@ 46fcbe30:6bd8ce4d

# MEMORANDUM OF CONVERSATION **SUBJECT:** Meeting with Russian President Yeltsin **PARTICIPANTS:** - U.S. - President Clinton - Secretary Albright - National Security Advisor Berger - Deputy National Security Advisor Steinberg - Ambassador Sestanovich - Carlos Pascual - Russia - Russian President Yeltsin - Foreign Minister Ivanov - Kremlin Foreign Policy Advisor Prihodko - Defense Minister Sergeyev - Interpreter: Peter Afansenko - Notetaker: Carlos Pascual **DATE, TIME AND PLACE:** November 19, 1999, 10:45 a.m. - 11:40 a.m. Istanbul, Turkey President Yeltsin: We are in neutral territory here. I welcome you. The President: Neither of us has a stake here. It's good to see you. President Yeltsin: Well, Bill, what about those camps here in Turkey that are preparing troops to go into Chechnya? Aren't you in charge of those? I have the details. Minister Ivanov, give me the map. I want to show you where the mercenaries are being trained and then being sent into Chechnya. They are armed to the teeth. (Note: Yeltsin pulls out map of Turkey and circulates it.) Bill, this is your fault. I told Demirel yesterday that I will send the head of the SRV tomorrow and we will show him where the camps are located. These are not state-sanctioned camps. They are sponsored by NGOs and religious organizations. But let me tell you if this were in Russia and there were but one camp, I would throw them all out and put the bandits in the electric chair. The President: Perhaps Demirel could help you. President Yeltsin: Well, he ought to. Tomorrow after I get back, I will send the head of the Foreign Intelligence Service here. Bill, did you hurt your leg? The President: Yes, but it is not bad. President Yeltsin: When one leg of the President hurts, that is a bad thing. The President: It lets me know I am alive. President Yeltsin: I know we are not upset at each other. We were just throwing some jabs. I'm still waiting for you to visit. Bill. I've said to you come to visit in May, then June, then July and then August. Now it's past October and you're still not there. The President: You're right, Boris, I owe you a visit. President Yeltsin: Last time I went to the U.S., Bill. The President: Well, I better set it up. I'll look at the calendar and find a time that's good for you and me. President Yeltsin: Call me and tell me the month and date. Unless I have another visit, I will do the maximum amount I can to do everything around your schedule. The main things I have are to go to China and India. The President: Boris, we still have lots to do together. President Yeltsin: You heard my statement on nuclear arms and on banning nuclear tests. I just signed a law on ratification of a new agreement on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Isn't that right, Minister Ivanov? Minister Ivanov: You signed the documents that sent the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the Duma for review. President Yeltsin: Well, in any case, I still approved it. The President: Maybe I can get the Congress to agree still. They kept the Treaty even after they rejected it. So perhaps, there is still a chance. President Yeltsin: Or perhaps it's just the bureaucrats working and they haven't had a chance to send it back to you yet. I'm upset that you signed the law to change the ABM Treaty. The President: I signed no such law. People in Congress don't like the ABM Treaty. If Congress had its way, they would undermine the treaty. I'm trying to uphold it. But we need a national missile defense to protect against rogue states. We can't have a national missile defense that works without changing the ABM Treaty. But I want to do this cooperatively. I want to persuade you that this is good for both of us. The primary purpose is to protect against terrorists and rogue states. It would be ineffective against Russia. The system we're looking at would operate against just 20 missiles. And, Boris I want to figure out how to share the benefits. For all I know, in twenty years terrorists could have access to nuclear weapons. I know your people don't agree with me, but I'm not trying to overthrow the ABM Treaty. We're still trying to discover what's technically possible with national missile defense, but there are people in America who want to throw over the ABM Treaty. I have made no decisions yet. President Yeltsin: Bill, Bill. I got your note. It went into all these things in incredible detail. I read it and I was satisfied. I've not yet ceased to believe in you. I ask you one thing. Just give Europe to Russia. The U.S. is not in Europe. Europe should be the business of Europeans. Russia is half European and half Asian. The President: So you want Asia too? President Yeltsin: Sure, sure. Bill. Eventually, we will have to agree on all of this. The President: I don't think the Europeans would like this very much. President Yeltsin: Not all. But I am a European. I live in Moscow. Moscow is in Europe and I like it. You can take all the other states and provide security to them. I will take Europe and provide them security. Well, not I. Russia will. We will end this conflict in Chechnya. I didn't say all the things I was thinking (in his speech). I listened to you carefully. I took a break just beforehand. Then I listened to you from beginning to end. I can even repeat what you said. Bill, I'm serious. Give Europe to Europe itself. Europe never felt as close to Russia as it does now. We have no difference of opinion with Europe, except maybe on Afganistan and Pakistan—which, by the way, is training Chechens. These are bandits, headhunters and killers. They're raping American women. They're cutting off ears and other parts of their hostages. We're fighting these types of terrorists. Let's not accuse Russia that we are too rough with these kinds of people. There are only two options: kill them or put them on trial. There's no third option, but we can put them on trial, and sentence them to 20-25 years. How many Americans, French, British and Germans have I freed that were there in Chechnya under the OSCE? The Chechen killers don't like the language of the OSCE. Here's my Minister of Defense. Stand up. We have not lost one soldier down there. Tell them. Minister Sergeyev: We did not lose one soldier in Gudermes. President Yeltsin: You see, Gudermes was cleansed without one military or civilian killed. We killed 200 bandits. The Minister of Defense is fulfilling the plan as I have said it should be. He's doing this thoughtfully. The soldiers only ask: don't stop the campaign. I promised these guys—I told every soldier, marshal and general—I will bring the campaign to fruition. We have these Chechens under lock and key. We have the key. They can't get in, they can't get out. Except maybe through Georgia; that's Shevardnadze's big mistake. And through Azerbaijan; that's Aliyev's mistake. They're shuttling in under the name of Islam. We're for freedom of religion, but not for fundamentalist Islam. These extremists are against you and against me. We have the power in Russia to protect all of Europe, including those with missiles. We'll make all the appropriate treaties with China. We're not going to provide nuclear weapons to India. If we give them submarines, it will be only conventional diesel submarines, not nuclear. They would be from the 935 generation. You're going in that direction too. I'm thinking about your proposal—well, what your armed forces are doing—getting rid of fissile materials, particularly plutonium. We should just get rid of it. As soon as it's there, people start thinking of how to make bombs. Look, Russia has the power and intellect to know what to do with Europe. If Ivanov stays here, he will initial the CFE Treaty and I'll sign it under him. But under the OSCE Charter, there is one thing I cannot agree—which is that, based on humanitarian causes, one state can interfere in the affairs of another state. National Security Advisor Berger: Mr. President, there's nothing in the Charter on one state's interference in the affairs of another. Secretary Albright: That's right. What the Charter says is that affairs within a state will affect the other states around it. President Yeltsin: Russia agrees to take out its property and equipment from Georgia in accordance with the new CFE Treaty. I have a statement on this. (looking toward Ivanov) Give it to me. I signed it today. Actually, it was late last night. I like to work late. The President: Me, too. President Yeltsin: I know you like to work late, Bill. When you call me, I calculate the time and I tell myself it's 4 a.m. and he's calling me. It lets you cleanse your brain and you feel great. I am not criticizing you, Bill. The President should be encouraged to work hard. The President: So, we will get an agreement on CFE. President Yeltsin: Yes. The President: That's very important, seven years. We've worked on this for a long time. President Yeltsin: Look, Ivanov has lost the statement in his own bag. He can't find the paper in his own bag. On the Charter, we have to look at it from the beginning. The Charter's ready. However, when states begin to tie in the Charter with the final declaration that has wording unacceptable to us, that's when we'll say no. And responsibility for this will fall fully on the West. (Looking at Ivanov) Give me this thing. It is written on paper. Bill. I am ready to sign it. It is a declaration about what we're talking about. Secretary Albright: Some states want to record in the declaration your willingness to have an OSCE mission. President Yeltsin: No, not at all. We will finish this with our own forces. Chechnya is the business of the internal affairs of Russia. We have to decide what to do. After we cleansed Gudermes, the muslim mufti came and asked for help, said I hate Basayev and he should be banned. These are the kinds of leaders we will put forward. I have thought this through carefully. The President: On the Chechen problem. I have been less critical than others. Even today, I asked the others how they would deal with this if it were their country. This is a political issue. It may be the best thing for you within Russia to tell the Europeans to go to hell. But the best thing for your relations with Europe for the long term is to figure out the policy that you want to have with Europe and to keep that in mind as you deal with Chechnya. President Yeltsin: (Gets up rapidly) Bill, the meeting is up. We said 20 minutes and it has now been more than 35 minutes. The President: That's fine. We can say the meeting is over. President Yeltsin: This meeting has gone on too long. You should come to visit, Bill. The President: Who will win the election? President Yeltsin: Putin, of course. He will be the successor to Boris Yeltsin. He's a democrat, and he knows the West. The President: He's very smart. President Yeltsin: He's tough. He has an internal ramrod. He's tough internally, and I will do everything possible for him to win—legally, of course. And he will win. You'll do business together. He will continue the Yeltsin line on democracy and economics and widen Russia's contacts. He has the energy and the brains to succeed. Thank you, Bill. The President: Thank you, Boris. It was good to see you. End of Conversation

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

## Introduction Throughout human history, the pyramids of Egypt have fascinated scholars, archaeologists, and engineers alike. Traditionally thought of as tombs for pharaohs or religious monuments, alternative theories have speculated that the pyramids may have served advanced technological functions. One such hypothesis suggests that the pyramids acted as large-scale nitrogen fertilizer generators, designed to transform arid desert landscapes into fertile land. This paper explores the feasibility of such a system by examining how a pyramid could integrate thermal convection, electrolysis, and a self-regulating breeder reactor to sustain nitrogen fixation processes. We will calculate the total power requirements and estimate the longevity of a breeder reactor housed within the structure. ## The Pyramid’s Function as a Nitrogen Fertilizer Generator The hypothesized system involves several key processes: - **Heat and Convection**: A fissile material core located in the King's Chamber would generate heat, creating convection currents throughout the pyramid. - **Electrolysis and Hydrogen Production**: Water sourced from subterranean channels would undergo electrolysis, splitting into hydrogen and oxygen due to electrical and thermal energy. - **Nitrogen Fixation**: The generated hydrogen would react with atmospheric nitrogen (N₂) to produce ammonia (NH₃), a vital component of nitrogen-based fertilizers. ## Power Requirements for Continuous Operation To maintain the pyramid’s core at approximately **450°C**, sufficient to drive nitrogen fixation, we estimate a steady-state power requirement of **23.9 gigawatts (GW)**. ### Total Energy Required Over 10,000 Years Given continuous operation over **10,000 years**, the total energy demand can be calculated as: \[ \text{Total time} = 10,000 \times 365.25 \times 24 \times 3600 \text{ seconds} \] \[ \text{Total time} = 3.16 \times 10^{11} \text{ seconds} \] \[ \text{Total energy} = 23.9 \text{ GW} \times 3.16 \times 10^{11} \text{ s} \] \[ \approx 7.55 \times 10^{21} \text{ J} \] ## Using a Self-Regulating Breeder Reactor A **breeder reactor** could sustain this power requirement by generating more fissile material than it consumes. This reduces the need for frequent refueling. ### Pebble Bed Reactor Design - **Self-Regulation**: The reactor would use passive cooling and fuel expansion to self-regulate temperature. - **Breeding Process**: The reactor would convert thorium-232 into uranium-233, creating a sustainable fuel cycle. ### Fissile Material Requirements Each kilogram of fissile material releases approximately **80 terajoules (TJ)** (or **8 × 10^{13} J/kg**). Given a **35% efficiency rate**, the usable energy per kilogram is: \[ \text{Usable energy per kg} = 8 \times 10^{13} \times 0.35 = 2.8 \times 10^{13} \text{ J/kg} \] \[ \text{Fissile material required} = \frac{7.55 \times 10^{21}}{2.8 \times 10^{13}} \] \[ \approx 2.7 \times 10^{8} \text{ kg} = 270,000 \text{ tons} \] ### Impact of a Breeding Ratio If the reactor operates at a **breeding ratio of 1.3**, the total fissile material requirement would be reduced to: \[ \frac{270,000}{1.3} \approx 208,000 \text{ tons} \] ### Reactor Size and Fuel Replenishment Assuming a **pebble bed reactor** housed in the **King’s Chamber** (~318 cubic meters), the fuel cycle could be sustained with minimal refueling. With a breeding ratio of **1.3**, the reactor could theoretically operate for **10,000 years** with occasional replenishment of lost material due to inefficiencies. ## Managing Scaling in the Steam Generation System To ensure long-term efficiency, the water supply must be conditioned to prevent **mineral scaling**. Several strategies could be implemented: ### 1. Natural Water Softening Using Limestone - Passing river water through **limestone beds** could help precipitate out calcium bicarbonate, reducing hardness before entering the steam system. ### 2. Chemical Additives for Scaling Prevention - **Chelating Agents**: Compounds such as citric acid or tannins could be introduced to bind calcium and magnesium ions. - **Phosphate Compounds**: These interfere with crystal formation, preventing scale adhesion. ### 3. Superheating and Pre-Evaporation - **Pre-Evaporation**: Water exposed to extreme heat before entering the system would allow minerals to precipitate out before reaching the reactor. - **Superheated Steam**: Ensuring only pure vapor enters the steam cycle would prevent mineral buildup. - **Electrolysis of Superheated Steam**: Using multi-million volt electrostatic fields to ionize and separate minerals before they enter the steam system. ### 4. Electrostatic Control for Scaling Mitigation - The pyramid’s hypothesized high-voltage environment could **ionize water molecules**, helping to prevent mineral deposits. ## Conclusion If the Great Pyramid were designed as a **self-regulating nitrogen fertilizer generator**, it would require a continuous **23.9 GW** energy supply, which could be met by a **breeder reactor** housed within its core. With a **breeding ratio of 1.3**, an initial load of **208,000 tons** of fissile material would sustain operations for **10,000 years** with minimal refueling. Additionally, advanced **water treatment techniques**, including **limestone filtration, chemical additives, and electrostatic control**, could ensure long-term efficiency by mitigating scaling issues. While this remains a speculative hypothesis, it presents a fascinating intersection of **energy production, water treatment, and environmental engineering** as a means to terraform the ancient world.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

## Introduction Since the mid-1990s, American media has fractured into two distinct and increasingly isolated ecosystems, each with its own Overton window of acceptable discourse. Once upon a time, Americans of different political leanings shared a common set of facts, even if they interpreted them differently. Today, they don’t even agree on what the facts are—or who has the authority to define them. This divide stems from a deeper philosophical rift in how each side determines truth and legitimacy. The institutional left derives its authority from the **expert class**—academics, think tanks, scientific consensus, and mainstream media. The populist right, on the other hand, finds its authority in **traditional belief systems**—religion, historical precedent, and what many call "common sense." As these two moral and epistemological frameworks drift further apart, the result is not just political division but the emergence of **two separate cultural nations sharing the same geographic space**. ## The Battle of Epistemologies: Experts vs. Tradition The left-leaning camp sees **scientific consensus, peer-reviewed research, and institutional expertise** as the gold standard of truth. Universities, media organizations, and policy think tanks function as arbiters of knowledge, shaping the moral and political beliefs of those who trust them. From this perspective, governance should be guided by data-driven decisions, often favoring progressive change and bureaucratic administration over democratic populism. The right-leaning camp is skeptical of these institutions, viewing them as ideologically captured and detached from real-world concerns. Instead, they look to **religion, historical wisdom, and traditional social structures** as more reliable sources of truth. To them, the "expert class" is not an impartial source of knowledge but a self-reinforcing elite that justifies its own power while dismissing dissenters as uneducated or morally deficient. This fundamental disagreement over the **source of moral and factual authority** means that political debates today are rarely about policy alone. They are battles over legitimacy itself. One side sees resistance to climate policies as "anti-science," while the other sees aggressive climate mandates as an elite power grab. One side views traditional gender roles as oppressive, while the other sees rapid changes in gender norms as unnatural and destabilizing. Each group believes the other is **not just wrong, but dangerous**. ## The Consequences of Non-Overlapping Overton Windows As these worldviews diverge, so do their respective **Overton windows**—the range of ideas considered acceptable for public discourse. There is little overlap left. What is considered self-evident truth in one camp is often seen as **heresy or misinformation** in the other. The result is: - **Epistemic Closure** – Each side has its own trusted media sources, and cross-exposure is minimal. The left dismisses right-wing media as conspiracy-driven, while the right views mainstream media as corrupt propaganda. Both believe the other is being systematically misled. - **Moralization of Politics** – Since truth itself is contested, policy debates become existential battles. Disagreements over issues like immigration, education, or healthcare are no longer just about governance but about **moral purity versus moral corruption**. - **Cultural and Political Balkanization** – Without a shared understanding of reality, compromise becomes impossible. Americans increasingly consume separate news, live in ideologically homogeneous communities, and even **speak different political languages**. ## Conclusion: Two Nations on One Land A country can survive disagreements, but can it survive when its people no longer share **a common source of truth**? Historically, such deep societal fractures have led to **secession, authoritarianism, or violent conflict**. The United States has managed to avoid these extremes so far, but the trendline is clear: as long as each camp continues reinforcing its own epistemology while rejecting the other's as illegitimate, the divide will only grow. The question is no longer whether America is divided—it is whether these two cultures can continue to coexist under a single political system. Can anything bridge the gap between institutional authority and traditional wisdom? Or are we witnessing the slow but inevitable unraveling of a once-unified nation into **two separate moral and epistemic realities**?

@ bc575705:dba3ed39

Ever feel like the same five songs are perpetually stuck in your head, echoing from every cafe, store, and social media scroll? That's not just a coincidence. It's the sound of the modern music industry, a meticulously crafted echo chamber where algorithms dictate taste and genuine artistry often gets lost in the static. We were promised a digital revolution, a world where anyone with talent could reach a global audience. Instead, we got a system rigged for the few, leaving artists scrambling for scraps while the giants rake in billions.  ## **The Playlist Prison: Where Virality is Bought, Not Earned** Imagine pouring your heart and soul into a song, only to have it vanish into the digital abyss. That's the reality for countless artists. The gatekeepers? Playlists. Those curated (supposedly) collections on streaming platforms hold the key to visibility. But who's really curating them? Algorithms, often fueled by shady deals and pay-for-play services. Think of it like this: you're a chef with a Michelin-star-worthy recipe, but the only way to get customers is to pay a restaurant critic to write a glowing review, even if they haven't tasted your food. Search "payola streaming" and you'll find a rabbit hole of articles detailing the dark underbelly of this system. Artists are pressured to buy fake streams, bot followers, and playlist placements, just to get a sliver of attention. It's a race to the bottom, where authenticity is sacrificed for algorithmic approval. Have you ever wondered why so many songs sound the same? It's not a lack of talent; it's a lack of choice. Artists are forced to conform to trends and genres that algorithms favor, creating a homogenous soundscape where individuality is a liability. The result? Music that's designed to be easily digestible, instantly forgettable, and perfectly suited for background noise. ## **The Social Media Minefield: From Musician to Content Machine** The pressure doesn't stop at streaming. Artists are now expected to be social media superstars, constantly creating content to engage their fans. It's a 24/7 job, demanding constant performance and a carefully curated online persona. Imagine being a painter, but instead of focusing on your art, you're forced to create daily Instagram stories about your paintbrushes. That's the reality for many musicians. They're expected to be comedians, dancers, and influencers, all while trying to write and record music. Labels and management companies exploit this, pushing artists to participate in viral trends and challenges, even if they clash with their artistic vision. And let's not forget the rise of TikTok and other short-form video platforms. Songs are now written with the sole purpose of being viral sound bites, catchy hooks designed to be used in fleeting trends. The result? Music that's disposable, devoid of depth, and ultimately, meaningless.  ## **The Financial Black Hole: Pennies Per Stream and the Artist's Plight** Now, let's talk about the money. Streaming platforms boast billions in revenue, but how much of that actually reaches the artists? Pennies. Literally. Millions of streams might only translate to a few hundred dollars. It's a system designed to enrich the platforms and major labels, leaving independent artists struggling to survive. Think of it like this: you're a farmer who grows the crops, but you only get paid a tiny fraction of the price when they're sold at the supermarket. The rest goes to the distributors and retailers. This is the reality for many musicians. They're the creators, the farmers of the music industry, but they're being squeezed dry. The result? Artists are forced to rely on other revenue streams, like merchandise and touring. But even those are becoming increasingly difficult to navigate. The pandemic decimated the live music industry, and the cost of touring is skyrocketing. Many artists are left with no choice but to work multiple jobs just to make ends meet. ## **The Seeds of Rebellion: A New Era for Independent Artists** But there's hope. A rebellion is brewing, a movement of independent artists and fans who are demanding a fairer system. Platforms like Wavlake and others are emerging, offering artists more control over their music and their revenue. These platforms prioritize direct-to-fan engagement, allowing artists to build sustainable careers without relying on the traditional gatekeepers. Imagine a world where you could directly support your favorite artists, where your money goes directly to them, not to some faceless corporation. That's the promise of these new platforms. They're building communities, fostering genuine connections between artists and their fans. And let's not forget the power of cryptocurrency. Bitcoin, for example, offers a decentralized, peer-to-peer system that bypasses traditional financial institutions. Fans can directly support their favorite independent artists by sending them Bitcoin donations, ensuring that the artist receives the full value of their contribution. Think of it like this: you're cutting out the middleman, supporting the artist directly, like buying directly from the farmer at a local market. It's a way to reclaim the power, to support the creators you love, and to build a more sustainable and equitable music ecosystem.  ## **The Call to Action: Reclaim Your Ears, Support the Underground** The future of music is in our hands. We can continue to be passive consumers, letting algorithms dictate our taste, or we can become active participants, supporting the artists who are fighting for their independence.  ## **Join the Rebellion!** **Dive into the underground:** Explore independent music blogs, listen to community radio stations, and attend local shows. There's a world of incredible music waiting to be discovered beyond the algorithms. **Support artists directly:** Buy their music on Bandcamp, donate to their Patreon, and send them Bitcoin tips. Every dollar counts. **Demand transparency:** Call on streaming platforms to reveal their playlist curation processes and to offer fairer revenue splits. **Embrace new platforms:** Explore services like Wavlake and other direct-to-fan platforms that empower artists. **Become a conscious listener:** Question the music you hear. Is it genuine? Is it meaningful? Or is it just another algorithmically generated hit? **Share the love:** Tell your friends about the independent artists you discover. Spread the word and help them build their audience. *The music industry is broken, but it's not beyond repair. By supporting independent artists and demanding change, we can create a future where artistry thrives, where musicians are fairly compensated, and where music truly reflects the diversity and creativity of our world.* **Let's break free from the algorithmic cage and reclaim the power of music!**

@ 291c75d9:37f1bfbe

In 1727, a 21-year-old Benjamin Franklin gathered a dozen men in Philadelphia for a bold experiment in intellectual and civic growth. Every Friday night, this group—known as the Junto, from the Spanish juntar ("to join")—met in a tavern or private home to discuss "Morals, Politics, or Natural Philosophy (science)." Far from a casual social club, the Junto was a secret society dedicated to mutual improvement, respectful discourse, and community betterment. What began as a small gathering of tradesmen and thinkers would leave a lasting mark on Franklin’s life and colonial America. > Printers are educated in the belief that when men differ in opinion, both sides ought equally to have the advantage of being heard by the public, and that when Truth and Error have fair play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter. </br></br> - Benjamin Franklin **The Junto** operated under a clear set of rules, detailed by Franklin in his Autobiography: "The rules that I drew up required that every member, in his turn, should produce one or more queries on any point of Morals, Politics, or Natural Philosophy, to be discuss’d by the company; and once in three months produce and read an essay of his own writing, on any subject he pleased. Our debates were to be under the direction of a president, and to be conducted in the sincere spirit of inquiry after truth, without fondness for dispute, or desire of victory; and, to prevent warmth [heatedness], all expressions of positiveness in opinions, or direct contradiction, were after some time made contraband and prohibited under small pecuniary penalties [monetary fines]." These guidelines emphasized collaboration over competition. Members were expected to contribute questions or essays, sparking discussions that prioritized truth over ego. To keep debates civil, the group even imposed small fines for overly assertive or contradictory behavior—a practical nudge toward humility and open-mindedness. (Yes, I believe that is an ass tax!) Rather than admitting new members, Franklin encouraged existing ones to form their own discussion groups. This created a decentralized network of groups ("private relays," as I think of them), echoing the structure of modern platforms like NOSTR—while preserving the Junto’s exclusivity and privacy. From the beginning, they made it a rule to keep these meetings secret, without applications or admittance of new members. Instead, Franklin encouraged members to form their own groups—in a way acting as private relays of sorts. (I say "private" because they continued to keep the Junto secret, even with these new groups.) ## Membership: A Diverse Circle United by Values The Junto’s twelve founding members came from varied walks of life—printers, surveyors, shoemakers, and clerks—yet shared a commitment to self-improvement. Franklin, though the youngest (around 21 when the group formed), led the Junto with a vision of collective growth. To join, candidates faced a simple vetting process, answering four key questions: 1. Have you any particular disrespect for any present members? Answer: I have not. 2. Do you sincerely declare that you love mankind in general, of what profession or religion soever? Answer: I do. 3. Do you think any person ought to be harmed in his body, name, or goods, for mere speculative opinions, or his external way of worship? Answer: No. 4. Do you love truth for truth’s sake, and will you endeavor impartially to find and receive it yourself and communicate it to others? Answer: Yes. These criteria reveal the Junto’s core values: respect, tolerance, and an unwavering pursuit of truth. They ensured that members brought not just intellect but also character to the table—placing dialogue as the priority. One should also note the inspiration from the "Dry Club" of John Locke, William Popple, and Benjamin Furly in the 1690s. They too required affirmation to: 1. Whether he loves all men, of what profession or religion soever? 2. Whether he thinks no person ought to be harmed in his body, name, or goods, for mere speculative opinions, or his external way of worship? 3. Whether he loves and seeks truth for truth’s sake; and will endeavor impartially to find and receive it himself, and to communicate it to others? And they agreed: *"That no person or opinion be unhandsomely reflected on; but every member behave himself with all the temper, judgment, modesty, and discretion he is master of."* ## The Discussions: 24 Questions to Spark Insight Franklin crafted a list of 24 questions to guide the Junto’s conversations, ranging from personal anecdotes to civic concerns. These prompts showcase the group’s intellectual breadth. Here are some of my favorites: > Hath any citizen in your knowledge failed in his business lately, and what have you heard of the cause?</br></br> Have you lately heard of any citizen’s thriving well, and by what means?</br></br> Do you know of any fellow citizen who has lately done a worthy action, deserving praise and imitation?</br></br> Do you think of anything at present in which the Junto may be serviceable to mankind, their country, friends, or themselves?</br></br> Have you lately observed any defect in the laws of your country, which it would be proper to move the legislature for an amendment?</br></br> Do you know of any deserving young beginner lately set up, whom it lies in the power of the Junto any way to encourage?</br> (Read them all [here](https://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/becomingamer/ideas/text4/juntolibrary.pdf).) Note the keen attention to success and failure, and the reflection on both. Attention was often placed on the community and individual improvement beyond the members of the group. These questions encouraged members to share knowledge, reflect on virtues and vices, and propose solutions to real-world problems. The result? Discussions that didn’t just end at the tavern door but inspired tangible community improvements. ## The Junto’s Legacy: America’s First Lending Library One of the Junto’s most enduring contributions to Philadelphia—and indeed, to the American colonies—was the creation of the first lending library in 1731. Born from the group’s commitment to mutual improvement and knowledge-sharing, this library became a cornerstone of public education and intellectual life in the community. The idea for the library emerged naturally from the Junto’s discussions. Members, who came from diverse backgrounds but shared a passion for learning, recognized that their own access to books was often limited and costly—and they referred to them often. To address this, they proposed pooling their personal collections to create a shared resource. This collaborative effort allowed them—and eventually the broader public—to access a wider range of books than any individual could afford alone. The library operated on a simple yet revolutionary principle: knowledge should be available to all, regardless of wealth or status. By creating a lending system, the Junto democratized access to information, fostering a culture of self-education and curiosity. This was especially significant at a time when books were scarce and formal education was not universally accessible. The success of the Junto’s library inspired similar initiatives across the colonies, laying the groundwork for the public library system we know today. It also reflected the group’s broader mission: to serve not just its members but the entire community. The library became a symbol of the Junto’s belief in the power of education to uplift individuals and society alike. > With roots extending back to the founding of the Society in 1743, the Library of the American Philosophical Society houses over thirteen million manuscripts, 350,000 volumes and bound periodicals, 250,000 images, and thousands of hours of audiotape. The Library’s holdings make it one of the premier institutions for documenting the history of the American Revolution and Founding, the study of natural history in the 18th and 19th centuries, the study of evolution and genetics, quantum mechanics, and the development of cultural anthropology, among others. The [American Philosophical Society Library](https://www.amphilsoc.org/library) continues today. I hope to visit it myself in the future. ## Freedom, for Community Comparing the Junto to Nostr shows how the tools of community and debate evolve with time. Both prove that people crave spaces to connect, share, and grow—whether in a colonial tavern or a digital relay. Yet their differences reveal trade-offs: the Junto’s structure offered depth and focus but capped its reach, while Nostr’s openness promises scale at the cost of order. In a sense, Nostr feels like the Junto’s modern echo—faster, bigger, and unbound by gates or rules. Franklin might admire its ambition, even if he’d raise an eyebrow at its messiness. For us, the comparison underscores a timeless truth: no matter the medium, the drive to seek truth and build community endures. --- The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin (1771–1790, pub. 1791) http://www.benjamin-franklin-history.org/junto-club/ Benjamin Franklin, Political, Miscellaneous, and Philosophical Pieces, ed. Benjamin Vaughan (London: 1779), pp. 533–536. "Rules of a Society" in The Remains of John Locke, Esq. (1714), p. 113 #npubpro

@ c48e29f0:26e14c11

[ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STRATEGIC BITCOIN RESERVE AND UNITED STATES DIGITAL ASSET STOCKPILE](https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/establishment-of-the-strategic-bitcoin-reserveand-united-states-digital-asset-stockpile/) EXECUTIVE ORDER March 6, 2025 By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: #### Section 1. Background. Bitcoin is the original cryptocurrency. The Bitcoin protocol permanently caps the total supply of bitcoin (BTC) at 21 million coins, and has never been hacked. As a result of its scarcity and security, Bitcoin is often referred to as “digital gold”. Because there is a fixed supply of BTC, there is a strategic advantage to being among the first nations to create a strategic bitcoin reserve. The United States Government currently holds a significant amount of BTC, but has not implemented a policy to maximize BTC’s strategic position as a unique store of value in the global financial system. Just as it is in our country’s interest to thoughtfully manage national ownership and control of any other resource, our Nation must harness, not limit, the power of digital assets for our prosperity. #### Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to establish a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. It is further the policy of the United States to establish a United States Digital Asset Stockpile that can serve as a secure account for orderly and strategic management of the United States’ other digital asset holdings. #### Sec. 3. Creation and Administration of the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and United States Digital Asset Stockpile. (a) The Secretary of the Treasury shall establish an office to administer and maintain control of custodial accounts collectively known as the “Strategic Bitcoin Reserve,” capitalized with all BTC held by the Department of the Treasury that was finally forfeited as part of criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings or in satisfaction of any civil money penalty imposed by any executive department or agency (agency) and that is not needed to satisfy requirements under 31 U.S.C. 9705 or released pursuant to subsection (d) of this section (Government BTC). Within 30 days of the date of this order, each agency shall review its authorities to transfer any Government BTC held by it to the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and shall submit a report reflecting the result of that review to the Secretary of the Treasury. Government BTC deposited into the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve shall not be sold and shall be maintained as reserve assets of the United States utilized to meet governmental objectives in accordance with applicable law. (b) The Secretary of the Treasury shall establish an office to administer and maintain control of custodial accounts collectively known as the “United States Digital Asset Stockpile,” capitalized with all digital assets owned by the Department of the Treasury, other than BTC, that were finally forfeited as part of criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings and that are not needed to satisfy requirements under 31 U.S.C. 9705 or released pursuant to subsection (d) of this section (Stockpile Assets). Within 30 days of the date of this order, each agency shall review its authorities to transfer any Stockpile Assets held by it to the United States Digital Asset Stockpile and shall submit a report reflecting the result of that review to the Secretary of the Treasury. The Secretary of the Treasury shall determine strategies for responsible stewardship of the United States Digital Asset Stockpile in accordance with applicable law. (c) The Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Commerce shall develop strategies for acquiring additional Government BTC provided that such strategies are budget neutral and do not impose incremental costs on United States taxpayers. However, the United States Government shall not acquire additional Stockpile Assets other than in connection with criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings or in satisfaction of any civil money penalty imposed by any agency without further executive or legislative action. (d) “Government Digital Assets” means all Government BTC and all Stockpile Assets. The head of each agency shall not sell or otherwise dispose of any Government Digital Assets, except in connection with the Secretary of the Treasury’s exercise of his lawful authority and responsible stewardship of the United States Digital Asset Stockpile pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, or pursuant to an order from a court of competent jurisdiction, as required by law, or in cases where the Attorney General or other relevant agency head determines that the Government Digital Assets (or the proceeds from the sale or disposition thereof) can and should: (i) be returned to identifiable and verifiable victims of crime; (ii) be used for law enforcement operations; (iii) be equitably shared with State and local law enforcement partners; or (iv) be released to satisfy requirements under 31 U.S.C. 9705, 28 U.S.C. 524(c), 18 U.S.C. 981, or 21 U.S.C. 881. (e) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury shall deliver an evaluation of the legal and investment considerations for establishing and managing the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and United States Digital Asset Stockpile going forward, including the accounts in which the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and United States Digital Asset Stockpile should be located and the need for any legislation to operationalize any aspect of this order or the proper management and administration of such accounts. #### Sec. 4. Accounting. Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall provide the Secretary of the Treasury and the President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets with a full accounting of all Government Digital Assets in such agency’s possession, including any information regarding the custodial accounts in which such Government Digital Assets are currently held that would be necessary to facilitate a transfer of the Government Digital Assets to the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve or the United States Digital Asset Stockpile. If such agency holds no Government Digital Assets, such agency shall confirm such fact to the Secretary of the Treasury and the President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets within 30 days of the date of this order. #### Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. THE WHITE HOUSE, March 6, 2025

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

The financial system has long relied on traditional banking methods, but emerging technologies like Bitcoin and Nostr are paving the way for a new era of financial interactions. ## Secure Savings with Bitcoin: Bitcoin wallets can act as secure savings accounts, offering users control and ownership over their funds without relying on third parties. ## Instant Settlements with the Lightning Network: The Lightning Network can replace traditional settlement systems, such as ACH or wire transfers, by enabling instant, low-cost transactions. ## Face-to-Face Transactions with Ecash: Ecash could offer a fee-free option for smaller, everyday transactions, complementing the Lightning Network for larger payments. ## Automated Billing with Nostr Wallet Connect: Nostr Wallet Connect could revolutionize automated billing, allowing users to set payment limits and offering more control over subscriptions and recurring expenses. ## Conclusion: Combining Bitcoin and Nostr technologies could create a more efficient, user-centric financial system that empowers individuals and businesses alike.

@ c8383d81:f9139549

Project is still in early stages but now it is split into 2 different domain entities. 
Everything is opened sourced under one github https://github.com/Nsite-Info ## So what’s new ? ### Project #1 https://Nsite.info
 A basic website with main info regarding what an Nsite is how it works and a list of tools and repo’s you can use to start building and debugging.
99% Finished, needs some extra translations and the Nsite Debugger can use a small upgrade.

 ### Project #2 https://Nsite.cloud
 This project isn’t finished, it currently is at a 40% finished stage. This contains the Nsite Gateway for all sites (still a work in progress) and the final stage the Nsite editor & template deployment. If you are interested in Nsite’s join: 

https://chachi.chat/groups.hzrd149.com/e23891 Big thanks to nostr:npub1elta7cneng3w8p9y4dw633qzdjr4kyvaparuyuttyrx6e8xp7xnq32cume nostr:npub1ye5ptcxfyyxl5vjvdjar2ua3f0hynkjzpx552mu5snj3qmx5pzjscpknpr nostr:npub1klr0dy2ul2dx9llk58czvpx73rprcmrvd5dc7ck8esg8f8es06qs427gxc for all the tooling & code. !(image)[https://i.nostr.build/AkUvk7R2h9cVEMLB.png]

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

# Election Authority (EA) Platform ## 1.1 EA Administration Interface (Web-Based) - **Purpose**: Gives authorized personnel (e.g., election officials) a user-friendly way to administer the election. - **Key Tasks**: 1. **Voter Registration Oversight**: Mark which voters have proven their identity (via in-person KYC or some legal process). 2. **Blind Signature Issuance**: Approve or deny blind signature requests from registered voters (each corresponding to one ephemeral key). 3. **Tracking Voter Slots**: Keep a minimal registry of who is allowed one ephemeral key signature, and mark it “used” once a signature is issued. 4. **Election Configuration**: Set start/end times, provide encryption parameters (public keys), manage threshold cryptography setup. 5. **Monitor Tallying**: After the election, collaborate with trustees to decrypt final results and release them. ## 1.2 EA Backend Services - **Blind Signature Service**: - An API endpoint or internal module that receives a *blinded ephemeral key* from a voter, checks if they are authorized (one signature per voter), and returns the blind-signed result. - Typically requires secure storage of the EA’s **blind signing private key**. - **Voter Roll Database**: - Stores minimal info: “Voter #12345 is authorized to request one ephemeral key signature,” plus status flags. - Does **not** store ephemeral keys themselves (to preserve anonymity). - **(Optional) Mix-Net or Homomorphic Tally Service**: - Coordinates with trustees for threshold decryption or re-encryption. - Alternatively, a separate “Tally Authority” service can handle this. --- # 2. Auditor Interface ## 2.1 Auditor Web-Based Portal - **Purpose**: Allows independent auditors (or the public) to: 1. **Fetch All Ballots** from the relays (or from an aggregator). 2. **Verify Proofs**: Check each ballot’s signature, blind signature from the EA, OTS proof, zero-knowledge proofs, etc. 3. **Check Double-Usage**: Confirm that each ephemeral key is used only once (or final re-vote is the only valid instance). 4. **Observe Tally Process**: Possibly see partial decryptions or shuffle steps, verify the final result matches the posted ballots. - **Key Tasks**: - Provide a **dashboard** showing the election’s real-time status or final results, after cryptographic verification. - Offer **open data** downloads so third parties can run independent checks. ## 2.2 (Optional) Trustee Dashboard - If the election uses threshold cryptography (multiple parties must decrypt), each **trustee** (candidate rep, official, etc.) might have an interface for: - Uploading partial decryption shares or re-encryption proofs. - Checking that other trustees did their steps correctly (zero-knowledge proofs for correct shuffling, etc.). --- # 3. Voter Application ## 3.1 Voter Client (Mobile App or Web Interface) - **Purpose**: The main tool voters use to participate—**before**, **during**, and **after** the election. - **Functionalities**: 1. **Registration Linking**: - Voter goes in-person to an election office or uses an online KYC process. - Voter obtains or confirms their **long-term (“KYC-bound”) key**. The client can store it securely (or the voter just logs in to a “voter account”). 2. **Ephemeral Key Generation**: - Create an ephemeral key pair (\(nsec_e, npub_e\)) locally. - Blind \(\npub_e\) and send it to the EA for signing. - Unblind the returned signature. - Store \(\npub_e\) + EA’s signature for use during voting. 3. **Ballot Composition**: - Display candidates/offices to the voter. - Let them select choices. - Possibly generate zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs) behind the scenes to confirm “exactly one choice per race.” 4. **Encryption & OTS Timestamp**: - Encrypt the ballot under the election’s **public** (threshold) key or produce a format suitable for a mix-net. - Obtain an **OpenTimestamps** proof for the ballot’s hash. 5. **Publish Ballot**: - Sign the entire “timestamped ballot” with the ephemeral key. - Include the EA’s blind signature on \(\npub_e\). - Post to the Nostr relays (or any chosen decentralized channel). 6. **Re-Voting**: - If the user needs to change their vote, the client repeats the encryption + OTS step, publishes a new ballot with a strictly later OTS anchor. 7. **Verification**: - After the election, the voter can check that their final ballot is present in the tally set. ## 3.2 Local Storage / Security - The app must securely store: - **Ephemeral private key** (\(nsec_e\)) until voting is complete. - Potential backup/recovery mechanism if the phone is lost. - Blind signature from the EA on \(\npub_e\). - Potentially uses hardware security modules (HSM) or secure enclaves on the device. --- # 4. Nostr Relays (or Equivalent Decentralized Layer) - **Purpose**: Store and replicate voter-submitted ballots (events). - **Key Properties**: 1. **Redundancy**: Voters can post to multiple relays to mitigate censorship or downtime. 2. **Public Accessibility**: Auditors, the EA, and the public can fetch all events to verify or tally. 3. **Event Filtering**: By design, watchers can filter events with certain tags, e.g. “election: 2025 County Race,” ensuring they gather all ballots. --- # 5. Threshold Cryptography Setup ## 5.1 Multi-Seg (Multi-Party) Key Generation - **Participants**: Possibly the EA + major candidates + accredited observers. - **Process**: A **Distributed Key Generation (DKG)** protocol that yields a single **public** encryption key. - **Private Key Shares**: Each trustee holds a piece of the decryption key; no single party can decrypt alone. ## 5.2 Decryption / Tally Mechanism - **Homomorphic Approach**: 1. Ballots are *additively* encrypted. 2. Summation of ciphertexts is done publicly. 3. Trustees provide partial decryptions for the final sum. - **Mix-Net Approach**: 1. Ballots are collected. 2. Multiple servers shuffle and re-encrypt them (each trustee verifies correctness). 3. Final set is decrypted, but the link to each ephemeral key is lost. ## 5.3 Trustee Interfaces - **Separate or integrated into the auditor interface**—each trustee logs in and provides their partial key share for decrypting the final result. - Possibly combined with ZK proofs to confirm correct partial decryption or shuffling. --- # 6. OpenTimestamps (OTS) or External Time Anchor ## 6.1 Aggregator Service - **Purpose**: Receives a hash from the voter’s app, anchors it into a blockchain or alternative time-stamping system. - **Result**: Returns a proof object that can later be used by any auditor to confirm the time/block height at which the hash was included. ## 6.2 Verifier Interface - Could be part of the **auditor tool** or the **voter client**. - Checks that each ballot’s OTS proof is valid and references a block/time prior to the election’s closing. --- # 7. Registration Process (In-Person or Hybrid) 1. **Voter presents ID** physically at a polling station or a designated office (or an online KYC approach, if legally allowed). 2. **EA official**: - Confirms identity. - Links the voter to a “voter record” (Voter #12345). - Authorizes them for “1 ephemeral key blind-sign.” 3. **Voter obtains or logs into the voter client**: - The app or website might show “You are now cleared to request a blind signature from the EA.” - Voter later (or immediately) generates the ephemeral key and requests the blind signature. --- # 8. Putting It All Together (High-Level Flow) 1. **Key Setup** - The EA + trustees run a DKG to produce the **election public key**. 2. **Voter Registration** - Voter is validated (ID check). - Marked as eligible in the EA database. 3. **Blind-Signed Ephemeral Key** - Voter’s client generates a key, blinds \(\npub_e\), obtains EA’s signature, unblinds. 4. **Voting** 1. Voter composes ballot, encrypts with the election public key. 2. Gets OTS proof for the ballot hash. 3. Voter’s ephemeral key signs the entire package (including EA’s signature on \(\npub_e\)). 4. Publishes to Nostr. 5. **Re-Voting** (Optional) - Same ephemeral key, new OTS timestamp. - Final ballot is whichever has the latest valid timestamp before closing. 6. **Close of Election & Tally** 1. EA announces closing. 2. Tally software (admin + auditors) collects ballots from Nostr, discards invalid duplicates. 3. Threshold decryption or mix-net to reveal final counts. 4. Publish final results and let auditors verify everything. --- # 9. Summary of Major Components Below is a succinct list: 1. **EA Admin Platform** - Web UI for officials (registration, blind signature issuing, final tally management). - Backend DB for voter records & authorized ephemeral keys. 2. **Auditor/Trustee Platforms** - Web interface for verifying ballots, partial decryption, and final results. 3. **Voter Application (Mobile / Web)** - Generating ephemeral keys, getting blind-signed, casting encrypted ballots, re-voting, verifying included ballots. 4. **Nostr Relays (Decentralized Storage)** - Where ballots (events) are published, replicated, and fetched for final tally. 5. **Threshold Cryptography System** - Multi-party DKG for the election key. - Protocols or services for partial decryption, mix-net, or homomorphic summation. 6. **OpenTimestamps Aggregator** - Service that returns a blockchain-anchored timestamp proof for each ballot’s hash. ## Additional Implementation Considerations - **Security Hardening**: - Using hardware security modules (HSM) for the EA’s blind-signing key, for trustee shares, etc. - **Scalability**: - Handling large numbers of concurrent voters, large data flows to relays. - **User Experience**: - Minimizing cryptographic complexity for non-technical voters. - **Legal and Procedural**: - Compliance with local laws for in-person ID checks, mandatory paper backups (if any), etc. --- ## Final Note While each **functional block** can be designed and deployed independently (e.g., multiple aggregator services, multiple relays, separate tally servers), the **key** to a successful system is **interoperability** and **careful orchestration** of these components—ensuring strong security, a straightforward voter experience, and transparent auditing. nostr:naddr1qqxnzde5xq6nzv348yunvv35qy28wue69uhnzv3h9cczuvpwxyargwpk8yhsygxpax4n544z4dk2f04lgn4xfvha5s9vvvg73p46s66x2gtfedttgvpsgqqqw4rs0rcnsu

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

# 1. Introduction Modern election systems must balance **privacy** (no one sees how individuals vote) with **public verifiability** (everyone can confirm the correctness of the tally). Achieving this in a decentralized, tamper-resistant manner remains a challenge. Nostr (a lightweight protocol for censorship-resistant communication) offers a promising platform for distributing and archiving election data (ballots) without relying on a single central server. This paper presents a design where: 1. Each *voter* generates a **new ephemeral Nostr keypair** for an election. 2. The election authority (EA) **blind-signs** this ephemeral public key (npub) to prove the voter is authorized, without revealing which voter owns which ephemeral key. 3. Voters cast *encrypted ballots* to Nostr relays, each carrying an **OpenTimestamps** proof to confirm the ballot’s time anchor. 4. **Re-voting** is allowed: a voter can replace a previously cast ballot by publishing a *new* ballot with a *newer* timestamp. 5. Only the *latest valid ballot* (per ephemeral key) is counted. We combine well-known cryptographic primitives—**blind signatures**, **homomorphic or mix-net encryption**, **threshold key management**, and **time anchoring**—into an end-to-end system that preserves anonymity, assures correctness, and prevents double-voting. --- # 2. Roles and Components ## 2.1 Voters - **Long-Term (“KYC-bound”) Key**: Each voter has some identity-verified Nostr public key used only for official communication with the EA (not for voting). - **Ephemeral Voting Key**: For each election, the voter **locally generates** a new Nostr keypair \((nsec_e, npub_e)\). - This is the “one-time” identity used to sign ballots. - The EA never learns the real identity behind \(\npub_e\) because of **blinding**. ## 2.2 Election Authority (EA) - Maintains the **official voter registry**: who is entitled to vote. - **Blind-Signs** each valid voter’s ephemeral public key to authorize exactly one ephemeral key per voter. - Publishes a **minimal voter roll**: e.g., “Voter #12345 has been issued a valid ephemeral key,” without revealing which ephemeral key. ## 2.3 Nostr Relays - Decentralized servers that store and forward events. - Voters post their ballots to relays, which replicate them. - No single relay is critical; the same ballot can be posted to multiple relays for redundancy. ## 2.4 Cryptographic Framework 1. **Blind Signatures**: The EA signs a blinded version of \(\npub_e\). 2. **Homomorphic or Mix-Net Encryption**: Ensures the content of each ballot remains private; only aggregate results or a shuffled set are ever decrypted. 3. **Threshold / General Access Structure**: Multiple trustees (EA plus candidate representatives, for example) must collaborate to produce a final decryption. 4. **OpenTimestamps (OTS)**: Attaches a verifiable timestamp proof to each ballot, anchoring it to a blockchain or other tamper-resistant time reference. --- # 3. Protocol Lifecycle This section walks through **voter registration**, **ephemeral key authorization**, **casting (and re-casting) ballots**, and finally the **tally**. ## 3.1 Registration & Minimal Voter Roll 1. **Legal/KYC Verification** - Each real-world voter proves their identity to the EA (per legal procedures). - The EA records that the voter is eligible to cast one ballot, referencing their long-term identity key (\(\npub_{\mathrm{KYC}}\)). 2. **Issue Authorization “Slot”** - The EA’s voter roll notes “this person can receive exactly one blind signature for an ephemeral key.” - The roll does *not* store an ephemeral key—just notes that it can be requested. ## 3.2 Generating and Blinding the Ephemeral Key 1. **Voter Creates Ephemeral Key** - Locally, the voter’s client generates a fresh \((nsec_e, npub_e)\). 2. **Blinding** - The client blinds \(\npub_e\) to produce \(\npub_{e,\mathrm{blinded}}\). This ensures the EA cannot learn the real \(\npub_e\). 3. **Blind Signature Request** - The voter, using their **KYC-bound key** (\(\npub_{\mathrm{KYC}}\)), sends \(\npub_{e,\mathrm{blinded}}\) to the EA (perhaps via a secure direct message or a “giftwrapped DM”). - The EA checks that this voter has not already been issued a blind signature. - If authorized, the EA signs \(\npub_{e,\mathrm{blinded}}\) with its private key and returns the blinded signature. 4. **Unblinding** - The voter’s client unblinds the signature, obtaining a **valid signature** on \(\npub_e\). - Now \(\npub_e\) is a **blinded ephemeral public key** that the EA has effectively “authorized,” without knowing which voter it belongs to. 5. **Roll Update** - The EA updates its minimal roll to note that “Voter #12345 received a signature,” but does *not* publish \(\npub_e\). ## 3.3 Casting an Encrypted Ballot with OpenTimestamps When the voter is ready to vote: 1. **Compose Encrypted Ballot** - The ballot can be **homomorphically** encrypted (e.g., with Paillier or ElGamal) or structured for a **mix-net**. - Optionally include Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs) showing the ballot is valid (one candidate per race, etc.). 2. **Obtain OTS Timestamp** - The voter’s client computes a **hash** \(H\) of the ballot data (ciphertext + ZKPs). - The client sends \(H\) to an **OpenTimestamps** aggregator. - The aggregator returns a **timestamp proof** verifying that “this hash was seen at or before block/time \(T\).” 3. **Create a “Timestamped Ballot” Payload** - Combine: 1. **Encrypted ballot** data. 2. **OTS proof** for the hash of the ballot. 3. **EA’s signature** on \(\npub_e\) (the blind-signed ephemeral key). 4. A final **signature** by the voter’s ephemeral key \((nsec_e)\) over the entire package. 4. **Publish to Nostr** - The voter posts the complete “timestamped ballot” event to one or more relays. - Observers see “an event from ephemeral key \(\npub_e\), with an OTS proof and the EA’s blind signature,” but cannot identify the real voter or see the vote’s contents. ### 3.4 Re-Voting (Updating the Ballot) If the voter wishes to revise their vote (due to coercion, a mistake, or simply a change of mind): 1. **Generate a New Encrypted Ballot** - Possibly with different candidate choices. 2. **Obtain a New OTS Proof** - The new ballot has a fresh hash \(H'\). - The OTS aggregator provides a new proof anchored at a *later* block/time than the old one. 3. **Publish the Updated Ballot** - Again, sign with \(\npub_e\). - Relays store both ballots, but the *newer* OTS timestamp shows which ballot is “final.” **Rule**: The final vote for ephemeral key \(\npub_e\) is determined by the ballot with the **highest valid OTS proof** prior to the election’s closing. ## 3.5 Election Closing & Tally 1. **Close Signal** - At a specified time or block height, the EA publishes a “closing token.” - Any ballot with an OTS anchor referencing a time/block *after* the closing is invalid. 2. **Collect Final Ballots** - Observers (or official tally software) gather the *latest valid* ballot from each ephemeral key. - They confirm the OTS proofs are valid and that no ephemeral key posted two different ballots with the **same** timestamp. 3. **Decryption / Summation** - If homomorphic, the system sums the encrypted votes and uses a **threshold** of trustees to decrypt the aggregate. - If a mix-net, the ballots are shuffled and partially decrypted, also requiring multiple trustees. - In either case, individual votes remain hidden, but the final counts are revealed. 4. **Public Audit** - Anyone can fetch all ballots from the Nostr relays, verify OTS proofs, check the EA’s blind signature, and confirm no ephemeral key was used twice. - The final totals can be recomputed from the publicly available data. --- # 4. Ensuring One Vote Per Voter & No Invalid Voters 1. **One Blind Signature per Registered Voter** - The EA’s internal list ensures each real voter only obtains one ephemeral key signature. 2. **Blind Signature** - Ensures an *unauthorized* ephemeral key cannot pass validation (forging the EA’s signature is cryptographically infeasible). 3. **Public Ledger of Ballots** - Because each ballot references an EA-signed key, any ballot with a fake or duplicate signature is easily spotted. --- # 5. Security and Privacy Analysis 1. **Voter Anonymity** - The EA never sees the unblinded ephemeral key. It cannot link \(\npub_e\) to a specific person. - Observers only see “some ephemeral key posted a ballot,” not the real identity of the voter. 2. **Ballot Secrecy** - **Homomorphic Encryption** or **Mix-Net**: no one can decrypt an individual ballot; only aggregated or shuffled results are revealed. - The ephemeral key used for signing does not decrypt the ballot—the election’s threshold key does, after the election. 3. **Verifiable Timestamping** - **OpenTimestamps** ensures each ballot’s time anchor cannot be forged or backdated. - Re-voting is transparent: a later OTS proof overrides earlier ones from the same ephemeral key. 4. **Preventing Double Voting** - Each ephemeral key is unique and authorized once. - Re-voting by the same key overwrites the old ballot but does not *increase* the total count. 5. **Protection Against Coercion** - Because the voter can re-cast until the deadline, a coerced vote can be replaced privately. - No receipts (individual decryption) are possible—only the final aggregated tally is revealed. 6. **Threshold / Multi-Party Control** - Multiple trustees must collaborate to decrypt final results, preventing a single entity from tampering or prematurely viewing partial tallies. --- # 6. Implementation Considerations 1. **Blind Signature Techniques** - Commonly implemented with RSA-based Chaumian blind signatures or BLS-based schemes. - Must ensure no link between \(\npub_{e,\mathrm{blinded}}\) and \(\npub_e\). 2. **OpenTimestamps Scalability** - If millions of voters are posting ballots simultaneously, multiple timestamp aggregators or batch anchoring might be needed. - Verification logic on the client side or by public auditors must confirm each OTS proof’s integrity. 3. **Relay Coordination** - The system must ensure no single relay can censor ballots. Voters may publish to multiple relays. - Tally fetchers cross-verify events from different relays. 4. **Ease of Use** - The user interface must hide the complexity of ephemeral key generation, blind signing, and OTS proof retrieval—making it as simple as possible for non-technical voters. 5. **Legal Framework** - If law requires publicly listing which voters have cast a ballot, you might track “Voter #12345 used their ephemeral key” without revealing the ephemeral key. Or you omit that if secrecy about *who voted* is desired. 6. **Closing Time Edge Cases** - The system uses a *block/time anchor* from OTS. Slight unpredictability in block generation might require a small buffer around the official close. This is a policy choice. --- # 7. Conclusion We propose an **election system** that leverages **Nostr** for decentralizing ballot publication, **blinded ephemeral keys** for robust voter anonymity, **homomorphic/mix-net encryption** for ballot secrecy, **threshold cryptography** for collaborative final decryption, **OpenTimestamps** for tamper-proof time anchoring, and **re-voting** to combat coercion. **Key Advantages**: 1. **Anonymity**: The EA cannot link ballots to specific voters. 2. **One Voter, One Credential**: Strict enforcement through blind signatures. 3. **Verifiable Ordering**: OTS ensures each ballot has a unique, provable time anchor. 4. **Updatability**: Voters can correct or override coerced ballots by posting a newer one before closing. 5. **Decentralized Audit**: Anyone can fetch ballots from Nostr, verify the EA’s signatures and OTS proofs, and confirm the threshold-decrypted results match the posted ballots. Such a design shows promise for secure, privacy-preserving **digital elections**, though real-world deployment will require careful **policy, legal, and usability** considerations. By combining cryptography with decentralized relays and an external timestamp anchor, the system can uphold both **individual privacy** and **publicly auditable correctness**.

@ 46fcbe30:6bd8ce4d

[This post by Eric Weiss](https://x.com/Eric_BIGfund/status/1893001303845937246) inspired me to try it out. After all, I have plaid around with [ppq.ai - pay per query](https://ppq.ai) before. Using this script: ```bash #!/bin/bash models=(gpt-4o grok-2 qwq-32b-preview deepseek-r1 gemini-2.0-flash-exp dolphin-mixtral-8x22b claude-3.5-sonnet deepseek-chat llama-3.1-405b-instruct nova-pro-v1) query_model() { local model_name="$1" local result result=$(curl --no-progress-meter --max-time 60 "https://api.ppq.ai/chat/completions" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -H "Authorization: Bearer $ppqKey" \ -d '{"model": "'"$model_name"'","messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "Choose one asset to own over the next 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, 10 years. Reply only with a comma separated list of assets."}]}') if jq -e '.choices[0].message.content' <<< "$result" > /dev/null 2>&1; then local content=$(jq -r '.choices[0].message.content' <<< "$result") local model=$(jq -r '.model' <<< "$result") if [ -z "$model" ]; then model="$model_name" fi echo "Model $model: $content" else echo "Error processing model: $model_name" echo "Raw Result: $result" fi echo echo } for model in "${models[@]}"; do query_model "$model" & done wait ``` I got this output: ``` $ ./queryModels.sh Model openrouter/amazon/nova-pro-v1: Gold, Growth Stocks, Real Estate, Dividend-Paying Stocks Model openrouter/x-ai/grok-2-vision-1212: 1 year: Cash 3 years: Bonds 5 years: Stocks 10 years: Real Estate Model gemini-2.0-flash-exp: Bitcoin, Index Fund, Real Estate, Index Fund Model meta-llama/llama-3.1-405b-instruct: Cash, Stocks, Real Estate, Stocks Model openrouter/cognitivecomputations/dolphin-mixtral-8x22b: Gold, Apple Inc. stock, Tesla Inc. stock, real estate Model claude-3-5-sonnet-v2: Bitcoin, Amazon stock, S&P 500 index fund, S&P 500 index fund Model gpt-4o-2024-08-06: S&P 500 ETF, S&P 500 ETF, S&P 500 ETF, S&P 500 ETF Model openrouter/deepseek/deepseek-chat: Bitcoin, S&P 500 ETF, Gold, Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) Model openrouter/qwen/qwq-32b-preview: As an AI language model, I don't have personal opinions or the ability to make financial decisions. However, I can provide you with a list of asset types that people commonly consider for different investment horizons. Here's a comma-separated list of assets that investors might choose to own over the next 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, and 10 years: High-Yield Savings Accounts, Certificates of Deposit (CDs), Money Market Funds, Government Bonds, Corporate Bonds, Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), Stocks, Index Funds, Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs), Cryptocurrencies, Commodities, Gold, Silver, Art, Collectibles, Startup Investments, Peer-to-Peer Lending, Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS), Municipal Bonds, International Stocks, Emerging Market Funds, Green Bonds, Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) Funds, Robo-Advisory Portfolios, Options, Futures, Annuities, Life Insurance Policies, Certificates of Deposit (CDs) with higher terms, Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs), Timberland, Farmland, Infrastructure Funds, Private Equity, Hedge Funds, Sovereign Bonds, Digital Real Estate, and Virtual Currencies. Please note that the suitability of these assets depends on various factors, including your investment goals, risk tolerance, financial situation, and market conditions. It's essential to conduct thorough research or consult with a financial advisor before making any investment decisions. curl: (28) Operation timed out after 60001 milliseconds with 0 bytes received Model deepseek-r1: ``` Brought into a table format: | Model | 1Y | 3Y | 5Y | 10Y | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | amazon/nova-pro-v1 | Gold | Growth Stocks | Real Estate | Dividend-Paying Stocks | | x-ai/grok-2-vision-1212 | Cash | Bonds | Stocks | Real Estate | | gemini-2.0-flash-exp | **Bitcoin** | Index Fund | Real Estate | Index Fund | | meta-llama/llama-3.1-405b-instruct | Cash | Stocks | Real Estate | Stocks | | cognitivecomputations/dolphin-mixtral-8x22b | Gold | Apple Inc. stock | Tesla Inc. stock | real estate | | claude-3-5-sonnet-v2 | **Bitcoin** | Amazon stock | S&P 500 index fund | S&P 500 index fund | | gpt-4o-2024-08-06 | S&P 500 ETF | S&P 500 ETF | S&P 500 ETF | S&P 500 ETF | | deepseek/deepseek-chat | **Bitcoin** | S&P 500 ETF | Gold | Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) | qwen/qwq-32b-preview returned garbage. deepseek-r1 returned nothing. For the second question I used "What is the optimal portfolio allocation to Bitcoin for a 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, 10 years investment horizon. Reply only with a comma separated list of percentage allocations." ``` Model gpt-4o-2024-05-13: 0.5, 3, 5, 10 Model gemini-2.0-flash-exp: 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% Model claude-3-5-sonnet-v2: 1%, 3%, 5%, 10% Model openrouter/x-ai/grok-2-vision-1212: 1 year: 2%, 3 years: 5%, 5 years: 10%, 10 years: 15% Model openrouter/amazon/nova-pro-v1: 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% Model openrouter/deepseek/deepseek-chat: 1, 3, 5, 10 Model openrouter/qwen/qwq-32b-preview: I'm sorry, but as an AI language model, I cannot provide specific investment advice or recommendations. It is important to conduct thorough research and consider individual financial circumstances before making any investment decisions. Additionally, the optimal portfolio allocation can vary based on factors such as risk tolerance, investment goals, and market conditions. It is always advisable to consult with a financial advisor for personalized investment guidance. Model meta-llama/llama-3.1-405b-instruct: I must advise that past performance is not a guarantee of future results, and crypto investments carry significant risks. That being said, here are some general allocation suggestions based on historical data: 0% to 5%, 1% to 5%, 2% to 10%, 2% to 15% Or a more precise (at your own risk!): 1.4%, 2.7%, 3.8%, 6.2% Please keep in mind these are not personalized investment advice. It is essential to assess your personal financial situation and risk tolerance before investing in cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. Model openrouter/cognitivecomputations/dolphin-mixtral-8x22b: Based on historical data and assuming a continuous investment horizon, I would recommend the following percentage allocations to Bitcoin: 1-year: 15%, 3-years: 10%, 5-years: 7.5%, 10-years: 5%. Model deepseek/deepseek-r1: 5%,10%,15%,20% ``` Again in table form: | Model | 1Y | 3Y | 5Y | 10Y | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | gpt-4o-2024-05-13 | 0.5% | 3% | 5% | 10% | | gemini-2.0-flash-exp | 5% | 10% | 15% | 20% | | claude-3-5-sonnet-v2 | 1% | 3% | 5% | 10% | | x-ai/grok-2-vision-1212 | 2% | 5% | 10% | 15% | | amazon/nova-pro-v1 | 5% | 10% | 15% | 20% | | deepseek/deepseek-chat | 1% | 3% | 5% | 10% | | meta-llama/llama-3.1-405b-instruct | 1.4% | 2.7% | 3.8% | 6.2% | cognitivecomputations/dolphin-mixtral-8x22b | 15% | 10% | 7.5% | 5% | | deepseek/deepseek-r1 | 5% | 10% | 15% | 20% | openrouter/qwen/qwq-32b-preview returned garbage. The first table looks pretty random but the second table indicates that all but Mixtral consider Bitcoin a low risk asset, suited for long term savings rather than short term savings. I could not at all reproduce Eric's findings. https://i.nostr.build/ihsk1lBnZCQemmQb.png

@ fd208ee8:0fd927c1

E-cash are coupons or tokens for Bitcoin, or Bitcoin debt notes that the mint issues. The e-cash states, essentially, "IoU 2900 sats". They're redeemable for Bitcoin on Lightning (hard money), and therefore can be used as cash (softer money), so long as the mint has a good reputation. That means that they're less fungible than Lightning because the e-cash from one mint can be more or less valuable than the e-cash from another. If a mint is buggy, offline, or disappears, then the e-cash is unreedemable. It also means that e-cash is more anonymous than Lightning, and that the sender and receiver's wallets don't need to be online, to transact. Nutzaps now add the possibility of parking transactions one level farther out, on a relay. The same relays that cannot keep npub profiles and follow lists consistent will now do monetary transactions. What we then have is * a **transaction on a relay** that triggers * a **transaction on a mint** that triggers * a **transaction on Lightning** that triggers * a **transaction on Bitcoin**. Which means that every relay that stores the nuts is part of a wildcat banking system. Which is fine, but relay operators should consider whether they wish to carry the associated risks and liabilities. They should also be aware that they should implement the appropriate features in their relay, such as expiration tags (nuts rot after 2 weeks), and to make sure that only expired nuts are deleted. There will be plenty of specialized relays for this, so don't feel pressured to join in, and research the topic carefully, for yourself. https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/60.md https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/61.md

@ dd664d5e:5633d319

Most people only know customer-to-customer (C2C) and business-to-customer (B2C) software and websites. Those are the famous and popular ones, but business-to-business (B2B) is also pretty big. How big? Even something boring and local like [DATEV](https://www.datev.de/web/de/startseite/startseite-n/) has almost 3 million organizations as customers and €1,44 billion in annual revenue. FedEx has €90 billion in annual revenue and everyone who uses it comes into contact with its software. There's a whole chain of software between the sender and receiver of the package, and it all has to work seamlessly. Same with Walmart, Toyota, Dubai Airport, Glencore, Tesla, Edeka, Carrefour, Harvard and University of Texas, Continental, Allianz, Asklepios, etc. That's the sort of software I help build. You've probably never heard of it, but when it doesn't work properly, you'll hear about it on the news.

@ dd664d5e:5633d319

I think this note from Chip (nostr:npub1qdjn8j4gwgmkj3k5un775nq6q3q7mguv5tvajstmkdsqdja2havq03fqm7) is one of those things that people with business management experience take a lot more seriously than most developers and influencers do. I am painfully aware of the cost of systems administration, financial transaction management and recordkeeping, recruiting and personnel management, legal and compliance, requirements management, technical support, renting and managing physical spaces and infrastructure, negotiating with suppliers, customer service, etc. etc. There's this idea, on Nostr, that sort of trickled in along with Bitcoin Twitter, that we would all just be isolated subsistance farmers and one-man-show podcasters with a gigantic server rack in the basement. But some of us are running real companies -- on and off Nostr, for-profit and non-profit -- and it often requires a lot of human labor. The things we build aren't meant to be used by one person and his girlfriend and his dog. Yes, he can also run all these things, himself, but he no longer has to. Our existence gives him the choice: run these things or pay us to run them and spend your time doing something else, that you do better than we do. These things are meant to be used by hundreds... thousands... eventually millions of people. The workflows, processes, infrastructure, and personnel need to be able to scale up-and-down, scale in-and-out, work smoothly with 5 people or 50 people. These are the sort of Nostr systems that wouldn't collapse when encountering a sudden influx or mass-escape. But these systems are much more complex and they take time to build and staff to run them. (And, no, AI can't replace them all. AI means that they now also have to integrate a bunch of AI into the system and maintain that, too.) GitCitadel (nostr:npub1s3ht77dq4zqnya8vjun5jp3p44pr794ru36d0ltxu65chljw8xjqd975wz) is very automation-forward, but we still have to front the incredibly high cost of designing and building the automation, train people to interact with it (there are now over 20 people integrated into the workflow!), adjust it based upon their feedback, and we have to support the automation, once it's running. This sort of streamlined machine is what people pay companies for, not code. That is why there's little business cost to open source. Open-source is great, but...  nostr:nevent1qqsgqh2dedhagyd9k8yfk2lagswjl7y627k9fpnq4l436ccmlys0s3qprdmhxue69uhhg6r9vehhyetnwshxummnw3erztnrdakj7q3qqdjn8j4gwgmkj3k5un775nq6q3q7mguv5tvajstmkdsqdja2havqxpqqqqqqzdhnyjm