymore, has lost all contact with B after they did their final settlement many years ago, no one was expecting this. This clearly can't work. There must be a timeout for these payments. ### What if we have a timeout? Now what if we say the payment expires in one hour. D cannot hold the payment hostage and reveal `p` after 10 years. It must either reveal it before the timeout or conditional IOU will be void. Solves everything! Except no, now it's the time we reach the most dark void of the protocol, the flaw that sucks its life into the abyss: subjectivity and ambiguity. The big issue is that we don't have an independent judge to assert, for example, that D has indeed "revealed" `p` to C in time. C must acknowledge that voluntarily. C could do it using messages over the internet, but these messages are not reliable. C is not reliable. Clocks are not synchronized. Also if we now require C to confirm it has received `p` from D then the "prepare" message means nothing, as for D now just knowing `p` is not enough to claim before an arbitrator that C owes her -- because, again, D also must prove it has shown `p` to C before the timeout, therefore it needs a new signed acknowledgement from C, or from some other party. Let's see a few examples. ### Subjectivity and perverse incentives D could send `p` to C, and C acknowledge it, but then when C goes to B and send it B will not acknowledge it, and claim it's past the time. Now C loses money. Maybe C can not acknowledge it received anything from D before checking first with B? But B will have to check with A too! And it subverts the entire flow of the thing. And now A has a "proof of payment" (knowledge of `p`) without even having to acknowledge anything! In this case knowing `p` or not becomes meaningless as everybody knows `p` without acknowleding it to anyone else. But even if A is honest and sends an "acknowledge" message to B, now B can just sit quiet and enjoy the credit it has just earned from A without ever acknowleding anything to C. It's perverted incentives in every step. ### Ambiguity But isn't this a protocol based on trust?, you ask, isn't C trusting that B will behave honestly already? Therefore if B is dishonest C just has to acknowledge his loss and break his chain of trust with B. No, because C will not know what happened. B can say "I could have sent you an acknowledgement, but was waiting for A, and A didn't send anything" and C won't ever know if that was true. Or B could say "what? You didn't send me `p` at all", and that could be true. B could have been offline when A sent it, there could have been a broken connection or many other things, and B continues: "I was waiting for you to present me with `p`, but you didn't, therefore the payment timed out, you can't come here with `p` now, because now A won't accept it anymore from me". That could be true or could be false, who knows? Therefore it is impossible for trust relationships and reputations to be maintained in such a system without "good fences".[^ln-solution][^ln-issue] [^ln-solution]: The [Lightning Network has a solution](nostr:naddr1qqyx2vekxg6rsvejqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823ccs2twc) for the problem of the decentralized commit. [^ln-issue]: Ironically this same ambiguity problem [is being faced by the Lightning Network community](https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2020-October/002826.html) when trying to create a reputation/payment system to prevent routing abuses. It seems simple when you first think about it: "let each node manage its own trust", but in fact it is somewhat impossible.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Mises' interest rate theory Inspired by [Bob Murphy's thesis](http://consultingbyrpm.com/uploads/Dissertation.pdf) against the "pure time preference theory" (see also this [series of podcasts](https://www.bobmurphyshow.com/episodes/ep-31-capital-and-interest-in-the-austrian-tradition-part-3-of-3/)) -- or blatantly copying it -- here are some thoughts on Mises' most wrong take: * Mises asserts that the market rate of interest is _not_ the originary rate of interest, because the market rate involves entrepreneurial decisions, risk, uncertainty etc. No one lends money with 100% guarantee that it will be paid back in the market and so. But if that is true, where can we see that originary interest? We're supposed to account for its existence and be sure that it is logically there in every trade between present and future, because it's a _category of action_. But then it seems odd to me that it has anything to do with the actual interest. * Mises criticizes the notion of "profit" from classical economists because it mashed together gains deriving from speculation, risk, other stuff and originary interest -- but that's only because he assumes originary interest as a given (because it's a category of action and so on). If he didn't he could have just not cited originary interest in the list of things that give rise to "profit" and all would be fine. * Mixing the two points above, it seems very odd to think that we should look for interest as a component of profit. It seems indeed to be very classifical-economist take. It would be still compatible with Mises'sworldview -- indeed more compatible -- that we looked for profit as a component of interest: when someone lends some 100 and is paid 110 that is profit. Plain simple. Why he did that and why the other person paid isn't for the economist to analyse, or to dissect the extra 10 into 9 interest, 1 risk remuneration or anything like that. If the borrower hadn't paid it would be a 100 loss or a 109 loss? * In other moments, Mises talks about the originary rate of interest being the same for all things: apples and bicycles and anything else. But wasn't each person supposed to have its own valuation of each good -- including goods in the present and in the future? Is Mises going to say that it's impossible for someone to value an orange in the future more than a bycicle in the future in comparison with these same goods in the present? (The very "more" in the previous sentence shows us that Mises was incurring in cardinal value calculations when coming up with this theory -- and I hadn't noticed it until after I finished typing the phrase.) In other words: what if someone prefers orange, bycicle, bycicle in the future, orange in the future? That doesn't seem to fit. What is the rate of interest? * Also, on the point above, what if someone has different rates of interest for goods in different timeframes? For example, someone may prefer a bycicle now a little more than a bycicle tomorrow, but very very much more than a bycicle in two days. That also breaks the notion of "originary interest" as an universal rate. * Now maybe I misunderstood everything, maybe Mises was talking about originary interest as a rate defined by the market. And he clearly says that. That if the rate of interest is bigger on some market entrepreneurs will invest capital in that one until it equalizes with rates in other markets. But all that fits better with the plain notion of profit than with this poorly-crafted notion of originary interest. If you're up to defining and (Mises forbid?) measuring the neutral rate of interest you'll have to arbitrarily choose some businesses to be part of the "market" while excluding others. * By the way, wasn't originary interest a category of action? How can a category of action be defined and ultimately _fixed_ by entrepreneurial action in a market?

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Thafne venceu o Soletrando 2008. As palavras que Thafne teve que soletrar: "ocioso", "hermético", "glossário", "argênteo", "morfossintaxe", "infra-hepático", "hagiológio". Enquanto isso Eder recebia: "intramuscular", "destilação", "inabitável", "subcutâneo", "homogeneidade", "predecessor", "displicência", "subconsciência", "psicroestesia" (isto segundo [o site da folha][0], donde certamente faltam algumas palavras de Thafne). Sério, "argênteo"? Não é errado dizer que a Globo tentou promover o menino pobre da escola pública do sertão contra a riquinha de Curitiba. O mais espetacular disto é que deu errado e o Brasil inteiro torceu pela Thafne, o que se verifica com uma simples busca no Google. Eis aqui alguns exemplos: * [O problema de Thafne][1] traz comentários tentando incriminar o governo do Estado de Minas Gerais com a vitória forçada de Eder. * [este vídeo mostrando os erros do programa e a vitória triunfal, embora parcial, de Thafne,][2] traz a brilhante descrição "globo de puleira quis complicar a vida da menina!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" * [este vídeo, com o mesmo conteúdo,][3], porém chamado "Thafne versus Luciano Huck, o confronto do século", tem, além disto, vários comentários de francos torcedores de Thafne: * "Nossa isso é burrice porq o doutor falou duas vezes como o luciano não prestou atenção logo thafine deu duas patadas no luciano... Proxima luciano presta atenção na pronuncia" * "ele nao pronunciou errado porque é burro, isso foi pra manipular o resultado" * "Gabriel o Bostador ficou pianinho. Babaca do krl" * "Pena que ela perdeu :(" * "verdade... ela que ganhou, o outro só ficou com o título :S" * "A menina deu um banho nesse que além de idiota é BURRO." * e muitos, muitos outros. * [Globo Erra e Luciano Huck dá Vexame][4], um breve artigo descrevendo alguns dos pontos em que Eder foi favorecido. * [esta comunidade do Orkut][5], apenas a maior dentre várias que foram criadas. O movimento de apoio a Thafne é um exemplo entre poucos de união total da nação em prol de uma causa. [0]: <http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/ilustrada/2008/05/407470-aluno-de-escola-publica-de-minas-vence-soletrando-huck-da-vexame.shtml> [1]: <https://misenews.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/o-problema-de-thafne/> [2]: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNW_QAiptsY> [3]: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Va8XxXgnY-c> [4]: <https://www.putsgrilo.com.br/televisao/soletrando-globo-erra-e-luciano-huck-da-vexame/> [5]: <http://orkut.google.com/c54999457.html>

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Democracy as a failed open-network protocol In the context of protocols for peer-to-peer open computer networks -- those in which new actors can freely enter and immediately start participating in the protocol --, without any central entity, specially without any central human mind judging things from the top --, it's common for decisions about the protocol to be thought taking in consideration all the possible ways a rogue peer can disrupt the entire network, abuse it, make the experience terrible for others. The protocol design must account for all incentives in play and how they will affect each participant, always having in mind that each participant may be acting in a purely egoistical self-interested manner, not caring at all about the health of the network (even though most participants won't be like that). So a protocol, to be successful, must have incentives aligned such that self-interested actors cannot profit by hurting others and will gain most by cooperating (whatever that means in the envisaged context), or there must be a way for other peers to detect attacks and other kinds of harm or attempted harm and neutralize these. Since computers are very fast, protocols can be designed to be executed many times per day by peers involved, and since the internet is a very open place to which people of various natures are connected, many open-network protocols with varied goals have been tried in large scale and most of them failed and were shut down (or kept existing, but offering a bad experience and in a much more limited scope than they were expected to be). Often the failure of a protocol leads to knowledge about its shortcomings being more-or-less widespread and agreed upon, and these lead to the development of a better protocol the next time something with similar goals is tried. Ideally **democracies** are supposed to be an open-entry network in the same sense as these computer networks, and although that is a noble goal, it's one full of shortcomings. Democracies are supposed to the governing protocol of States that have the power to do basically anything with the lives of millions of citizens. One simple inference we may take from the history of computer peer-to-peer protocols is that the ones that work better are those that are simple and small in scope (**Bitcoin**, for example, is very simple; **BitTorrent** is also very simple and very limited in what it tries to do and the number of participants that get involved in each run of the protocol). Democracies, as we said above, are the opposite of that. Besides being in a very hard position to achieve success as an open protocol, democracies also suffer from the fact that they take a long time to run, so it's hard to see where it is failing every time. The fundamental incentives of democracy, i.e. the rules of the protocol, posed by the separation of powers and checks-and-balances are basically the same in every place and in every epoch since the XIII century, and even today most people who dedicate their lives to the subject still don't see how [they're completely flawed](nostr:naddr1qqyrzc3nvenxxdpkqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cjc4mf0). The system of checks and balances was thought from the armchair of a couple of political theorists who had never done anything like that in their lives, didn't have any experience dealing with very adversarial environments like the internet -- and probably couldn't even imagine that the future users of their network were going to be creatures completely different than themselves and their fellow philosophers and aristocrats who all shared the same worldview (and how fast that future would come!). ## Also * [The illusion of checks and balances](nostr:naddr1qqyrzc3nvenxxdpkqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cjc4mf0)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Bolo It seems that from 1987 to around 2000 there was a big community of people who played this game called ["Bolo"][wikipedia]. It was a game in which people controlled a tank and killed others while trying to capture bases in team matches. Always 2 teams, from 2 to 16 total players, games could last from 10 minutes to 12 hours. I'm still trying to understand all this. The game looks silly from some [videos][videos] you can find today, but apparently it was very deep in strategy because people developed [strategy][strategy-guide] [guides][pillbox-guide] and [wrote][letter-1] [extensively][letter-2] about it and [Netscape even supported `bolo:` URLs][clickable-links] out of the box. > The two most important elements on the map are pillboxes and bases. Pillboxes are originally neutral, meaning that they shoot at every tank that happens to get in its range. They shoot fast and with deadly accuracy. You can shoot the pillbox with your tank, and you can see how damaged it is by looking at it. Once the pillbox is subdued, you may run over it, which will pick it up. You may place the pillbox where you want to put it (where it is clear), if you've enough trees to build it back up. > Trees are harvested by sending your man outside your tank to forest the trees. Your man (also called a builder) can also lay mines, build roads, and build walls. Once you have placed a pillbox, it will not shoot at you, but only your enemies. Therefore, pillboxes are often used to protect your bases. That quote was taken from this ["augmented FAQ"][augmented-faq] written by some user. Apparently there were many FAQs for this game. A FAQ is after all just a simple, clear and direct to the point way of writing about anything, previously known as [summa][summa][^summa-k], it doesn't have to be related to any actually frequently asked question. More unexpected Bolo writings include [an etiquette guide][etiquette], an [anthropology study][anthropology] and [some wonderings on the reverse pill war tactic][reverse-pill]. [videos]: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=winbolo [wikipedia]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolo_(1987_video_game) [clickable-links]: http://web.archive.org/web/19980214020327/http://boloweb.stanford.edu/BoloWeb.html [faq]: https://web.archive.org/web/20070518233700/http://bishop.mc.duke.edu/bolo/guides/stuartfaq.html [letter-1]: http://web.archive.org/web/19961214060949/http://rost.abo.fi/~gpappas/Bolo/News/mikael-bl.html [letter-2]: http://web.archive.org/web/19961214060959/http://rost.abo.fi/~gpappas/Bolo/News/mikael-kev.html [strategy-guide]: http://web.archive.org/web/19961214052754/http://rost.abo.fi/~gpappas/Bolo/guide.html [etiquette]: http://web.archive.org/web/19961214052805/http://rost.abo.fi/~gpappas/Bolo/etiquette.html [pillbox-guide]: http://web.archive.org/web/19961214052818/http://rost.abo.fi/~gpappas/Bolo/PBguide/pbguide1.html [anthropology]: http://web.archive.org/web/19961214052830/http://rost.abo.fi/~gpappas/Bolo/anthropology.html [reverse-pill]: http://web.archive.org/web/19990428023004/http://powered.cs.yale.edu:8000/%7Ebayliss/bolo.html [augmented-faq]: http://web.archive.org/web/19970118071637/http://rost.abo.fi/~gpappas/Bolo/faq.html [summa]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summa [^summa-k]: It's not the same thing, but I couldn't help but notice the similarity.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Lagoa Santa: como chegar -- partindo da rodoviária de Belo Horizonte Ao descer de seu ônibus na rodoviária de Belo Horizonte às 4 e pouco da manhã, darás de frente para um caubói que toma cerveja em seus trajes típicos em um bar no setor mesmo de desembarque. Suba a escada à direita que dá no estacionamento da rodoviária. Vire à esquerda e caminhe por mais ou menos 400 metros, atravessando uma área onde pessoas suspeitas -- mas provavelmente dormindo em pé -- lhe observam, e então uma pracinha ocupada por um clã de mendigos. Ao avistar um enorme obelisco no meio de um cruzamento de duas avenidas, vire à esquerda e caminhe por mais 400 metros. Você verá uma enorme, antiga e bela estação com uma praça em frente, com belas fontes aqüáticas. Corra dali e dirija-se a um pedaço de rua à direita dessa praça. Um velho palco de antigos carnavais estará colocado mais ou menos no meio da simpática ruazinha de parelepípedos: é onde você pegará seu próximo ônibus. Para entrar na estação é necessário ter um cartão com créditos recarregáveis. Um viajante prudente deixa sempre um pouco de créditos em seu cartão a fim de evitar filas e outros problemas de indisponibilidade quando chega cansado de viagem, com pressa ou em horários incomuns. Esse tipo de pessoa perceberá que foi totalmente ludibriado ao perceber que que os créditos do seu cartão, abastecido quando de sua última vinda a Belo Horizonte, há três meses, pereceram de prazo de validade e foram absorvidos pelos cofre públicos. Terá, portanto, que comprar mais créditos. O guichê onde os cartões são abastecidos abre às 5h, mas não se espante caso ele não tenha sido aberto ainda quando o primeiro ônibus chegar, às 5h10. Com alguma sorte, um jovem de moletom, autorizado por dois ou três fiscais do sistema de ônibus que conversam alegremente, será o operador da catraca. Ele deixa entrar sem pagar os bêbados, os malandros, os pivetes. Bastante empático e perceptivo do desespero dos outros, esse bom rapaz provavelmente também lhe deixará entrar sem pagar. Uma vez dentro do ônibus, não se intimide com os gritalhões e valentões que, ofendidíssimos com o motorista por ele ter parado nas estações, depois dos ônibus anteriores terem ignorado esses excelsos passageiros que nelas aguardavam, vão aos berros tirar satisfação. O ponto final do ônibus, 40 minutos depois, é o terminal Morro Alto. Lá você verá, se procurar bem entre vários ônibus e pessoas que despertam a sua mais honesta suspeita, um veículo escuro, apagado, numerado **5882** e que abrigará em seu interior um motorista e um cobrador que descansam o sono dos justos. Aguarde na porta por mais uns vinte minutos até que, repentinamente desperto, o motorista ligue o ônibus, abra as portas e já comece, de leve, a arrancar. Entre correndo, mas espere mais um tempo, enquanto as pessoas que têm o cartão carregado passem e peguem os melhores lugares, até que o cobrador acorde e resolva te cobrar a passagem nesse velho meio de pagamento, outrora o mais líqüído, o dinheiro. Este último ônibus deverá levar-lhe, enfim, a Lagoa Santa.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Liquidificador A fragilidade da comunicação humana fica clara quando alguém liga o liquidificador.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# An argument according to which fractional-reserve banking is merely theft and nothing else Fractional-reserve banking isn't anything else besides transfer of money from the people at large to bankers. It has been argued that fractional-reserve banking serves a purpose in making new funds available out of no one's pocket for lending and thus directing resources to productive borrowers. This financing method is preferrable to the more conservative way of borrowing funds directly from a saver and then using that to lend to others because it uses new money, money not tied to anyone else before, and thus it's cheaper and involves less friction. Instead, what happens is that someone must at all times be the owner of each money. So when banks use their power of generating fractional-reserve funds, they are creating new money and they are the owners – at this point, a theft occurs from the public at large to them – and then they proceed to lend their own money. From this description it is clear that the fact that bank customers have previously deposited their own funds in the banks' vaults have no direct relation with the fact that banks created money afterwards, there's only a legal relation and the fact that banks may need cash deposited by its customers to redeem borrowers claims, but even that wouldn't be necessary if banks were allowed to print their own cash.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Thomas Kuhn sequer menciona o "método científico" O que define uma ciência é o recorte de uma realidade a partir de um paradigma que todos os que entram no campo daquela ciência aceitam como verdade. Pronto. O "método científico" não é nem necessário nem suficiente (apesar de que ele mesmo precisa pressupor uma série de axiomas para funcionar, do contrário a pessoa ficaria tendo que testar cada sílaba dos seus experimentos e cada um desses testes seria impossível de realizar pois eles necessariamente precisariam de outros conhecimentos prévios etc.). Por isso - a física teórica pode ser uma ciência embora não faça experimentos; - e a economia pode ser uma ciência embora não faça experimentos (tá bom, existem pessoas que insistem em fazer "experimentos" em economia, mas que na verdade são só uma enorme perda de tempo baseada em estatísticas, mas isso não importa, até essas coisas podem ter algum valor desde que não se as entenda como sendo parte de um método científico); - e a história pode ser uma ciência, por mais estranho que isso pareça, bastando apenas que o historiador junte fatos de antigamente tendo como pressuposto um paradigma, por exemplo, de que existe um sentido da história, ou sei lá (não acho que exista essa ciência da história hoje em dia, me parece que cada historiador está fazendo uma coisa diferente, sem muitos paradigmas além do bom senso); - e a biologia pode ser uma ciência mesmo consistindo unicamente num longo esforço de classificação, e de fato é hoje, já que vê cada espécie e suas partes como frutos de um processo evolutivo cujas bases constituem um paradigma, e nega outras visões, como a teleologia. - [Método científico](nostr:naddr1qqyr2wf3vgmx2dmrqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823chtnaca) - [A estrutura paradigmática da ciência](nostr:naddr1qqyrzdfsxyuxye3cqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c4awxqq) - [Um algoritmo imbecil da evolução](nostr:naddr1qqyryv35xsunwvfnqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c45a0t3)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Drivechain comparison with Ethereum Ethereum and other "smart contract platforms" capable of running turing-complete code and "developer-friendly" mindset and community have been running for years and they were able to produce a very low number of potentially useful "contracts". What are these contracts, actually? (Considering Ethereum, but others are similar:) they are sidechains that run inside the Ethereum blockchain (and thus their verification and data storage are forced upon all Ethereum nodes). Users can peg-in to a contract by depositing money on it and peg-out by making a contract operation that sends money to a normal Ethereum address. Now be generous and imagine these platforms are able to produce 3 really cool, useful ideas (out of many thousands of attempts): [Bitcoin](nostr:naddr1qqyryveexumnyd3kqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c7nywz4) can copy these, turn them into 3 different sidechains, each running fixed, specific, optimized code. Bitcoin users can now opt to use these platforms by transferring coins to it – all that without damaging the nodes or the consensus protocol that has been running for years, and without forcing anyone to be aware of these chains. The process of turning a useful idea into a sidechain doesn't come spontaneously, and can't be done by a single company (like often happens in Ethereum-land), it must be acknowledge by a rough consensus in the Bitcoin community that that specific sidechain with that specific design is a desirable thing, and ultimately approved by miners, as they're the ones that are going to be in charge of that.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Lightning and its fake HTLCs Lightning is terrible but can be very good with two tweaks. ## How Lightning would work without HTLCs In a world in which HTLCs didn't exist, Lightning channels would consist only of balances. Each commitment transaction would have two outputs: one for peer `A`, the other for peer `B`, according to the current state of the channel. When a payment was being attempted to go through the channel, peers would just trust each other to update the state when necessary. For example: 1. Channel `AB`'s balances are `A[10:10]B` (in sats); 2. `A` sends a 3sat payment through `B` to `C`; 3. `A` asks `B` to route the payment. Channel `AB` doesn't change at all; 4. `B` sends the payment to `C`, `C` accepts it; 5. Channel `BC` changes from `B[20:5]C` to `B[17:8]C`; 6. `B` notifies `A` the payment was successful, `A` acknowledges that; 7. Channel `AB` changes from `A[10:10]B` to `A[7:13]B`. This in the case of a success, everything is fine, no glitches, no dishonesty. But notice that `A` could have refused to acknowledge that the payment went through, either because of a bug, or because it went offline forever, or because it is malicious. Then the channel `AB` would stay as `A[10:10]B` and `B` would have lost 3 satoshis. ## How Lightning would work with HTLCs HTLCs are introduced to remedy that situation. Now instead of commitment transactions having always only two outputs, one to each peer, now they can have HTLC outputs too. These HTLC outputs could go to either side dependending on the circumstance. Specifically, the peer that is sending the payment can redeem the HTLC after a number of blocks have passed. The peer that is receiving the payment can redeem the HTLC if they are able to provide the preimage to the hash specified in the HTLC. Now the flow is something like this: 1. Channel `AB`'s balances are `A[10:10]B`; 2. `A` sends a 3sat payment through `B` to `C`: 3. `A` asks `B` to route the payment. Their channel changes to `A[7:3:10]B` (the middle number is the HTLC). 4. `B` offers a payment to `C`. Their channel changes from `B[20:5]C` to `B[17:3:5]C`. 5. `C` tells `B` the preimage for that HTLC. Their channel changes from `B[17:3:5]C` to `B[17:8]C`. 6. `B` tells `A` the preimage for that HTLC. Their channel changes from `A[7:3:10]B` to `A[7:13]B`. Now if `A` wants to trick `B` and stop responding `B` doesn't lose money, because `B` knows the preimage, `B` just needs to publish the commitment transaction `A[7:3:10]B`, which gives him 10sat and then redeem the HTLC using the preimage he got from `C`, which gives him 3 sats more. `B` is fine now. In the same way, if `B` stops responding for any reason, `A` won't lose the money it put in that HTLC, it can publish the commitment transaction, get 7 back, then redeem the HTLC after the certain number of blocks have passed and get the other 3 sats back. ## How Lightning doesn't really work The example above about how the HTLCs work is very elegant but has a fatal flaw on it: transaction fees. Each new HTLC added increases the size of the commitment transaction and it requires yet another transaction to be redeemed. If we consider fees of 10000 satoshis that means any HTLC below that is as if it didn't existed because we can't ever redeem it anyway. In fact the Lightning protocol explicitly dictates that if HTLC output amounts are below the fee necessary to redeem them they shouldn't be created. What happens in these cases then? Nothing, the amounts that should be in HTLCs are moved to the commitment transaction miner fee instead. So considering a transaction fee of 10000sat for these HTLCs if one is sending Lightning payments below 10000sat that means they operate according to the _unsafe protocol_ described in the first section above. It is actually worse, because consider what happens in the case a channel in the middle of a route has a glitch or one of the peers is unresponsive. The other node, thinking they are operating in the _trustless protocol_, will proceed to publish the commitment transaction, i.e. close the channel, so they can redeem the HTLC -- only then they find out they are actually in the _unsafe protocol_ realm and there is no HTLC to be redeemed at all and they lose not only the money, but also the channel (which costed a lot of money to open and close, in overall transaction fees). One of the biggest features of the _trustless protocol_ are the payment proofs. Every payment is identified by a hash and whenever the payee releases the preimage relative to that hash that means the payment was complete. The incentives are in place so all nodes in the path pass the preimage back until it reaches the payer, which can then use it as the proof he has sent the payment and the payee has received it. This feature is also lost in the _unsafe protocol_: if a glitch happens or someone goes offline on the preimage's way back then there is no way the preimage will reach the payer because no HTLCs are published and redeemed on the chain. The payee may have received the money but the payer will not know -- but the payee will lose the money sent anyway. ## The end of HTLCs So considering the points above you may be sad because in some cases Lightning doesn't use these magic HTLCs that give meaning to it all. But the fact is that no matter what anyone thinks, HTLCs are destined to be used less and less as time passes. The fact that over time Bitcoin transaction fees tend to rise, and also the fact that multipart payment (MPP) are increasedly being used on Lightning for good, we can expect that soon no HTLC will ever be big enough to be actually worth redeeming and we will be at a point in which not a single HTLC is real and they're all fake. Another thing to note is that the current _unsafe protocol_ kicks out whenever the HTLC amount is below the Bitcoin transaction fee would be to redeem it, but this is not a reasonable algorithm. It is not reasonable to lose a channel and then pay 10000sat in fees to redeem a 10001sat HTLC. At which point does it become reasonable to do it? Probably in an amount many times above that, so it would be reasonable to even increase the threshold above which real HTLCs are made -- thus making their existence more and more rare. These are good things, because we don't actually need HTLCs to make a functional Lightning Network. ## We must embrace the _unsafe protocol_ and make it better So the _unsafe protocol_ is not necessarily very bad, but the way it is being done now is, because it suffers from two big problems: 1. Channels are lost all the time for no reason; 2. No guarantees of the proof-of-payment ever reaching the payer exist. The first problem we fix by just stopping the current practice of closing channels when there are no real HTLCs in them. That, however, creates a new problem -- or actually it exarcebates the second: now that we're not closing channels, what do we do with the expired payments in them? These payments should have either been canceled or fulfilled before some block x, now we're in block x+1, our peer has returned from its offline period and one of us will have to lose the money from that payment. That's fine because it's only 3sat and it's better to just lose 3sat than to lose both the 3sat and the channel anyway, so either one would be happy to eat the loss. Maybe we'll even split it 50/50! No, that doesn't work, because it creates an attack vector with peers becoming unresponsive on purpose on one side of the route and actually failing/fulfilling the payment on the other side and making a profit with that. So we actually need to know who is to blame on these payments, even if we are not going to act on that imediatelly: we need some kind of arbiter that both peers can trust, such that if one peer is trying to send the preimage or the cancellation to the other and the other is unresponsive, when the unresponsive peer comes back, the arbiter can tell them they are to blame, so they can willfully eat the loss and the channel can continue. Both peers are happy this way. If the unresponsive peer doesn't accept what the arbiter says then the peer that was operating correctly can assume the unresponsive peer is malicious and close the channel, and then blacklist it and never again open a channel with a peer they know is malicious. Again, the differences between this scheme and the current Lightning Network are that: a. In the current Lightning we always close channels, in this scheme we only close channels in case someone is malicious or in other worst case scenarios (the arbiter is unresponsive, for example). b. In the current Lightning we close the channels without having any clue on who is to blame for that, then we just proceed to reopen a channel with that same peer even in the case they were actively trying to harm us before. ## What is missing? An arbiter. The Bitcoin blockchain is the ideal arbiter, it works in the best possible way if we follow the _trustless protocol_, but as we've seen we can't use the Bitcoin blockchain because it is expensive. Therefore we need a new arbiter. That is the hard part, but not unsolvable. Notice that we don't need an absolutely perfect arbiter, anything is better than nothing, really, even an unreliable arbiter that is offline half of the day is better than what we have today, or an arbiter that lies, an arbiter that charges some satoshis for each resolution, anything. Here are some suggestions: - random nodes from the network selected by an algorithm that both peers agree to, so they can't cheat by selecting themselves. The only thing these nodes have to do is to store data from one peer, try to retransmit it to the other peer and record the results for some time. - a set of nodes preselected by the two peers when the channel is being opened -- same as above, but with more handpicked-trust involved. - some third-party cloud storage or notification provider with guarantees of having open data in it and some public log-keeping, like Twitter, GitHub or a [Nostr](https://github.com/fiatjaf/nostr) relay; - peers that get paid to do the job, selected by the fact that they own some token (I know this is stepping too close to the shitcoin territory, but could be an idea) issued in a [Spacechain](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2ow4Q34Jeg); - a Spacechain itself, serving only as the storage for a bunch of `OP_RETURN`s that are published and tracked by these Lightning peers whenever there is an issue (this looks wrong, but could work). ## Key points 1. Lightning with HTLC-based routing was a cool idea, but it wasn't ever really feasible. 2. HTLCs are going to be abandoned and that's the natural course of things. 3. It is actually good that HTLCs are being abandoned, but 4. We must change the protocol to account for the existence of fake HTLCs and thus make the bulk of the Lightning Network usage viable again. ## See also - [Ripple and the problem of the decentralized commit](nostr:naddr1qqyrxcmzxa3nxv34qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cjrqar6) - [The Lightning Network solves the problem of the decentralized commit](nostr:naddr1qqyx2vekxg6rsvejqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823ccs2twc)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# contratos.alhur.es A website that allowed people to fill a form and get a standard _Contrato de Locação_. Better than all the other "templates" that float around the internet, which are badly formatted `.doc` files. It was fully programmable so other templates could be added later, but I never did. This website made maybe one dollar in Google Ads (and Google has probably stolen these like so many other dollars they did with their bizarre requirements). - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/contratos> - <http://contratos.alhur.es>

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Gold is not useless If there's something all common people believe about gold is that it is useless[^1]. Austrian economists and libertarians in general that argue against central banks or defend a primitive gold standard are often charged with that accusation: that gold is useless, it has no use in the industry, it serves no purpose besides ornamental, so it is a silly commodity, a luxurious one, and that it would be almost immoral to have such a thing in a so central position in an economy such as the position of money. I've seen libertarians in general argue such things as: "it is used in some dental operations", which means people make dental prosthesis of gold, something that fits in same category of jewelry, I would say. There's also the argument of electronic connectors. That's something that appears to be true, but wouldn't suffice the anti-gold arguments. The fact remains that, besides its uses as money -- because gold is still considered to be a form money even now that it doesn't have that position formally in any country (otherwise it wouldn't be considered as an "investment" or "value store" everywhere) -- gold is used mainly for ornamental purposes[^2]. All that is a hassle for libertarians in general. Even the Mises Regression Theory wouldn't solve that problem of people skeptical of gold due to its immoral nature. That problem is solved once you read what is written in the chapter 17 from Richard Cantillon's _Essay on Economic Theory[^3]_ (page 103): > Gold and silver are capable of serving not only the same purpose as tin and copper, but also most of the purposes of lead and iron. They have this further advantage over other metals in that they are not consumed by fire and are so durable that they may be considered permanent. It is not surprising, therefore, that the men who found the other metals useful, valued gold and silver even before they were used in exchange. So gold is indeed useful. Everybody should already know that. You can even do forks and spoons with gold. You can do furniture with gold, and many other useful stuff. As soon as you grasp this, gold is useful again. It is an useful commodity. Answering the next question becomes easy: why isn't anyone making gold forks anywhere? The questioner already knows the answer: because it is too expensive for that. And now the Regression Theory comes with its full force: why is it expensive? Because it has gained a lot of value in the process of becoming money. The value of gold as money is much greater than as a metal used in fork production. --- [^1]: see <http://www.salon.com/2014/02/02/ignore_sean_hannity_gold_is_useless_partner/> or all answers on <https://www.quora.com/Why-is-gold-considered-so-precious-and-why-does-it-have-such-high-prices>. [^2]: this <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold#Modern_applications> section on the Wikipedia page for gold is revealing. [^3]: <https://mises.org/library/essay-economic-theory-0>

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Filemap [filemap](https://filemap.xyz/) solves the problem of sending and receiving files to and from non-tech people when you don't have a text communication channel with them. [](https://xkcd.com/949/) Imagine you want to send files to your grandfather, or you don't use Facebook and your younger cousin who only uses Facebook and doesn't know what is email wants to send you some pictures, it's pretty hard to get a file-sharing channel between people if they're not in the same network. If even the people have a way to upload the files to some hosting service and then share the link everything would still work, but you're not going to write `somehostingservice.com/wHr4y7vFGh0` to your grandfather -- or expect your cousin to do that for you and send you an SMS with dozens of those links. Solution: * Upload your files to https://filemap.xyz/ (you can either upload directly or share links to things already uploaded -- or even links to pages) and pin them to your grandfather's house address; then tell your grandfather to open https://filemap.xyz/ and look for his address. Done. * Tell your younger cousin to visit filemap.xyz and upload all the files to his address, later you open the site and look for his address. There are your files. --- Initially this used [ipfs-dropzone](nostr:naddr1qqyrjvrx8p3xyvesqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cwpfruw), but IPFS is broken, os I migrated to [WebTorrent](https://webtorrent.io/), but that required the file sender to be online hosting its own file and the entire idea of this service was to make something _easy_, so I migrated to Firebase Hosting, which is also terrible and has a broken API, but at least is capable of hosting files. Should have used something like S3. - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/filemap.xyz> - <https://filemap.xyz/>

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# The illusion of checks and balances The website history.com has [a list of some of the most important "checks and balances"](https://www.history.com/topics/us-government/checks-and-balances) put in place by the United States Constitution. Here are some of them and how they are not real _checks_, they're flawed and easily bypassed by malicious peers that manage to enter the network. > The president (head of the executive branch) serves as commander in chief of the military forces, but Congress (legislative branch) appropriates funds for the military and votes to declare war. As it has happened [multiple times](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Undeclared_wars), the United States has engaged in many undeclared wars -- and many other military encounters that don't get enough media coverage and weren't even formally acknowledged by the Congress. > Congress has the power of the purse, as it controls the money used to fund any executive actions. There's a separate power called Federal Reserve which is more-or-less under the influence of the executive branch that is controlled by a single man and has the power of creating unlimited money. It was softly abused by the executive branch since its creation, but since 2008 it has been increasingly having its scope expanded from just influencing the banking sector to also directly using its money to buy all sorts of things and influence all sorts of markets and other actors. > Veto power. Once Congress has passed a bill, the president has the power to veto that bill. In turn, Congress can override a regular presidential veto by a two-thirds vote of both houses. If you imagine that both the executive and the legislative are 100% dedicated to go against each other the president could veto all bills, but then the legislative could enact them all anyway. Congress has the absolute power here (which can be justified by fact that the congress itself is split into multiple voters, but still this "veto" rule seems more like a gimmick to obscure the process than any actual check). > The Supreme Court and other federal courts (judicial branch) can declare laws or presidential actions unconstitutional, in a process known as judicial review. This rule gives absolute power to the Supreme Court over any matter. It can use their own personal judgement to veto any bill, cancel any action by the executive, reinterpret any existing law in any manner. There's no check against bad interpretations or judgements, so any absurd thing must be accepted. This should be obvious, and yet the entire system which most people believe to be "checked" is actually dependent on the good will and sanity of the judicial branch. > In turn, the president checks the judiciary through the power of appointment, which can be used to change the direction of the federal courts If the president and congress are being attacked by the judicial power, this isn't of much help as its effects are very long term. On the other hand, a president can single-handedly and arbitrarily use this rule to slowly poison the judicial system such that will turn malicious for the rest of the system after some time. > By passing amendments to the Constitution, Congress can effectively check the decisions of the Supreme Court. What is written in the Constitution can be easily ignored or misread by the members of the Supreme Court without any way for these interpretations to be checked or reverted. Basically the Supreme Court has absolute power over all things if we consider this. > Congress (considered the branch of government closest to the people) can impeach both members of the executive and judicial branches. Again (like in the presidential veto rule), this gives the congress unlimited power. There are no checks here -- except of course the fact that the congress is composed by multiple different voting heads of which a majority has to agree for the congress to do anything, which is the only thing preventing overabuse of this rule. --- As shown above, most rules that compose the "checks and balances" system can be abused and if given enough time they will. They aren't real checks. Ultimately, the stability and decency of a [democracy](nostr:naddr1qqyrxvtxxf3nse3sqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823ccyra4y) relies on the majority rule (so congress votes are never concentrated in dictatorial measures) and the common sense of the powerful people (president and judges). There probably hasn't been a single year in any democracy in which one of these powers didn't abused or violated one of the rules, but still in most cases the overall system stays in place because of the general culture, splitted views about most issues, overall common sense and fear of public shame. The checks and balances system itself is an illusion. All the complex "democracy" construct depends on the goodwill of all the participants and have only worked so far (when it did) by miracle and by the power of human cooperation and love.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# jiq When someone created [`jiq`](https://github.com/simeji/jid) claiming it had "jq queries" I went to inspect and realized it didn't, it just had a poor simple JSON query language that implemented 1% of all [`jq`](https://stedolan.github.io/jq/manual/) features, so I forked it and plugged `jq` directly into it, and renamed to `jiq`. After some comments on issues in the original repository from people complaining about lack of `jq` compatibility it got a ton of unexpected users, was even packaged to ArchLinux.  - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/jiq>

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Boardthreads This was a very badly done service for turning a Trello list into a helpdesk UI. Surprisingly, it had more paying users than [Websites For Trello](nostr:naddr1qqyrydpkvverwvehqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c9d4yku), which I was working on simultaneously and dedicating much more time to it. The Neo4j database I used for this was a very poor choice, it was probably the cause of all the bugs.  -<https://github.com/fiatjaf/boardthreads>

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Who will build the roads? Who will build the roads? Em Lagoa Santa, as mais novas e melhores ruas -- que na verdade acabam por formar enormes teias de bairros que se interligam -- são construídas pelos loteadores que querem as ruas para que seus lotes valham mais -- e querem que outras pessoas usem as ruas também. Também são esses mesmos loteadores que colocam os postes de luz e os encanamentos de água, não sem antes terem que se submeter a extorsões de praxe praticadas por COPASA e CEMIG. Se ao abrir um loteamento, condomínio, prédio um indivíduo ou uma empresa consegue sem muito problema passar rua, eletricidade, água e esgoto, por que não seria possível existir livre-concorrência nesses mercados? Mesmo aquela velha estória de que é ineficiente passar cabos de luz duplicados para que companhias elétricas possam competir já me parece bobagem.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Como não houve resposta, estou enviando de novo Recebi um email assim, dizendo a mesma coisa repetida. Eu havia recebido já da primeira vez, mas como era só uma informação já esperada, julguei que não precisava responder dizendo "chegou, obrigado!" e não o fiz. Reconheço, porém, que dada a instabilidade desses serviços de email nunca ninguém sabe se a mensagem chegou ou não. Ela pode ter sido jogada na lixeira do spam, ou pode ter falhado por outros motivos, e aí não existe um jeito garantido de saber se houve falha, é um enorme problema sempre. Por isso a necessidade de uma resposta "chegou, obrigado!". Mas não podemos parar por aí. A resposta "chegou, obrigado!" também está sujeita aos mesmos trâmites e riscos da mensagem original. Seria necessário, porém, que assim que a outra pessoa recebesse o "chegou, obrigado!" deveria então responder com um "recebi a sua confirmação". Caso não o fizesse, eu poderia achar que a minha mensagem não havia chegado e dias depois enviá-la de novo: "como não houve resposta à minha confirmação, estou enviando de novo". E assim por diante (eu ia escrever mais um parágrafo só pelo drama, mas desisti. Já deu pra entender). --- - [Ripple and the problem of the decentralized commit](nostr:naddr1qqyrxcmzxa3nxv34qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cjrqar6), esta situação que acabo de viver é mais um exemplo prático disto.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Multi-service Graph Reputation protocol ## The problem 1. Users inside centralized services need to know reputations of other users they're interacting with; 2. Building reputation with ratings imposes a big burden on the user and still accomplishes nothing, can be faked, no one cares about these ratings etc. ## The ideal solution Subjective reputation: reputation based on how you rated that person previously, and how other people you trust rated that person, and how other people trusted by people you trust rated that person and so on, in a web-of-trust that actually can give you some insight on the trustworthiness of someone you never met or interacted with. ## The problem with the ideal solution 1. Most of the times the service that wants to implement this is not as big as Facebook, so it won't have enough people in it for such graphs of reputation to be constructed. 2. It is not trivial to build. ## My proposed solution: I've drafted a protocol for an open system based on services publishing their internal reputation records and indexers using these to build graphs, and then serving the graphs back to the services so they can show them to users when it is needed (as HTTP APIs that can be called directly from the user client app or browser). Crucially, these indexers will gather data from multiple services and cross-link users from these services so the graph is better. <https://github.com/fiatjaf/multi-service-reputation-rfc> The first and single actionable and useful feedback I got, from [@bootstrapbandit](https://twitter.com/bootstrapbandit) was that services shouldn't share email addresses in plain text (email addresses and other external relationships users of a service may have are necessary to establish links from users accross services), but I think it is ok if services publish hashes of these email addresses instead. At some point I will update the spec draft and that may have been before the time you're reading this. Another issue is that services may lie about their reputation records and that will hurt other services and users in these other services that are relying on that data. Maybe indexers will have to do some investigative job here to assert service honesty. Or maybe this entire protocol is just failed and we will actually need a system in which users themselves will publish their own records. ## See also * [P2P reputation thing](nostr:naddr1qqyrqv3cxumnydfsqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cnjc88q) * [idea: Graph subjective reputation as a service](nostr:naddr1qqyrjdehxymrsdpkqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cal60d8) * <https://github.com/jangerritharms/reputation_systems>

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Flowi.es At the time I thought [Workflowy][workflowy] had the ideal UI for everything. I wanted to implement my [custom app maker](nostr:naddr1qqyxgcejv5unzd33qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cz3va32) on it, but ended up doing this: a platform for enhancing Workflowy with extra features: - An email reminder based on dates input in items - A website generator, similar to [Websites For Trello](nostr:naddr1qqyrydpkvverwvehqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c9d4yku), also based on [Classless Templates](nostr:naddr1qqyxyv35vymk2vfsqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cqwgdau) Also, I didn't remember this was also based on CouchDB and had some _couchapp_ functionalities.  - <https://flowi.es> - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/flowies> [workflowy]: <https://workflowy.com/>

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# A memória está nas coisas A memória está nas coisas, mas se você tiver muitas memórias já mesma coisa parece que uma se sobrepõe à outra, de modo que se vive quiser acumular mais memórias é melhor mudar de casa todo ano.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Cultura Inglesa e aprendizado extra-escolar Em 2005 a Cultura Inglesa me classificou como nível 2 em proficiência de inglês, numa escala de 1 a 14 ou coisa parecida. De modo que eu precisaria de 6 anos de aulas com eles pra ficar bom. 2 anos depois, sem fazer nenhuma aula ou ter qualquer tipo de treinamento intensivo eu era capaz de compreender textos técnicos em inglês sem nenhuma dificuldade. Mais 2 anos e eu era capaz de compreender qualquer coisa e me expressar com razoável qualidade. Tudo isso pra documentar mais um exemplo, que poderia passar despercebido, de aprendizado de tipo escolar que se deu fora de uma escola.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# On HTLCs and arbiters This is another attempt and conveying the same information that should be in [Lightning and its fake HTLCs](nostr:naddr1qqyryefsxqcxgdmzqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cp0m63a). It assumes you know everything about Lightning and will just highlight a point. This is also valid for PTLCs. The protocol says HTLCs are trimmed (i.e., not actually added to the commitment transaction) when the cost of redeeming them in fees would be greater than their actual value. Although this is often dismissed as a non-important fact (often people will say "it's trusted for small payments, no big deal"), but I think it is indeed very important for 3 reasons: 1. Lightning absolutely relies on HTLCs actually existing because the payment proof requires them. The entire security of each payment comes from the fact that the payer has a preimage that comes from the payee. Without that, the state of the payment becomes an unsolvable mystery. The inexistence of an HTLC breaks the atomicity between the payment going through and the payer receiving a proof. 2. Bitcoin fees are expected to grow with time (arguably the reason Lightning exists in the first place). 3. MPP makes payment sizes shrink, therefore more and more of Lightning payments are to be trimmed. As I write this, the mempool is clear and still payments smaller than about 5000sat are being trimmed. Two weeks ago the limit was at 18000sat, which is already below the minimum most MPP splitting algorithms will allow. Therefore I think it is important that we come up with a different way of ensuring payment proofs are being passed around in the case HTLCs are trimmed. ## Channel closures Worse than not having HTLCs that can be redeemed is the fact that in the current Lightning implementations channels will be closed by the peer once an HTLC timeout is reached, either to fulfill an HTLC for which that peer has a preimage or to redeem back that expired HTLCs the other party hasn't fulfilled. For the surprise of everybody, nodes will do this even when the HTLCs in question were trimmed and therefore cannot be redeemed at all. It's very important that nodes stop doing that, because it makes no economic sense at all. However, that is not so simple, because once you decide you're not going to close the channel, what is the next step? Do you wait until the other peer tries to fulfill an expired HTLC and tell them you won't agree and that you must cancel that instead? That could work sometimes if they're honest (and they have no incentive to not be, in this case). What if they say they tried to fulfill it before but you were offline? Now you're confused, you don't know if you were offline or they were offline, or if they are trying to trick you. Then unsolvable issues start to emerge. ## Arbiters One simple idea is to use trusted arbiters for all trimmed HTLC issues. This idea solves both the protocol issue of getting the preimage to the payer once it is released by the payee -- and what to do with the channels once a trimmed HTLC expires. A simple design would be to have each node hardcode a set of trusted other nodes that can serve as arbiters. Once a channel is opened between two nodes they choose one node from both lists to serve as their mutual arbiter for that channel. Then whenever one node tries to fulfill an HTLC but the other peer is unresponsive, they can send the preimage to the arbiter instead. The arbiter will then try to contact the unresponsive peer. If it succeeds, then done, the HTLC was fulfilled offchain. If it fails then it can keep trying until the HTLC timeout. And then if the other node comes back later they can eat the loss. The arbiter will ensure they know they are the ones who must eat the loss in this case. If they don't agree to eat the loss, the first peer may then close the channel and blacklist the other peer. If the other peer believes that both the first peer and the arbiter are dishonest they can remove that arbiter from their list of trusted arbiters. The same happens in the opposite case: if a peer doesn't get a preimage they can notify the arbiter they hadn't received anything. The arbiter may try to ask the other peer for the preimage and, if that fails, settle the dispute for the side of that first peer, which can proceed to fail the HTLC is has with someone else on that route.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# IPFS problems: Too much immutability Content-addressing is unusable with an index or database that describes each piece of content. Since IPFS is fully content-addressable, nothing can be done with it unless you have a non-IPFS index or database, or an internal protocol for dynamic and updateable links. The IPFS [conceit](nostr:naddr1qqyxyeryx93kxv3nqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cwxek0q) made then go with the with the second option, which proved to be [a failure](nostr:naddr1qqyrvcnx8y6nwwtpqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cz8tlwh). They even incentivized the creation of a [database powered by IPFS](https://github.com/orbitdb/orbit-db), which couldn't be more misguided.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Agentes racionais Existe essa discussão entre economistas sobre o comportamento de um agente ser "racional" ou não. O julgamento da racionalidade é feito em vista de um "modelo" concebido pelo economista. Cada economista usa um modelo diferente. Daí ficam todos discutindo a racionalidade ou irracionalidade de certo agente. A solução é perguntar: racional segundo quais critérios?

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Buying versus donating Currently (and probably it has always been the case) in the Bitcoin community there is some push towards donations as some sort of business model, or in general just a general love for the idea of donations, and I think that is very misguided. ## Two examples of the push for the primacy of donations For example, there is a general wantness of people to have some sort of "static QR code" or "static Lightning invoice" that people can put on their Twitter profiles to receive donations (sometimes they say "payments" instead of "donations" but to me there is no such a thing as a payment without a good or service being given in exchange, so I'm saying "donations") and that is a hard problem to solve considering the fact that most Lightning wallets are running on phones. Another example is the "Podcasting 2.0" initiative that tries to integrate podcast players with Lightning wallets so they can send donations to podcast hosts that are running Lightning nodes. Their proponents call it "value for value" (or "value4value", "v4v") and if you ask they will say _value4value_ is a "model" in which the listener gives out in satoshis to the podcast host the same amount of "value" he is getting from listening to that content. The _value4value_ concept makes it almost explicit the problems I see with this big emphasis on donations the Bitcoin community is making in general. In essence, the idea that the listener is capable of measuring the value it gets from the podcast then converting it into a monetary amount and then donating that is completely wrong and even nonsensical. ### Why _value4value_ is not sound Basic (Austrian) economics teaches us that all value is ordinal, not cardinal -- i.e., it can't be measured or assigned a number to. One can only know that at some instant they prefer _x_ over _y_, they cannot say _x_ has a value of 10 and _y_ has a value of 9. Because of that, it's a nonsense quest to try determine how much value one is getting from a podcast. Basic (Austrian) economics also teaches us that exchanges happen when there are differences in the subjective valuations of goods, i.e., Alice can give _x_ to Bob in exchange for _y_ if Alice prefers _y_ over _x_ and Bob prefers _x_ over _y_ at that point. Because of that (and disregarding the previous paragraph), it's futile to expect that the podcast listener will donate _exactly_ the amount he is getting from the podcast in "value". Because of the two points above, it should also be clear that it is impossible to convert "value" in podcast content form into "value" in satoshis form, but I won't try to explain why that is because this is not an economics textbook. What actually happens is that whether it's in the _value4value_ context or not, donations are always a somewhat random and subjective amount, if they happen. If I like some content that someone is publishing for free, my decision on if and how much I will donate is never dictated by some nonsense calculation, but by calculation that is governed almost entirely by feeling and animal spirits (but one that also considers how much money I can spare, how much I like that person and how much I perceive they need). When I go to a normal shop to buy a bottle of milk I look at the bottle of milk and I read its price, and there is one simple decision I have to make: is this bottle of milk worth more than the amount of money that's specified in the price tag? It's a single decision with only two answers: _yes_ or _no_. While when I see a free form on some free "creator" page asking me to type how much I will donate I have to decide if I will donate, when I will donate, how much I will donate, if I want this donation to be done every month or how will that work going forward? Will I keep consuming the content produced by this person? Will they keep producing? Maybe I'll just listen for free now and do this later as I'm busy, but then will I forget? Maybe I have just donated a lot to someone else and do not have much more money to spare, but now I feel guilty that the other person got all my donation money and this one didn't get anything but I can't go back and ask the other to return the money I just donated -- and so on and so forth. ### Conclusions Although the paragraphs above are confusing and do not follow a very logical presentation pattern, I hope you got from them why I think donations are much more complicated than purchases, and that repeating the "value for value" mantra doesn't help at all. Considering that, what I wanted to say is that bitcoiners should give more attention to the other model, in which people produce goods and services and sell them. And that model can be applied successfully to "content creators", podcasters etc in many ways that are probably (I don't have any data backing my claims) better than the donation model. ## Other possible monetization possibilities For example, I've noticed that many blogs and podcasts with interesting content start to release exclusive episodes as they get big enough. These exclusive episodes are available only for "supporters". This is effectively selling access to the episodes. There is also the "crowdwall" model in which multiple people pay so that some content gets released for free. We can count even the model in which a donation is not just a blank donation, but gives the donor the right to write something on the screen or something like that -- these are actually not just donations, but purchases of these rights. Professional videogame streamers have come up with some other interesting ideas. For example, they crowdfund the creation of special content ("if enough people pay I will dress like a rabbit") or they sell the right to participate in the stream somehow (for example, by playing a game with the streamer in some special day). In these models, the _static QR code_ with which so many people dream doesn't make much sense (if you're selling a specific episode or if a payment is specific to one identifiable person, you need different QR codes or more metadata to be attached to each payment by the payer). ## Addendum I think people like the donation model very much because they only see the big and super famous people that receive donations. A very small set of people have so many followers that they can live with just donations, even though donations are very inefficient and they could earn more and even deliver better content if they were using some other model. I imagine that a creator with a high number of followers will get a lot of people that do not donate anything, a lot that will donate a little -- probably less than they would if they were paying -- and eventually a little number of people that will donate way more than they would if they were buying. This last group is probably what makes it worthwhile to work on this donations model for these creators. The takeaway is that the donations model is not a panacea and is not very good either. ## Related: - [Donations on the internet](nostr:naddr1qqyrqwp4xsmnsvtxqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cex8903)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# A podridão É razoável dizer que há três tipos de reações à menção do nome [O que é Bitcoin?](nostr:naddr1qqrky6t5vdhkjmspz9mhxue69uhkv6tpw34xze3wvdhk6q3q80cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsxpqqqp65wp3k3fu) no Brasil: 1. A reação das pessoas velhas Muito sabiamente, as pessoas velhas que já ouviram falar de Bitcoin o encaram ou como uma coisa muito distante e reservada ao conhecimento dos seus sobrinhos que entendem de computador ou como um golpe que se deve temer e do qual o afastamento é imperativo, e de qualquer modo isso não as deve afetar mesmo então para que perder o seu tempo. Essas pessoas estão erradas: nem o sobrinho que entende de computador sabe nada sobre Bitcoin, nem o Bitcoin é um golpe, e nem é o Bitcoin uma coisa totalmente irrelevante para elas. É razoável ter cautela diante do desconhecido, no que as pessoas velhas fazem bem, mas creio eu que também muito do medo que essas pessoas têm vem da ignorância que foi criada e difundida durante os primeiros 10 anos de Bitcoin por jornalistas analfabetos e desinformados em torno do assunto. 2. A reação das pessoas pragmáticas "Já tenho um banco e já posso enviar dinheiro, pra que Bitcoin? O quê, eu ainda tenho que pagar para transferir bitcoins? Isso não é vantagem nenhuma!" Enquanto querem parecer muito pragmáticas e racionais, essas pessoas ignoram vários aspectos das suas próprias vidas, a começar pelo fato de que o uso dos bancos comuns não é gratuito, e depois que a existência desse sistema financeiro no qual elas se crêem muito incluídas e confortáveis é baseada num grande esquema chamado Banco Central, que tem como um dos seus fundamentos a possibilidade da inflação ilimitada da moeda, que torna todas as pessoas mais pobres, incluindo essas mesmas, tão pragmáticas e racionais. Mais importante é notar que essas pessoas tão racionais foram também ludibriadas pela difusão da ignorância sobre Bitcoin como sendo um sistema de transferência de dinheiro. O Bitcoin não é e não pode ser um sistema de transferência de dinheiro porque ele só pode transferir-se a si mesmo, não pode transferir "dinheiro" no sentido comum dessa palavra (tenho em mente o dinheiro comum no Brasil, os reais). O fato de que haja hoje pessoas que conseguem "transferir dinheiro" usando o Bitcoin é uma coisa totalmente inesperada: a existência de pessoas que trocam bitcoins por reais (e outros dinheiros de outros lugares) e vice-versa. Não era necessário que fosse assim, não estava determinado em lugar nenhum, 10 anos atrás, que haveria demanda por um bem digital sem utilidade imediata nenhuma, foi assim por um milagre. Porém, o milagre só estará completo quando esses bitcoins se tornarem eles mesmo o dinheiro comum. E aí assim será possível usar o sistema Bitcoin para transferir dinheiro de fato. Antes disso, chamar o Bitcoin de sistema de pagamentos ou qualquer coisa que o valha é perverter-lhe o sentido, é confundir um acidente com a essência da coisa. 3. A reação dos jovens analfabetos Os jovens analfabetos são as pessoas que usam a expressão "criptos" e freqüentam sítios que dão notícias totalmente irrelevantes sobre "criptomoedas" o dia inteiro. Não sei muito bem como eles vivem porque não lhes suporto a presença, mas são pessoas que estão muito empolgadas com toda a "onda das criptomoedas" e acham tudo muito incrível, tão incrível que acabam se interessando e então comprando todos os tokens vagabundos que inventam. Usam a palavra "decentralizado", um anglicismo muito feio que deveria significar que não existe um centro controlador da moeda x ou y e que o seu protocolo continuaria funcionando mesmo que vários operadores saíssem do ar, mas como o aplicam aos tokens que são literalmente emitidos por um centro controlador com uma figura humana no centro que toma todas as decisões sobre tudo -- como o Ethereum e conseqüentemente todos os milhares de tokens ERC20 criados dentro do sistema Ethereum -- essa palavra não faz mais sentido. Na sua empolgação e completo desconhecimento sobre como um ente nocivo poderia destruir cadauma das suas criptomoedas tão decentralizadas, ou como mesmo sem ninguém querer uma falha fundamental no protocolo e no sistema de incentivos poderia pôr tudo abaixo, sem imaginar que toda a valorização do token XYZ pode ter sido fabricada de caso pensado pelos seus próprios emissores ou só ser mesmo uma bolha, acabam esses jovens por igualar o token XYZ, ou ETH, BCH ou o que for, ao Bitcoin, ignorando todas as diferenças qualitativas e apenas mencionando de leve as quantitativas. Misturada à sua empolgação, e como um bônus, surge a perspectiva de ficar rico. Se um desses por algum golpe de sorte surfou em alguma bolha como a de 2017 e conseguiu multiplicar um dinheiro por 10 comprando e vendendo EOS, já começa logo a usar como argumento para convencer os outros de que "criptomoedas são o futuro" o fato de que ele ficou rico. Não subestime a burrice humana. --- Há jovens no grupo das pessoas velhas, velhas no grupo das pessoas jovens, pessoas que não estão em nenhum dos grupos e pessoas que estão em mais de um grupo, isso não importa.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Scala is such a great language Scala is amazing. The type system has the perfect balance between flexibility and powerfulness. `match` statements are great. You can write imperative code that looks very nice and expressive (and I haven't tried writing purely functional things yet). Everything is easy to write and cheap and neovim integration works great. But Java is not great. And the fact that Scala is a JVM language doesn't help because over the years people have written stuff that depends on Java libraries -- and these Java libraries are not as safe as the Scala libraries, they contain reflection, slowness, runtime errors, all kinds of horrors. Scala is also very tightly associated with Akka, the actor framework, and Akka is a giant collection of anti-patterns. Untyped stuff, reflection, dependency on JVM, basically a lot of javisms. I just arrived and I don't know anything about the Scala history or ecosystem or community, but I have the impression that Akka has prevent more adoption of Scala from decent people that aren't Java programmers. But luckily there is a solution -- or two solutions: ScalaJS is a great thing that exists. It transpiles Scala code into JavaScript and it runs on NodeJS or in a browser! Scala Native is a much better deal, though, it compiles to LLVM and then to binary code and you can have single binaries that run directly without a JVM -- not that the single JARs are that bad though, they are great and everybody has Java so I'll take that anytime over C libraries or NPM-distributed software, but direct executables even better. Scala Native just needs a little more love and some libraries and it will be the greatest thing in a couple of years.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# jiq-web Made with [jq-web](nostr:naddr1qqyrzvrzxqcx2dfsqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c90hqwz), a tool to explore JSON using `jq` that works like [jiq](nostr:naddr1qqyrqvfjv33rxcenqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cd86z7d).  - <https://jq.alhur.es/jiq/> - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/jiq-web> ## See also - [jq-finder](nostr:naddr1qqyryvejvycn2cnpqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823ccw20rx)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Excerpt of discussion about DIDs and ION Melvin Carvalho: > "Not a single entity I know that's doing production deployments has actually vetted did:ion and found it to be production capable." > > The guy leading the DID effort said this about ION. > > Seems like they may be 6 months away from producing something. > > https://github.com/decentralized-identity/ion/blob/master/docs/design.md#operations > > In their design it says you can create, update, recover and activate. It is a bit magic > > But update implies a versioning system. So you could think of it like updated nostr events. My key is A. Now my key is B. Tied to a content addressable static ID (like a genesis event ID). > > Let's see. I hope they produce something useful. Daniel tends not to answer questions > > When we first made DID, the idea was that your (d)id and your public key or hash were the same string. > > As it evolved, that got broken. Which can be useful because then you can have multiple keys, but the trade off is more management needed. > > So you have DID <—> controller two way link. Then it can have multiple keys. Those can be used to update the record. How that chain of records is stored, fetched and verified, is not covered by DID. So everyone will do it differently. Nostr for example could create updating keys with a NIP, it would do the same thing. Hampus: > Basically impossible to have a convo with Daniel Melvin Carvalho: > true. too often appeals to authority > > https://identity.foundation/sidetree/spec/#update > > the side tree spec has an update function > > 'Retrieve the Update Reveal Value that matches the previously anchored Update Commitment' > > so it looks like they have a chain of anchors ... anchored to something, ion nodes i guess, which also run btc full nodes > > > 'Embed the Anchor String in the transaction such that it can be located and parsed by any party that traverses the history of the target anchoring system' > > > 'By leveraging the blockchain-agnostic Sidetree protocol, ION makes it possible to anchor tens of thousands of DID/DPKI operations on a target chain (in ION's case, Bitcoin) using a single on-chain transaction' > > there you go > > do a search in the ion repo for 'anchor' and it gives some details > > https://github.com/decentralized-identity/ion/blob/66813123cf81ace05cea2039e93ef263952d6283/docs/Q-and-A.md > > there's a Q & A Ruben Somsen: > Their anchor protocol doesn't guarantee you have a full view of the data, so you can open the commitments to anything you like (provided you pre-committed to different views). In my opinion this makes the commitments pointless. Melvin Carvalho: > > 'Assuming you are running your own node, you simply need to submit 1000 create operations to your node (ie. http://localhost:3000/operations) before your batch writer kicks in every 10 minutes by default, the batch writer will batch all 1000 operations into 1 bitcoin transaction thus you'll pay fee for just one transaction to the minor. > > The technical spec for constructing a create request can be found in Sidetree API spec, but if you know TypeScript, you are better off using the ion-sdk directly, it will save you a lot of time' > > seems 3 places data is stored > > anchored witness data: bitcoin tx > batches of operations: ION nodes > non witness data: maybe IPFS > > 'The logical order of operations, as determined by the underlying anchoring system (e.g. Bitcoin block and transaction order). Anchoring systems may widely vary in how they determine the logical order of operations, but the only requirement of an anchoring system is that it can provide a means to deterministically order each operation within a DID’s operational lineage.' Ruben Somsen: > It's deterministic given a set of data, but there is no consensus on the set of data, so if A and B get presented with a different set, they come to a different conclusion Melvin Carvalho: > yes. "DID owners can create forks within their own DID state history". so you dont actually know the full state. I think the design is of each identity has eventual consistency, with the anchor as the tie break. It can change as you know more data. But doesnt say what happens if two updates happen in the same block. > > https://identity.foundation/sidetree/spec/#late-publishing > > the aim is eventual consistency > > so at any time you might have the wrong state, but if you had every update associated with a given id, you could determine the right order to apply the patches by using the bitcoin block chain (I dont know what happens if there's a tie in the same block) ... there's no peg in or peg out, it's just like version controlled files Ruben Somsen: > But you can't know when you've reached the state of eventual consistency (i.e. when you finally have the full data set) and in practice it may never be reached, so there is no consensus > > When there is conflicting data, the first one counts and the second one is ignored. > > This problem is literally detrimental, yet it is being presented as a minor inconvenience. Melvin Carvalho: > yes, and the first one can be published later, so systems will think the second is valid, until it isnt Ruben Somsen: > Yup Melvin Carvalho: > you could actually steal someone's identity, and revoke all their keys, and then reveal it years later > > arguably this is worse than github Ruben Somsen: > lol yeah you could Melvin Carvalho: > or an attack vector, get someone's ID, but they dont know, then sell them lots of 'cheap' NFTs ... at some point you publish the new keys and reclaim all the tokens ... no one will know when they will be rug pulled Ruben Somsen: > That was my original argument, but Daniel claimed the protocol wasn't meant for transfer of ownership rights. Melvin Carvalho: > so then i wonder what the primary use cases are that cant be easily achieved already > > > 'How Can ION be Used? > > ION can see a lot of use in many cases. The most obvious use case is for verifiable credentials. A business can credential employees, who can then be verified via blockchain on arrival at their destination. This functionality also raises its use as a means of supplying and verifying international travel documents.' > > > > 'Another use case could come from accreditation for organizations. Using an organization's public key, users can verify their accreditation status and trace their accreditation history over time.' > > so i guess its an updatable profile page, but you dont know when your profile is compromised. OTOH it's free (their node is paying fees to start with), and improves BTC security budget. If you keep your key safe, and the nodes publish the updates for you, it might be a nice little profile you could use for stuff. But not sure id use it for anything high value. And nostr (for example) can do alot of this already — updatable profiles and publishing > > i think it may be to a degree censorship resistant too > > there's also no incentive to run a node, so im not sure why they would stick around > > nodes can actually very easily censor by black listing certain tx (e.g. a hack, or sanctioned identity), removing the decentralized nature > > so the nodes can never reach consensus Ruben Somsen: > Like I said, the commitments are pointless. I think it's equivalent to just signing stuff with a key and making what you signed available for download in "the cloud".

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# A biblioteca infinita Agora esqueci o nome do conto de Jorge Luis Borges em que a tal biblioteca é descrita, ou seus detalhes específicos. Eu tinha lido o conto e nunca havia percebido que ele matava a questão da aleatoriedade ser capaz de produzir coisas valiosas. Precisei mesmo da [Wikipédia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem) me dizer isso. Alguns anos atrás levantei essa questão para um grupo de amigos sem saber que era uma questão tão batida e baixa. No meu exemplo era um cachorro andando sobre letras desenhadas e não um macaco numa máquina de escrever. A minha conclusão da discussão foi que não importa o que o cachorro escrevesse, sem uma inteligência capaz de compreender aquilo nada passaria de letras aleatórias. Borges resolve tudo imaginando uma biblioteca que contém tudo o que o cachorro havia escrito durante todo o infinito em que fez o experimento, e portanto contém todo o conhecimento sobre tudo e todas as obras literárias possíveis -- mas entre cada página ou frase muito boa ou pelo menos legívei há toneladas de livros completamente aleatórios e uma pessoa pode passar a vida dentro dessa biblioteca que contém tanto conhecimento importante e mesmo assim não aprender nada porque nunca vai achar os livros certos. > Everything would be in its blind volumes. Everything: the detailed history of the future, Aeschylus' The Egyptians, the exact number of times that the waters of the Ganges have reflected the flight of a falcon, the secret and true nature of Rome, the encyclopedia Novalis would have constructed, my dreams and half-dreams at dawn on August 14, 1934, the proof of Pierre Fermat's theorem, the unwritten chapters of Edwin Drood, those same chapters translated into the language spoken by the Garamantes, the paradoxes Berkeley invented concerning Time but didn't publish, Urizen's books of iron, the premature epiphanies of Stephen Dedalus, which would be meaningless before a cycle of a thousand years, the Gnostic Gospel of Basilides, the song the sirens sang, the complete catalog of the Library, the proof of the inaccuracy of that catalog. Everything: but for every sensible line or accurate fact there would be millions of meaningless cacophonies, verbal farragoes, and babblings. Everything: but all the generations of mankind could pass before the dizzying shelves – shelves that obliterate the day and on which chaos lies – ever reward them with a tolerable page. Tenho a impressão de que a publicação gigantesca de artigos, posts, livros e tudo o mais está transformando o mundo nessa biblioteca. Há tanta coisa pra ler que é difícil achar o que presta. As pessoas precisam parar de escrever.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Qual é o economista? (piadas) O economista americano rapper ficou triste quando sua banda brasileira favorita encerrou suas atividades por crer que a demanda por discos de rap seria cada vez pior. Resposta: Robert Lucas e as expectativas dos Racionais. O economista inglês queria muito arrumar uma namorada. Resposta: John Maynard Keynes e a demanda afetiva. Quando o filho do economista austríaco chegou em casa todo sujo ele sem nem pensar ordenou que o moleque fosse tomar banho. Resposta: Friedrich Hayek e a ordem espontânea. O economista americano tinha muito orgulho de ter em sua casa um valiosíssimo quadro de um impressionista francês. Resposta: Milton Friedman e o Monet raríssimo. O economista austríaco jurou aos seus filhos que todos eles se mudariam para Brasília. Resposta: Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk e o “eu juro” da capital. O economista alemão organizou um evento meio sertanejo meio religioso e colocou como organizador uma executiva que tinha quebrado suas últimas 4 empresas por má administração. Resposta: Karl Marx e a expo-oração da que mais-falia.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Batch for Trello Another Trello helper. This time it allowed people to perform batch actions on multiple cards, most notably delete a lot of cards at once. I created it because I wanted to delete a ton of spam from [Boardthreads](nostr:naddr1qqyxvwfk8p3xvdmrqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823ceq46m6). - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/batch-for-trello> - <https://batch.cardsync.xyz/>

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# my personal approach on using `let`, `const` and `var` in javascript Since these names can be used interchangeably almost everywhere and there are a lot of people asking and searching on the internet on how to use them (myself included until some weeks ago), I developed a personal approach that uses the declarations mostly as readability and code-sense sugar, for helping my mind, instead of expecting them to add physical value to the programs. --- `let` is only for short-lived variables, defined at a single line and not changed after. Generally those variables which are there only to decrease the amount of typing. For example: for (let key in something) { /* we could use `something[key]` for this entire block, but it would be too much letters and not good for the fingers or the eyes, so we use a radically temporary variable */ let value = something[key] ... } `const` for all _names_ known to be constant across the entire module. Not including locally constant values. The `value` in the example above, for example, is constant in its scope and could be declared with `const`, but since there are many iterations and for each one there's a value with same **name**, "value", that could trick the reader into thinking `value` is always the same. Modules and functions are the best example of `const` variables: const PouchDB = require('pouchdb') const instantiateDB = function () {} const codes = { 23: 'atc', 43: 'qwx', 77: 'oxi' } `var` for everything that may or not be variable. Names that may confuse people reading the code, even if they are constant locally, and are not suitable for `let` (i.e., they are not completed in a simple direct declaration) apply for being declared with `var`. For example: var output = '\n' lines.forEach(line => { output += ' ' output += line.trim() output += '\n' }) output += '\n---' for (let parent in parents) { var definitions = {} definitions.name = getName(parent) definitions.config = {} definitions.parent = parent }

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Sistemas legais anárquicos São poucos os exemplos de sistemas legais claramente anárquicos que nós temos, e são sempre de tempos muito remoto, da idade média ou por aí. Me vêm à cabeça agora o sistema islandês, o somaliano, o irlandês e as cortes dos mercadores da Europa continental. Esses exemplos, embora sempre pareçam aos olhos de um libertário convicto a prova cabal de que a sociedade sem o Estado é capaz de fazer funcionar sistemas legais eficientes, complexos e muito melhores e mais baratos do que os estatais, a qualquer observador não entusiasmado vão parecer meio anacrônicos: são sempre coisas que envolvem família, clãs, chefes de família, comunidades pequenas -- fatores quase sempre ausentes na sociedade hoje --, o que dá espaço para que a pessoa pense (e eu confesso que isso também sempre me incomodou) que nada disso funcionaria hoje, são bonitos, mas sistemas que só funcionariam nos tempos de antigamente, o Estado com seu sistema judiciário é a evolução natural e necessária de tudo isso e assim por diante. Vale lembrar, porém, que os exemplos que nós temos provavelmente não surgiram espontamente, eles mesmos foram o resultado de uma evolução lenta mas constante do sistema legal das suas respectivas comunidades. Se não tivessem sido interrompidos pela intervenção de algum Estado, esses sistemas teriam continuado evoluindo e hoje, quem sabe, seriam redes complexas altamente eficientes, que, por que não, juntariam tecnologias similares à internet com segurança de dados, algoritmos maravilhosos de reputação e voto, tudo decentralizado, feito por meio de protocolos concorrentes mas padronizados -- talvez, se tivessem tido um pouquinho mais de tempo, cada um desses sistemas legais anárquicos teria desenvolvido meios de evitar a conquista ou a concorrência desleal de um Estado, ou pelo menos do Estado como nós o conhecemos hoje.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# localchat A server that creates instant chat rooms with [Server-Sent Events](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server-sent_events) and normal HTTP `POST` requests (instead of WebSockets which are an overkill most of the times). It defaults to a room named as your public IP, so if two machines in the same LAN connect they'll be in the same chat automatically -- but then you can also join someone else's LAN if you need. This is supposed to be useful.  - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/localchat> - <https://localchat.bigsun.xyz/> ## See also - [Filemap](nostr:naddr1qqyrwcekv33rze3kqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c23ya8a)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Just malinvestiment Traditionally the Austrian Theory of Business Cycles has been explained and reworked in many ways, but the most widely accepted version (or the closest to the Mises or Hayek views) view is that banks (or the central bank) cause the general interest rate to decline by creation of new money and that prompts entrepreneurs to invest in projects of longer duration. This can be confusing because sometimes entrepreneurs embark in very short-time projects during one of these bubbles and still contribute to the overall cycle. The solution is to think about the "longer term" problem is to think of the entire economy going long-term, not individual entrepreneurs. So if one entrepreneur makes an investiment in a thing that looks simple he may actually, knowingly or not, be inserting himself in a bigger machine that is actually involved in producing longer-term things. Incidentally this thinking also solves the biggest criticism of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory: that of the rational expectations people who say: "oh but can't the entrepreneurs know that the interest rate is artificially low and decide to not make long-term investiments?" ("and if they don't know they should lose money and be replaced like in a normal economy flow blablabla?"). Well, the answer is that they are not really relying on the interest rate, they are only looking for profit opportunities, and this is the key to another confusion that has always followed my thinkings about this topic. If a guy opens a bar in an area of a town where many new buildings are being built during a "housing bubble" he may not know, but he is inserting himself right into the eye of that business cycle. He expects all these building projects to continue, and all the people involved in that to be getting paid more and be able to spend more at his bar and so on. That is a bet that may or may not end up paying. Now what does that bar investiment has to do with the interest rate? Nothing. It is just a guy who saw a business opportunity in a place where hungry people with money had no bar to buy things in, so he opened a bar. Additionally the guy has made some calculations about all the ending, starting and future building projects in the area, and then the people that would live or work in that area afterwards (after all the buildings were being built with the expectation of being used) and so on, there is no interest rate calculations involved. And yet that may be a malinvestiment because some building projects will end up being canceled and the expected usage of the finished ones will turn out to be smaller than predicted. This bubble may have been caused by a decline in interest rates that prompted some people to start buying houses that they wouldn't otherwise, but this is just a small detail. The bubble can only be kept going by a constant influx of new money into the economy, but the focus on the interest rate is wrong. If new money is printed and used by the government to buy ships then there will be a boom and a bubble in the ship market, and that involves all the parts of production process of ships and also bars that will be opened near areas of the town where ships are built and new people are being hired with higher salaries to do things that will eventually contribute to the production of ships that will then be sold to the government. It's not interest rates or the length of the production process that matters, it's just printed money and malinvestiment.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# O mito do objetivo O insight [deste cara](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXQPL9GooyI) segundo o qual buscar objetivos fixos, além de matar a criatividade, ainda não consegue atingir o tal objetivo -- que é uma coisa na qual eu sempre acreditei, embora sem muitas confirmações e (talvez por isso) sem dizê-lo abertamente --, combina com a idéia geral de que todas as estruturas sociais que valem alguma coisa surgem do jogo e brincadeira. A seriedade, que é o oposto da brincadeira, é representada aqui pelo objetivo. Pessoas muito sérias com um planejamento e um objetivo final, tudo esquematizado. --- Na verdade esse insight é bem manjado. Até eu mesmo já o tinha mencionado, citando Taleb em [Processos Antifrágeis](nostr:naddr1qqyryv3hxfsnvvm9qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c5jshx7). E finalmente há esta tirinha que eu achei aleatoriamente e que bem o representa: [](https://dilbert.com/strip/2004-04-17)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Profits, not wages, as the originary factor Adam Smith says that there were first workers earning wages, but then came the capitalists and extracted profits from those wages. But in fact if that primitive state ever existed there were no workers, but entrepreneursearning profit. And since they were not capitalists ("capitalist" defined as someone that buys with the intent of selling) they were earning an infinite rate of profit. When capitalists came they were responsible for introducing costs (investment) reducing thus the rate of profit -- and the more capitalistic the society the smaller the rate of profits. -- George Reisman in <https://www.bobmurphyshow.com/139>