@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# início > "Vocês vêem? Vêem a história? Vêem alguma coisa? Me parece que estou tentando lhes contar um sonho -- fazendo uma tentativa inútil, porque nenhum relato de sonho pode transmitir a sensação de sonho, aquela mistura de absurdo, surpresa e espanto numa excitação de revolta tentando se impôr, aquela noção de ser tomado pelo incompreensível que é da própria essência dos sonhos..." > Ele ficou em silêncio por alguns instantes. > "... Não, é impossível; é impossível transmitir a sensação viva de qualquer época determinada de nossa existência -- aquela que constitui a sua verdade, o seu significado, a sua essência sutil e contundente. É impossível. Vivemos, como sonhamos -- sozinhos..." * [Livros mencionados por Olavo de Carvalho](https://fiatjaf.com/livros-olavo.html) * [Antiga _homepage_ Olavo de Carvalho](https://site.olavo.fiatjaf.com "Sapientiam autem non vincit malitia") * [Bitcoin explicado de um jeito correto e inteligível](nostr:naddr1qqrky6t5vdhkjmspz9mhxue69uhkv6tpw34xze3wvdhk6q3q80cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsxpqqqp65wp3k3fu) * [Reclamações](nostr:naddr1qqyrgwf4vseryvmxqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c9f9u03) --- * [Nostr](-/tags/nostr) * [Bitcoin](nostr:naddr1qqyryveexumnyd3kqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c7nywz4) * [How IPFS is broken](nostr:naddr1qqyxgdfsxvck2dtzqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c8y87ll) * [Programming quibbles](nostr:naddr1qqyrjvehxq6ngvpkqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cu05y0j) * [Economics](nostr:naddr1qqyk2cm0dehk66trwvq3zamnwvaz7tmxd9shg6npvchxxmmdqgsrhuxx8l9ex335q7he0f09aej04zpazpl0ne2cgukyawd24mayt8grqsqqqa28clr866) * [Open-source software](nostr:naddr1qqy8xmmxw3mkzun9qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cmyvl8h) --- [Nostr](nostr:nprofile1qqsrhuxx8l9ex335q7he0f09aej04zpazpl0ne2cgukyawd24mayt8gpyfmhxue69uhkummnw3ez6an9wf5kv6t9vsh8wetvd3hhyer9wghxuet5fmsq8j) [GitHub](https://github.com/fiatjaf) [Telegram](https://t.me/fiatjaf) [Donate](lnurlp://zbd.gg/.well-known/lnurlp/fiatjaf)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# The problem with ION [ION](https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/identity-standards-blog/ion-we-have-liftoff/ba-p/1441555) is a [DID method](nostr:naddr1qqyrjwrpv93rjcf4qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cuxp7vx) based on a thing called "Sidetree". I can't say for sure what is the problem with ION, because I don't understand the design, even though I have read all I could and asked everybody I knew. All available information only touches on the high-level aspects of it (and of course its amazing wonders) and no one has ever bothered to explain the details. I've also asked the main designer of the protocol, Daniel Buchner, but he may have thought I was trolling him on Twitter and refused to answer, instead pointing me to an incomplete spec on the Decentralized Identity Foundation website that I had already read before. I even tried to join the DIF as a member so I could join their closed community calls and hear what they say, maybe eventually ask a question, so I could understand it, but my entrance was ignored, then after many months and a nudge from another member I was told I had to do a KYC process to be admitted, which I refused. **One thing I know is**: - ION is supposed to provide a way to _rotate keys_ seamlessly and automatically without losing the main identity (and the ION proponents also claim there are no "master" keys because these can also be rotated). - ION is also _not a blockchain_, i.e. it doesn't have a deterministic consensus mechanism and it is decentralized, i.e. anyone can publish data to it, doesn't have to be a single central server, there may be holes in the available data and the protocol doesn't treat that as a problem. - From all we know about years of attempts to scale Bitcoins and develop offchain protocols it is clear that _you can't solve the double-spend problem without a central authority or a kind of blockchain_ (i.e. a decentralized system with deterministic consensus). - _Rotating keys also suffer from the double-spend problem_: whenever you rotate a key it is as if it was "spent", you aren't supposed to be able to use it again. The logic conclusion of the 4 assumptions above is that ION is flawed: it can't provide the key rotation it says it can if it is not a blockchain. ## See also - [Excerpt of discussion about DIDs and ION](nostr:naddr1qqyrydtpx33nsvpcqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823ccx33ee)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# On "zk-rollups" applied to Bitcoin ZK rollups make no sense in bitcoin because there is no "cheap calldata". all data is already ~~cheap~~ expensive calldata. There could be an onchain zk verification that allows succinct signatures maybe, but never a rollup. What happens is: you can have one UTXO that contains multiple balances on it and in each transaction you can recreate that UTXOs but alter its state using a zk to compress all internal transactions that took place. The blockchain must be aware of all these new things, so it is in no way "L2". And you must have an entity responsible for that UTXO and for conjuring the state changes and zk proofs. But on bitcoin you also must keep the data necessary to rebuild the proofs somewhere else, I'm not sure how can the third party responsible for that UTXO ensure that happens. I think such a construct is similar to a credit card corporation: one central party upon which everybody depends, zero interoperability with external entities, every vendor must have an account on each credit card company to be able to charge customers, therefore it is not clear that such a thing is more desirable than solutions that are truly open and interoperable like Lightning, which may have its defects but at least fosters a much better environment, bringing together different conflicting parties, custodians, anyone.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# lnurl-auth explained You may have seen the [lnurl-auth](https://github.com/btcontract/lnurl-rfc/blob/master/lnurl-auth.md) spec or heard about it, but might not know how it works or what is its relationship with other [lnurl](https://github.com/fiatjaf/awesome-lnurl) protocols. This document attempts to solve that. ## Relationship between lnurl-auth and other lnurl protocols First, **what is the relationship of lnurl-auth with other lnurl protocols?** The answer is none, except the fact that they all share the lnurl format for specifying `https` URLs. In fact, lnurl-auth is very unique in the sense that it doesn't even need a Lightning wallet to work, it is a standalone authentication protocol that can work anywhere. ## How does it work Now, **how does it work?** The basic idea is that each wallet has a seed, which is a random value (you may think of the BIP39 seed words, for example). Usually from that seed different keys are derived, each of these yielding a Bitcoin address, and also from that same seed may come the keys used to generate and manage Lightning channels. What lnurl-auth does is to generate a new key from that seed, and from that a new key for each service (identified by its domain) you try to authenticate with.  That way, you effectively have a new identity for each website. Two different services cannot associate your identities. **The flow goes like this:** When you visit a website, the website presents you with a QR code containing a _callback URL_ and a _challenge_. The challenge should be a random value.  When your wallet scans or opens that QR code it uses the _domain_ in the callback URL plus the _main lnurl-auth key_ to derive a key specific for that website, uses that key to sign the challenge and then sends both the public key specific for that for that website plus the signed challenge to the specified URL.  When the service receives the public key it checks it against the challenge signature and start a session for that user. The user is then **identified only by its public key**. If the service wants it can, of course, request more details from the user, associate it with an internal id or username, it is free to do anything. lnurl-auth's goals end here: no passwords, maximum possible privacy. # FAQ * What is the advantage of tying this to Bitcoin and Lightning? One big advantage is that your wallet is already keeping track of one seed, it is already a precious thing. If you had to keep track of a separate auth seed it would be arguably worse, more difficult to bootstrap the protocol, and arguably one of the reasons similar protocols, past and present, weren't successful. * Just signing in to websites? What else is this good for? No, it can be used for authenticating to installable apps and physical places, as long as there is a service running an HTTP server somewhere to read the signature sent from the wallet. But yes, signing in to websites is the main problem to solve here. * Phishing attack! Can a malicious website proxy the QR from a third website and show it to the user to it will steal the signature and be able to login on the third website? No, because the wallet will only talk to the the callback URL, and it will either be controlled by the third website, so the malicious won't see anything; or it will have a different domain, so the wallet will derive a different key and frustrate the malicious website's plan. * I heard [SQRL](https://sqrl.grc.com/) had that same idea and it went nowhere. Indeed. SQRL in its first version was basically the same thing as lnurl-auth, with one big difference: it was vulnerable to phishing attacks (see above). That was basically the only criticism it got everywhere, so the protocol creators decided to solve that by introducing complexity to the protocol. While they were at it they decided to add more complexity for managing accounts and so many more crap that in the the spec which initially was a single page ended up becoming 136 pages of highly technical gibberish. Then all the initial network effect it had, libraries and apps were trashed and nowadays no one can do anything with it (but, [see](https://sqrl.grc.com/threads/developer-documentation-conflicted-and-confusing-please-help-clarify.951/), there are still people who love the protocol writing in a 90's forum with no clue of anything besides their own Java). * We don't need this, we need WebAuthn! [WebAuthn](https://webauthn.guide/) is essentially the same thing as lnurl-auth, but instead of being simple it is complex, instead of being open and decentralized it is centralized in big corporations, and instead of relying on a key generated by your own device it requires an expensive hardware HSM you must buy and trust the manufacturer. If you like WebAuthn and you like Bitcoin you should like lnurl-auth much more. * What about [BitID](https://github.com/bitid/bitid)? This is another one that is [very similar](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eepEWTnRTc) to lnurl-auth, but without the anti-phishing prevention and extra privacy given by making one different key for each service. * What about LSAT? It doesn't compete with lnurl-auth. LSAT, as far as I understand it, is for when you're buying individual resources from a server, not authenticating as a user. Of course, LSAT can be repurposed as a general authentication tool, but then it will lack features that lnurl-auth has, like the property of having keys generated independently by the user from a common seed and a standard way of passing authentication info from one medium to another (like signing in to a website at the desktop from the mobile phone, for example).

@ 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

# rosetta.alhur.es A service that grabs code samples from two chosen languages on [RosettaCode](http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Rosetta_Code) and displays them side-by-side. The code-fetching is done in real time and snippet-by-snippet (there is also a prefetch of which snippets are available in each language, so we only compare apples to apples). This was my first Golang web application if I remember correctly. - <https://rosetta.alhur.es/> - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/rosetta.alhur.es>

@ 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

# A Causa o Princípios de Economia Política de Menger é o único livro que enfatiza a CAUSA o tempo todo. os cientistas todos parecem não saber, ou se esquecer sempre, que as coisas têm causa, e que o conhecimento verdadeiro é o conhecimento da causa das coisas. a causa é uma categoria metafísica muito superior a qualquer correlação ou resultado de teste de hipótese, ela não pode ser descoberta por nenhum artifício econométrico ou reduzida à simples antecedência temporal estatística. a causa dos fenômenos não pode ser provada cientificamente, mas pode ser conhecida. o livro de Menger conta para o leitor as causas de vários fenômenos econômicos e as interliga de forma que o mundo caótico da economia parece adquirir uma ordem no momento em que você lê. é uma sensação mágica e indescritível. quando eu te o recomendei, queria é te imbuir com o espírito da busca pela causa das coisas. depois de ler aquilo, você está apto a perceber continuidade causal nos fenômenos mais complexos da economia atual, enxergar as causas entre toda a ação governamental e as suas várias consequências na vida humana. eu faço isso todos os dias e é a melhor sensação do mundo quando o caos das notícias do caderno de Economia do jornal -- que para o próprio jornalista que as escreveu não têm nenhum sentido (tanto é que ele escreve tudo errado) -- se incluem num sistema ordenado de causas e consequências. provavelmente eu sempre erro em alguns ou vários pontos, mas ainda assim é maravilhoso. ou então é mais maravilhoso ainda quando eu descubro o erro e reinsiro o acerto naquela racionalização bela da ordem do mundo econômico que é a ordem de Deus. _em scrap para T.P._

@ 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

# Why IPFS cannot work, again Imagine someone comes up with a solution for P2P content-addressed data-sharing that involves storing all the files' contents in all computers of the network. That wouldn't work, right? Too much data, if you think this can work then you're a BSV enthusiast. Then someone comes up with the idea of not storing everything in all computers, but only some things on some computers, based on some algorithm to determine what data a node would store given its pubkey or something like that. Still wouldn't work, right? Still too much data no matter how much you spread it, but mostly incentives not aligned, would implode in the first day. Now imagine someone says they will do the same thing, but instead of storing the full contents each node would only store a pointer to where each data is actually available. Does that make it better? Hardly so. Still, you're just moving the problem. This is IPFS. Now you have less data on each computer, but on a global scale that is still a lot of data. No incentives. And now you have the problem of finding the data. First if you have some data you want the world to access you have to broadcast information about that, flooding the network -- and everybody has to keep doing this continuously for every single file (or shard of file) that is available. And then whenever someone wants some data they must find the people who know about that, which means they will flood the network with requests that get passed from peer to peer until they get to the correct peer. The more you force each peer to store the worse it becomes to run a node and to store data on behalf of others -- but the less your force each peer to store the more flooding you'll have on the global network, and the slower will be for anyone to actually get any file. --- But if everybody just saves everything to Infura or Cloudflare then it works, magic decentralized technology. ## Related - [How IPFS is broken](nostr:naddr1qqyxgdfsxvck2dtzqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c8y87ll)

@ 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

# Jofer Jofer era um jogador diferente. À primeira vista não, parecia igual, um volante combativo, perseguia os atacantes adversários implacavelmente, um bom jogador. Mas não era essa a característica que diferenciava Jofer. Jofer era, digamos, um chutador. Começou numa semifinal de um torneio de juniores. O time de Jofer precisava do empate e estava sofrendo uma baita pressão do adversário, mas o jogo estava 1 a 1 e parecia que ia ficar assim mesmo, daquele jeito futebolístico que parece, parece mesmo. Só que aos 46 do segundo tempo tomaram um gol espírita, Ruizinho do outro time saiu correndo pela esquerda e, mesmo sendo canhoto, foi cortando para o meio, os zagueiros meio que achando que já tinha acabado mesmo, devia ter só mais aquele lance, o árbitro tinha dado dois minutos, Ruizinho chutou, marcou e o goleiro, que só pulou depois que já tinha visto que não ia ter jeito, ficou xingando. A bola saiu do meio e tocaram para Jofer, ninguém nem veio marcá-lo, o outro time já estava comemorando, e com razão, o juiz estava de sacanagem em fazer o jogo continuar, já estava tudo acabado mesmo. Mas não, estava certo, mais um minuto de acréscimo, justo. Em um minuto dá pra fazer um gol. Mas como? Jofer pensou nas partidas da NBA em que com alguns centésimos de segundo faltando o armador jogava de qualquer jeito para a cesta e às vezes acertava. De trás do meio de campo, será? Não vou ter nem força pra fazer chegar no gol. Vou virar piada, melhor tocar pro Fumaça ali do lado e a gente perde sem essa humilhação no final. Mas, poxa, e daí? Vou tentar mesmo assim, qualquer coisa eu falo que foi um lançamento e daqui a uns dias todo mundo esquece. Olhou para o próprio pé, virou ele de ladinho, pra fora e depois pra dentro (bom, se eu pegar daqui, direitinho, quem sabe?), jogou a bola pro lado e bateu. A bola subiu escandalosamente, muito alta mesmo, deve ter subido uns 200 metros. Jofer não tinha como ter a menor noção. Depois foi descendo, o goleirão voltando correndo para debaixo da trave e olhando pra bola, foi chegando e pulando já só pra acompanhar, para ver, dependurado no travessão, a bola sair ainda bem alta, ela bateu na rede lateral interna antes de bater no chão, quicar violentamente e estufar a rede no alto do lado direito de quem olhava. Mas isso tudo foi sonho do Jofer. Sonhou acordado, numa noite em que demorou pra dormir, deitado na sua cama. Ficou pensando se não seria fácil, se ele treinasse bastante, acertar o gol bem de longe, tipo no sonho, e se não dava pra fazer gol assim. No dia seguinte perguntou a Brunildinho, o treinador de goleiros. Era difícil defender essas bolas, ainda mais se elas subissem muito, o goleiro ficava sem perspectiva, o vento alterava a trajetória a cada instante, tinha efeito, ela cairia rápido, mas claro que não valia à pena treinar isso, a chance de acertar o gol era minúscula. Mas Jofer só ia tentar depois que treinasse bastante e comprovasse o que na sua imaginação parecia uma excelente idéia. Começou a treinar todos os dias. Primeiro escondido, por vergonha dos colegas, chegava um pouco antes e ficava lá, chutando do círculo central. Ao menor sinal de gente se aproximando, parava e ia catar as bolas. Depois, quando começou a acertar, perdeu a vergonha. O pessoal do clube todo achava engraçado quando via Jofer treinando e depois ouvia a explicação da boca de alguém, ninguém levava muito a sério, mas também não achava de todo ridículo. O pessoal ria, mas no fundo torcia praquilo dar certo, mesmo. Aconteceu que num jogo que não valia muita coisa, empatezinho feio, aos 40 do segundo tempo, a marcação dos adversários já não estava mais pressionando, todo mundo contente com o empate e com vontade de parar de jogar já, o Henrique, meia-esquerdo, humilde, mas ainda assim um pouco intimidante para Jofer (jogava demais), tocou pra ele. Vai lá, tenta sua loucura aí. Assumiu a responsabilidade do nosso volante introspectivo. Seria mais verossímil se Jofer tivesse errado, primeira vez que tentou, restava muito tempo ainda pra ele ter a chance de ser herói, ninguém acerta de primeira, mas ele acertou. Quase como no sonho, Lucas, o goleiro, não esperava, depois que viu o lance, riu-se, adiantou-se para pegar a bola que ele julgava que quicaria na área, mas ela foi mais pra frente, mais e mais, daí Lucas já estava correndo, só que começou a pensar que ela ia pra fora, e ele ia só se dependurar no travessão e fazer seu papel de estar na bola. Acabou que por conta daquele gol eles terminaram em segundo no grupo daquele torneiozinho, ao invés de terceiro, e não fez diferença nenhuma.

@ 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

# How IPFS is broken I once fell for this talk about "content-addressing". It sounds very nice. You know a certain file exists, you know there are probably people who have it, but you don't know where or if it is hosted on a domain somewhere. With content-addressing you can just say "start" and the download will start. You don't have to care. Other magic properties that address common frustrations: webpages don't go offline, links don't break, valuable content always finds its way, other people will distribute your website for you, any content can be transmitted easily to people near you without anyone having to rely on third-party centralized servers. But you know what? Saying a thing is good doesn't automatically make it possible and working. For example: saying stuff is addressed by their content doesn't change the fact that the internet is "location-addressed" and you still have to know where peers that have the data you want are and connect to them. And what is the solution for that? A DHT! DHT? ---- Turns out DHTs have terrible incentive structure (as you would expect, no one wants to hold and serve data they don't care about to others for free) and the IPFS experience proves it doesn't work even in a small network like the IPFS of today. If you have run an IPFS client you'll notice how much it clogs your computer. Or maybe you don't, if you are very rich and have a really powerful computer, but still, it's not something suitable to be run on the entire world, and on web pages, and servers, and mobile devices. I imagine there may be a lot of unoptimized code and technical debt responsible for these and other problems, but the DHT is certainly the biggest part of it. IPFS can open up to 1000 connections by default and suck up all your bandwidth -- and that's just for exchanging keys with other DHT peers. Even if you're in the "client" mode and limit your connections you'll still get overwhelmed by connections that do stuff I don't understand -- and it makes no sense to run an IPFS node as a client, that defeats the entire purpose of making every person host files they have and content-addressability in general, centralizes the network and brings back the dichotomy client/server that IPFS was created to replace. Connections? ------------ So, DHTs are a fatal flaw for a network that plans to be big and interplanetary. But that's not the only problem. Finding content on IPFS is the _most slow experience ever_ and for some reason I don't understand downloading is even slower. Even if you are in the same LAN of another machine that has the content you need it will still take hours to download some small file you would do in seconds with `scp` -- that's considering that IPFS managed to find the other machine, otherwise your command will just be stuck for days. Now even if you ignore that IPFS objects should be content-addressable and not location-addressable and, knowing which peer has the content you want, you go there and explicitly tell IPFS to connect to the peer directly, maybe you can get some seconds of (slow) download, but then IPFS will drop the connection and the download will stop. Sometimes -- but not always -- it helps to add the peer address to your bootstrap nodes list (but notice this isn't something you should be doing at all). IPFS Apps? ---------- Now consider the kind of marketing IPFS does: it tells people to build "apps" on IPFS. It sponsors "databases" on top of IPFS. It basically advertises itself as a place where developers can just connect their apps to and all users will automatically be connected to each other, data will be saved somewhere between them all and immediately available, everything will work in a peer-to-peer manner. Except it doesn't work that way at all. "libp2p", the IPFS library for connecting people, is broken and is rewritten every 6 months, but they keep their beautiful landing pages that say everything works magically and you can just plug it in. I'm not saying they should have everything perfect, but at least they should be honest about what they truly have in place. It's impossible to connect to other people, after years there's no js-ipfs and go-ipfs interoperability (and yet they advertise there will be python-ipfs, haskell-ipfs, whoknowswhat-ipfs), connections get dropped and many other problems. So basically all IPFS "apps" out there are just apps that want to connect two peers but can't do it manually because browsers and the IPv4/NAT network don't provide easy ways to do it and WebRTC is hard and requires servers. They have nothing to do with "content-addressing" anything, they are not trying to build "a forest of merkle trees" nor to distribute or archive content so it can be accessed by all. I don't understand why IPFS has changed its core message to this "full-stack p2p network" thing instead of the basic content-addressable idea. IPNS? ----- And what about the database stuff? How can you "content-address" a database with values that are supposed to change? Their approach is to just save all values, past and present, and then use new DHT entries to communicate what are the newest value. This is the IPNS thing. Apparently just after coming up with the idea of content-addressability IPFS folks realized this would never be able to replace the normal internet as no one would even know what kinds of content existed or when some content was updated -- and they didn't want to coexist with the normal internet, they wanted to replace it all because this message is more bold and gets more funding, maybe? So they invented IPNS, the name system that introduces location-addressability back into the system that was supposed to be only content-addressable. And how do they manage to do it? Again, DHTs. And does it work? Not really. It's limited, slow, much slower than normal content-addressing fetches, most of the times it doesn't even work after hours. But still although developers will tell it is not working yet the IPFS marketing will talk about it as if it was a thing. Archiving content? ------------------ The main use case I had for IPFS was to store content that I personally cared about and that other people might care too, like old articles from dead websites, and videos, sometimes entire websites before they're taken down. So I did that. Over many months I've archived stuff on IPFS. The IPFS API and CLI don't make it easy to track where stuff are. The `pin` command doesn't help as it just throws your pinned hash in a sea of hashes and subhashes and you're never able to find again what you have pinned. The IPFS daemon has a fake filesystem that is half-baked in functionality but allows you to locally address things by names in a tree structure. Very hard to update or add new things to it, but still doable. It allows you to give names to hashes, basically. I even began to write a wrapper for it, but suddenly after many weeks of careful content curation and distribution all my entries in the fake filesystem were gone. Despite not having lost any of the files I _did_ lose everything, as I couldn't find them in the sea of hashes I had in my own computer. After some digging and help from IPFS developers I managed to recover a part of it, but it involved hacks. My things vanished because of a bug at the fake filesystem. The bug was fixed, but soon after I experienced a similar (new) bug. After that I even tried to build a service for hash archival and discovery, but as all the problems listed above began to pile up I eventually gave up. There were also problems of content canonicalization, the code the IPFS daemon use to serve default HTML content over HTTP, problems with the IPFS browser extension and others. Future-proof? ------------- One of the core advertised features of IPFS was that it made content future-proof. I'm not sure they used this expression, but basically you have content, you hash that, you get an address that never expires for that content, now everybody can refer to the same thing by the same name. Actually, it's better: content is split and hashed in a merkle-tree, so there's fine-grained deduplication, people can store only chunks of files and when a file is to be downloaded lots of people can serve it at the same time, like torrents. But then come the protocol upgrades. IPFS has used different kinds of hashing algorithms, different ways to format the hashes, and will change the default algorithm for building the merkle-trees, so basically the same content now has a gigantic number of possible names/addresses, which defeats the entire purpose, and yes, files hashed using different strategies aren't automagically compatible. Actually, the merkle algorithm could have been changed by each person on a file-by-file basis since the beginning (you could for example split a book file by chapter or page instead of by chunks of bytes) -- although probably no one ever did that. I know it's not easy to come up with the perfect hashing strategy in the first go, but the way these matters are being approached make me wonder that IPFS promoters aren't really worried about future-proof, or maybe we're just in Beta phase forever. Ethereum? --------- This is also a big problem. IPFS is built by Ethereum enthusiasts. I can't read the mind of people behind IPFS, but I would imagine they have a poor understanding of incentives like the Ethereum people, and they tend towards scammer-like behavior like getting a ton of funds for investors in exchange for promises they don't know they can fulfill (like Filecoin and IPFS itself) based on half-truths, changing stuff in the middle of the road because some top-managers decided they wanted to change (move fast and break things) and squatting fancy names like "distributed web". The way they market IPFS (which is not the main thing IPFS was initially designed to do) as a "peer-to-peer cloud" is very seductive for Ethereum developers just like Ethereum itself is: as a place _somewhere_ that will run your code for you so you don't have to host a server or have any responsibility, and then Infura will serve the content to everybody. In the same vein, Infura is also hosting and serving IPFS content for Ethereum developers these days for free. Ironically, just like the Ethereum hoax peer-to-peer money, IPFS peer-to-peer network may begin to work better for end users as things get more and more centralized. ### More about IPFS problems: * [IPFS problems: Too much immutability](nostr:naddr1qqyrqen9xf3nvdpeqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cmdjnnj) * [IPFS problems: General confusion](nostr:naddr1qqyr2wf4xvcrwvnyqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823chvx94h) * [IPFS problems: Shitcoinery](nostr:naddr1qqyxxdpev5cnsvpkqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cta4a2e) * [IPFS problems: Community](nostr:naddr1qqyrxdmrvvengdmrqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cekkch5) * [IPFS problems: Pinning](nostr:naddr1qqyrgvf3xcenydesqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c9ckstx) * [IPFS problems: Conceit](nostr:naddr1qqyxyeryx93kxv3nqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cwxek0q) * [IPFS problems: Inefficiency](nostr:naddr1qqyr2dp3vsmx2vpsqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823ckklcy6) * [IPFS problems: Dynamic links](nostr:naddr1qqyrvcnx8y6nwwtpqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cz8tlwh) ### See also * [A crappy course on torrents](nostr:naddr1qqyrwdfevfjnxefcqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cuskhxf), on the protocol that has done most things right * [The Tragedy of IPFS in a series of links](https://mobile.twitter.com/fiatjaf/status/1289246273669697536), an ongoing Twitter thread.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# The flaw of "just use paypal/coinbase" arguments For the millionth time I read somewhere that "custodial bitcoin is not bitcoin" and that "if you're going to use custodial, better use Paypal". No, actually it was "better use Coinbase", but I had heard the "PayPal" version in the past. There are many reasons why using PayPal is not the same as using a custodial Bitcoin service or wallet that are obvious and not relevant here, such as the fact that you can't have Bitcoin balances on Bitcoin (or maybe now you can? but you can't send it around); plus all the reasons that are also valid for Coinbase such as you having to give all your data and selfies of yourself and your government documents and so on -- but let's ignore these reasons for now. The most important reason why it isn't the same thing is that when you're using Coinbase you are stuck in Coinbase. Your Coinbase coins cannot be used to pay anyone that isn't in Coinbase. So Coinbase-style custodianship doesn't help Bitcoin. If you want to move out of Coinbase you have to withdraw from Coinbase. Custodianship on Lightning is of a very different nature. You can pay people from other custodial platforms and people that are hosting their own Lightning nodes and so on. That kind of custodianship doesn't do any harm to anyone, doesn't fracture the network, doesn't reduce the network effect of Lightning, in fact it increases it.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# idea: Per-paragraph paywalls Using the lnurl-allowance protocol, a website could instead of putting a paywall over the entire site, charge a reader for only the paragraphs they read. Of course this requires trust from the reader on the website, but this is normal. The website could just hide the rest of the article before an invoice from the paragraph just read was paid. This idea came from Colin from the _Unhashed Podcast_. Could also work with podcasts and videos.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# My personal experience (as a complete ignorant) of the blocksize debate in 2017 In the beginning of 2017 I didn't know Bitcoin was having a "blocksize debate". I had stopped paying attention to Bitcoin in 2014 after reading Tim Swanson's book on shitcoineiry and was surprise people even care about Bitcoin still while Ethereum and other fancy things were around. My introduction to the subject was this interview with Andrew Stone and Andrew Clifford from Bitcoin Unlimited (still don't know who these guys are). I've listened to it and kinda liked the conspiracy theory about "a group of developers trying, against miners and users, to control the whole ecosystem by not allowing blocks to grow" (actually, if you listen to this interview that announced the creation of Blockstream and the sidechains whitepaper it does sound like a government agent bribing all the Core developers into forming a consortium that will turn Bitcoin into an Ethereum-like shitcoin under their control -- but this is just a useless digression). Some time later I listened to this interview with Jimmy Song and was introduced to two hard forks and conspiracies and New York Agreement and got excited because I didn't care about Bitcoin (I'm ashamed to remember this feeling) and wanted to see things changing, people fighting, Bitcoin burning, for no reason. Oddly, what I grasped from the interview was that Jimmy Song was defending the agreement and expecting everybody to fulfill it. When the day actually come and "Bitcoin Cash" forked I looked at it with pity because it looked clearly a failure from the beginning, but I still cheered for it a bit, still not knowing anything about the debate, besides the fact that blocks were bigger on BCH, which looked like a very reductionist explanation to me. "Of course it's not just making blocks bigger, that would be too simple, they probably have a very complex plan I'm not apt to understand", I thought. To my surprise the entire argument was actually just that: bigger blocks bigger blocks. I came to that conclusion by listening to tomwoods.com/1064, a debate in which reasonable arguments faced childish claims. That debate gave me perspective and was a clear, undisputed win from Jameson Lopp against Roger Ver. Actually some time before that I had listened to another Tom Woods Show episode thinking it was going to be an episode about Bitcoin, but in fact it was just propaganda about a debate I had almost forgotten. And nothing about Bitcoin, everything about "Bitcoin Cash" and how there were two Bitcoins, one legitimate and the other unlegitimate. So, from the perspective of someone that came to the debate totally fresh and only listens to the big-blocker arguments for a long time, they still don't convince anyone with some common sense (as I would like to think of myself), they just sound like mad dogs and everything goes against themselves. --- Fast forward to the present and with much more understanding of the issues in place I started digging some material from 2016-2017 about the debate to try to get more context, and found this ridiculous interview with Mike Hearn. It isn't a waste of time to listen to it if you're not familiar with the debate from that time. As I should have probably expected from my experience with Epicenter.tv, both the interviewers agree with Mike Hearn about his ridiculous claims about how (not his words) we have to subsidize the few thousand current Bitcoin users by preventing fees from increase and there are no trade-offs to doing that -- and even with everybody agreeing they all manage to sound stupid. There's not a single phrase that is defendable in the entire interview, no criticisms make any sense, it makes me feel bad for the the guy as he feels so self-assured and obviouslyright. After knowing about these and other adventures of stupid people with high influences in the Bitcoin world trying to impose their idiocy on others it feels even more odd and unexpected to find Bitcoin in the right track. Generally in politics the most dumb wins, but apparently not in Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a miracle.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# SummaDB This was a hierarchical database server similar to the original Firebase. Records were stored on a LevelDB on different paths, like: - `/fruits/banana/color`: `yellow` - `/fruits/banana/flavor`: `sweet` And could be queried by path too, using HTTP, for example, a call to `http://hostname:port/fruits/banana`, for example, would return a JSON document like ```json { "color": "yellow", "flavor": "sweet" } ``` While a call to `/fruits` would return ```json { "banana": { "color": "yellow", "flavor": "sweet" } } ``` `POST`, `PUT` and `PATCH` requests also worked. In some cases the values would be under a special `"_val"` property to disambiguate them from paths. (I may be missing some other details that I forgot.) GraphQL was also supported as a query language, so a query like ```graphql query { fruits { banana { color } } } ``` would return `{"fruits": {"banana": {"color": "yellow"}}}`. ## SummulaDB SummulaDB was a browser/JavaScript build of SummaDB. It ran on the same Go code compiled with GopherJS, and using PouchDB as the storage backend, if I remember correctly. It had replication between browser and server built-in, and one could replicate just subtrees of the main tree, so you could have stuff like this in the server: ```json { "users": { "bob": {}, "alice": {} } } ``` And then only allow Bob to replicate `/users/bob` and Alice to replicate `/users/alice`. I am sure the require auth stuff was also built in. There was also a PouchDB plugin to make this process smoother and data access more intuitive (it would hide the `_val` stuff and allow properties to be accessed directly, today I wouldn't waste time working on these hidden magic things). ## The computed properties complexity The next step, which I never managed to get fully working and caused me to give it up because of the complexity, was the ability to automatically and dynamically compute materialized properties based on data in the tree. The idea was partly inspired on CouchDB computed views and how limited they were, I wanted a thing that would be super powerful, like, given ```json { "matches": { "1": { "team1": "A", "team2": "B", "score": "2x1", "date": "2020-01-02" }, "1": { "team1": "D", "team2": "C", "score": "3x2", "date": "2020-01-07" } } } ``` One should be able to add a computed property at `/matches/standings` that computed the scores of all teams after all matches, for example. I tried to complete this in multiple ways but they were all adding much more complexity I could handle. Maybe it would have worked better on a more flexible and powerful and functional language, or if I had more time and patience, or more people. ## Screenshots This is just one very simple unfinished admin frontend client view of the hierarchical dataset.  - https://github.com/fiatjaf/summadb - https://github.com/fiatjaf/summuladb - https://github.com/fiatjaf/pouch-summa

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# A big Ethereum problem that is fixed by Drivechain While reading the following paragraphs, assume Drivechain itself will be a "smart contract platform", like Ethereum. And that it won't be used to launch an Ethereum blockchain copy, but instead **each different Ethereum contract could be turned into a different sidechain** under [BIP300](https://bips.xyz/300) rules. ## A big Ethereum problem Anyone can publish any "contract" to Ethereum. Often people will come up with somewhat interesting ideas and publish them. Since they want money they will add an unnecessary token and use that to bring revenue to themselves, gamify the usage of their contract somehow, and keep some control over the supposedly open protocol they've created by keeping a majority of the tokens. They will use the profits on marketing and branding, have a visual identity, a central website and a forum with support personnel and so on: their _somewhat interesting idea_ have become a full-fledged company. If they have success then another company will appear in the space and copy the idea, launch it using exactly the same strategy with a tweak, then try to capture the customers of the first company and new people. And then another, and another, and another. Very often these contracts require some network effect to work, i.e., they require people to be using it so others will use it. The fact that the market is now split into multiple companies offering roughly the same product hurts that, such that none of these protocols get ever enough usage to become _really_ useful in the way they were first conceived. At this point it doesn't matter though, they get some usage, and they use that in their marketing material. It becomes a race to pump the value of the tokens and the current usage is just another point used for that purpose. The company will even start giving out money to attract new users and other weird moves that have no relationship with the initial somewhat intereting idea. Once in a lifetime it happens that the first implementer of these things is not a company seeking profits, but some altruistic developer or company that believes in Ethereum and wants to see it grow -- or more likely someone financed by the Ethereum Foundation, which allegedly doesn't like these token schemes and would prefer everybody to use the token they issued first, the ETH --, but that's a fruitless enterprise because someone else will copy that idea anyway and turn it into a company as described above. ## How Drivechain fixes it In the [Drivechain](nostr:naddr1qq9xgunfwejkx6rpd9hqzythwden5te0ve5kzar2v9nzucm0d5pzqwlsccluhy6xxsr6l9a9uhhxf75g85g8a709tprjcn4e42h053vaqvzqqqr4gumtjfnp) world, if someone had an idea, they would -- as it happens all the time with Bitcoin things -- publish it in a public forum. Other members of the community would evaluate that idea, add or remove things, all interested parties would contribute to make it the best possible incarnation of that idea. Once the design was settled, someone would volunteer to start writing the code to turn that idea into a sidechain. Maybe some company would fund those efforts and then more people would join. It's not a perfect process and one that often involves altruism, but Bitcoin inspires people to do these things. Slowly, the thing would get built, tested, activated as a sidechain on testnet, tested more, and at this point luckily the entire community of interested Bitcoin users and miners would have grown to like that idea and see its benefits. It could then be proposed to be activated according to [BIP300](https://bips.xyz/300) rules. Once it was activated, the entire pool of interested users would join it. And it would be impossible for someone else to create a copy of that because everybody would instantly notice it was a copy. There would be no token, no one profiting directly from the operations of that "smart contract". And everybody would be incentivized to join and tell others to join that same sidechain since the network effect was already the biggest there, they will know more network effect would only be good for everybody involved, and there would be no competing marketing and free token giveaways from competing entities. ## See also - [Upgrading 'Smart Contracts' to 'Wise Contracts'](https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/wise-contracts/), by Paul Sztorc - [Drivechain](nostr:naddr1qq9xgunfwejkx6rpd9hqzythwden5te0ve5kzar2v9nzucm0d5pzqwlsccluhy6xxsr6l9a9uhhxf75g85g8a709tprjcn4e42h053vaqvzqqqr4gumtjfnp) - [Drivechain comparison with Ethereum](nostr:naddr1qqyx2dp58qcx2wpjqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cane7px) - [Alternatives to Drivechain](nostr:naddr1qqyrqenzvvukvcfkqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823csjg2t6)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# On the state of programs and browsers Basically, there are basically (not exhaustively) 2 kinds of programs one can run in a computer nowadays: 1.1. A program that is installed, permanent, has direct access to the Operating System, can draw whatever it wants, modify files, interact with other programs and so on; 1.2. A program that is transient, fetched from someone else's server at run time, interpreted, rendered and executed by another program that bridges the access of that transient program to the OS and other things. Meanwhile, web browsers have basically (not exhaustively) two use cases: 2.1. Display text, pictures, videos hosted on someone else's computer; 2.2. Execute incredibly complex programs that are fetched at run time, executed and so on -- you get it, it's the same 1.2. These two use cases for browsers are at big odds with one another. While stretching itsel f to become more and more a platform for programs that can do basically anything (in the 1.1 sense) they are still restricted to being an 1.2 platform. At the same time, websites that were supposed to be on 2.1 sometimes get confused and start acting as if they were 2.2 -- and other confusing mixed up stuff. I could go hours in philosophical inquiries on the nature of browsers, how rewriting everything in JavaScript is not healthy or where everything went wrong, but I think other people have done this already. One thing that bothers me a lot, though, is that computers can do a lot of things, and with the internet and in the current state of the technology it's fairly easy to implement tools that would help in many aspects of human existence and provide high-quality, useful programs, with the help of a server to coordinate access, store data, authenticate users and so on many things are possible. However, due to the nature of UI in the browser, it's very hard to get any useful tool to users. Writing a UI, even the most basic UI imaginable (some text input boxes and some buttons, or a table) can take a long time, always more than the time necessary to code the actual core features of whatever program is being developed -- and that is considering that the person capable of writing interesting programs that do the functionality in the backend are also capable of interacting with JavaScript and the giant amount of frameworks, transpilers, styling stuff, CSS, the fact that all this is built on top of HTML and so on. This is not good.

@ 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

# `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

# Comprimido desodorante No episódio sei-lá-qual de Aleixo FM Bruno Aleixo diz que os bêbados sempre têm as melhores idéias e daí conta uma idéia que ele teve quando estava bêbado: um comprimido que funciona como desodorante. Ao invés de passar o desodorante spray ou roll-on a pessoa pode só tomar o comprimido e pronto, é muito mais prático e no tempo de frio a pessoa pode vestir a roupa mais rápido, sem precisar ficar passando nada com o tronco todo nu. Quando o Busto lhe pergunta sobre a possibilidade de algo assim ser fabricado ele diz que não sabe, que não é cientista, só tem as idéias. Essa passagem tão boba de um programa de humor esconde uma verdade sobre a doutrina cientística que permeia a sociedade. A doutrina segundo a qual é da ciência que vêm as inovações tecnológicas e de todos os tipos, e por isso é preciso que o Estado tire dinheiro das pessoas trabalhadoras e dê para os cientistas. Nesse ponto ninguém mais sabe o que é um cientista, foi-se toda a concretude, ficou só o nome: "cientista". Daí vão procurar o tal cientista, é um cara que se formou numa universidade e está fazendo um mestrado. Pronto, é só dar dinheiro pra esse cara e tudo vai ficar bom. Tirando o problema da desconexão entre realidade e a tese, existe também, é claro, o problema da tese: não faz sentido, que um cientista fique procurando formas de realizar uma idéia, que não se sabe nem se é possível nem se é desejável, que ele ou outra pessoa tiveram, muito pelo contrário (mas não vou dizer aqui o que é que era para o cientista fazer porque isso seria contraditório e eu não acho que devam nem existir cientistas). O que eu queria dizer mesmo era: todo o aparato científico da nossa sociedade, todos os departamentos, universidades, orçamentos e bolsas e revistas, tudo se resume a um monte de gente tentando descobrir como fazer um comprimido desodorante.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Zettelkasten <https://writingcooperative.com/zettelkasten-how-one-german-scholar-was-so-freakishly-productive-997e4e0ca125> (um artigo meio estúpido, mas útil). Esta incrível técnica de salvar notas sem categorias, sem pastas, sem hierarquia predefinida, mas apenas fazendo referências de uma nota à outra e fazendo supostamente surgir uma ordem (ou heterarquia, disseram eles) a partir do caos parece ser o que faltava pra eu conseguir anotar meus pensamentos e idéias de maneira decente, veremos. Ah, e vou usar esse tal [`neuron`](https://github.com/srid/neuron) que também gera sites a partir das notas?, acho que vai ser bom.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Parallel Chains We want merged-mined blockchains. We want them because it is possible to do things in them that aren't doable in the normal Bitcoin blockchain because it is rightfully too expensive, but there are other things beside the world money that could benefit from a "distributed ledger" -- just like people believed in 2013 --, like issued assets and domain names (just the most obvious examples). On the other hand we can't have -- like people believed in 2013 -- a copy of Bitcoin for every little idea with its own native token that is mined by proof-of-work and must get off the ground from being completely valueless into having some value by way of a miracle that operated only once with Bitcoin. It's also not a good idea to have blockchains with custom merged-mining protocol (like Namecoin and Rootstock) that require Bitcoin miners to run their software and be an active participant and miner for that other network besides Bitcoin, because it's too cumbersome for everybody. Luckily [Ruben Somsen invented this protocol for blind merged-mining](https://gist.github.com/RubenSomsen/5e4be6d18e5fa526b17d8b34906b16a5) that solves the issue above. Although it doesn't solve the fact that each parallel chain still needs some form of "native" token to pay miners -- or it must use another method that doesn't use a native token, such as trusted payments outside the chain. ## How does it work With the `SIGHASH_NOINPUT`/`SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT` soft-fork[^eltoo] it becomes possible to create presigned transactions that aren't related to any previous UTXO. Then you create a long sequence of transactions (sufficient to last for many many years), each with an `nLockTime` of 1 and each spending the next (you create them from the last to the first). Since their `scriptSig` (the unlocking script) will use `SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT` you can obtain a transaction id/hash that doesn't include the previous TXO, you can, for example, in a sequence of transactions `A0-->B` (B spends output 0 from A), include the signature for "spending A0 on B" inside the `scriptPubKey` (the locking script) of "A0". With the contraption described above it is possible to make that long string of transactions everybody will know (and know how to generate) but each transaction can only be spent by the next previously decided transaction, no matter what anyone does, and there always must be at least one block of difference between them. Then you combine it with `RBF`, `SIGHASH_SINGLE` and `SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY` so parallel chain miners can add inputs and outputs to be able to compete on fees by including their own outputs and getting change back while at the same time writing a hash of the parallel block in the change output and you get everything working perfectly: everybody trying to spend the same output from the long string, each with a different parallel block hash, only the highest bidder will get the transaction included on the Bitcoin chain and thus only one parallel block will be mined. ## See also - [Drivechain](nostr:naddr1qq9xgunfwejkx6rpd9hqzythwden5te0ve5kzar2v9nzucm0d5pzqwlsccluhy6xxsr6l9a9uhhxf75g85g8a709tprjcn4e42h053vaqvzqqqr4gumtjfnp) [^eltoo]: The same thing used in [Eltoo](nostr:naddr1qqyxvenyvejnwdejqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c6qlqxc).

@ 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

# 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

# idea: Custom multi-use database app Since 2015 I have this idea of making one app that could be repurposed into a full-fledged app for all kinds of uses, like powering small businesses accounts and so on. Hackable and open as an Excel file, but more efficient, without the hassle of making tables and also using ids and indexes under the hood so different kinds of things can be related together in various ways. It is not a concrete thing, just a generic idea that has taken multiple forms along the years and may take others in the future. I've made quite a few attempts at implementing it, but never finished any. I used to refer to it as a "multidimensional spreadsheet". Can also be related to [DabbleDB][dabble-db]. [dabble-db]: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dabble_DB>

@ 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

# Reasons why Lightning is not that great Some Bitcoiners, me included, were fooled by hyperbolic discourse that presented Lightning as some magical scaling solution with no flaws. This is an attempt to list some of the actual flaws uncovered after 5 years of experience. The point of this article is not to say Lightning is a complete worthless piece of crap, but only to highlight the fact that Bitcoin needs to put more focus on developing and thinking about other scaling solutions (such as [Drivechain](nostr:naddr1qq9xgunfwejkx6rpd9hqzythwden5te0ve5kzar2v9nzucm0d5pzqwlsccluhy6xxsr6l9a9uhhxf75g85g8a709tprjcn4e42h053vaqvzqqqr4gumtjfnp), less crappy and more decentralized trusted channels networks and [statechains](https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/statechains-sending-keys-not-coins-to-scale-bitcoin-off-chain)). ## Unbearable experience Maintaining a node is cumbersome, you have to deal with closed channels, allocating funds, paying fees unpredictably, choosing new channels to open, storing channel state backups -- or you'll have to delegate all these decisions to some weird AI or third-party services, it's not feasible for normal people. ## Channels fail for no good reason all the time Every time nodes disagree on anything they close channels, there have been dozens, maybe hundreds, of bugs that lead to channels being closed in the past, and implementors have been fixing these bugs, but since these node implementations continue to be worked on and new features continue to be added we can be quite sure that new bugs continue to be introduced. ## Trimmed (fake) HTLCs are not sound protocol design What would you tell me if I presented a protocol that allowed for transfers of users' funds across a network of channels and that these channels would pledge to send the money to miners while the payment was in flight, and that these payments could never be recovered if a node in the middle of the hop had a bug or decided to stop responding? Or that the receiver could receive your payment, but still claim he didn't, and you couldn't prove that at all? These are the properties of "trimmed HTLCs", HTLCs that are uneconomical to have their own UTXO in the channel presigned transaction bundles, therefore are just assumed to be there while they are not (and their amounts are instead added to the fees of the presigned transaction). Trimmed HTLCs, like any other HTLC, have timelocks, preimages and hashes associated with them -- which are properties relevant to the redemption of actual HTLCs onchain --, but unlike actual HTLCs these things have no actual onchain meaning since there is no onchain UTXO associated with them. This is a game of make-believe that only "works" because (1) payment proofs aren't worth anything anyway, so it makes no sense to steal these; (2) channels are too expensive to setup; (3) all Lightning Network users are honest; (4) there are so many bugs and confusion in a Lightning Network node's life that events related to trimmed HTLCs do not get noticed by users. Also, so far these trimmed HTLCs have only been used for very small payments (although very small payments probably account for 99% of the total payments), so it is supposedly "fine" to have them. But, as fees rise, more and more HTLCs tend to become fake, which may make people question the sanity of the design. Tadge Dryja, one of the creators of the Lightning Network proposal, has been critical of the fact that these things were allowed to creep into the BOLT protocol. ## Routing Routing is already very bad today even though most nodes have a basically 100% view of the public network, the reasons being that some nodes are offline, others are on Tor and unreachable or too slow, channels have the balance shifted in the wrong direction, so payments fail a lot -- which leads to the (bad) solution invented by professional node runners and large businesses of probing the network constantly in order to discard bad paths, this creates unnecessary load and increases the risk of channels being dropped for no good reason. As the network grows -- if it indeed grow and not centralize in a few hubs -- routing tends to become harder and harder. While each implementation team makes their own decisions with regard to how to best way to route payments and these decisions may change at anytime, it's worth noting, for example, that CLN will use MPP to split up any payment in any number of chunks of 10k satoshis, supposedly to improve routing success rates. While this often backfires and causes payments to fail when they should have succeeded, it also contributes to making it so there are proportionally more fake HTLCs than there should be, as long as the threshold for fake HTLCs is above 10k. ## Payment proofs are somewhat useless Even though payment proofs were seen by many (including me) as one of the great things about Lightning, the sad fact is that they do not work as proofs if people are not aware of the fact that they are proofs. Wallets do all they can to hide these details from users because it is considered "bad UX" and low-level implementors do not care very much to talk about them at all. There have been attempts from Lightning Labs to get rid of the payment proofs entirely (which at the time to me sounded like a terrible idea, but now I realize they were not wrong). Here's a piece of anecdote: I've personally witnessed multiple episodes in which Phoenix wallet released the preimage without having actually received the payment (they did receive a minor part of the payment, but the payment was split in many parts). That caused my service, _@lntxbot_, to mark the outgoing payment as complete, only then to have to endure complaints from the users because the receiver side, Phoenix, had not received the full amount. In these cases, if the protocol and the idea of preimages as payment proofs be respected, should I have been the one in charge of manually fixing user balances? Another important detail: when an HTLC is sent and then something goes wrong with the payment the channel has to be closed in order to redeem that payment. When the redeemer is on the receiver side, the very act of redeeming should cause the preimage to be revealed and a proof of payment to be made available for the sender, who can then send that back to the previous hop and the payment is proven without any doubt. But when this happens for fake HTLCs (which is the vast majority of payments, as noted above) there is no place in the world for a preimage and therefore there are no proofs available. A channel is just closed, the payer loses money but can't prove a payment. It also can't send that proof back to the previous hop so he is forced to say the payment failed -- even if it wasn't him the one who declared that hop a failure and closed the channel, which should be a prerequisite. I wonder if this isn't the source of multiple bugs in implementations that cause channels to be closed unnecessarily. The point is: preimages and payment proofs are mostly a fiction. Another important fact is that the proofs do not really prove anything if the keypair that signs the invoice can't be provably attached to a real world entity. ## LSP-centric design The first Lightning wallets to show up in the market, LND as a desktop daemon (then later with some GUIs on top of it like Zap and Joule) and Anton's BLW and Eclair wallets for mobile devices, then later LND-based mobile wallets like Blixt and RawTX, were all standalone wallets that were self-sufficient and meant to be run directly by consumers. Eventually, though, came Breez and Phoenix and introduced the "LSP" model, in which a server would be trusted in various forms -- not directly with users' funds, but with their privacy, fees and other details -- but most importantly that LSP would be the primary source of channels for all users of that given wallet software. This was all fine, but as time passed new features were designed and implemented that assumed users would be running software connected to LSPs. The very idea of a user having a standalone mobile wallet was put out of question. The entire argument for implementation of the bolt12 standard, for example, hinged on the assumption that mobile wallets would have [LSPs capable of connecting to Google messaging services and being able to "wake up" mobile wallets](https://twitter.com/hampus_s/status/1442493786110705668) in order for them to receive payments. Other ideas, like a complicated standard for allowing mobile wallets to receive payments without having to be online all the time, just [assume LSPs always exist](https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2021-October/003307.html); and changes to the expected BOLT spec behavior with regards to, for example, [probing of mobile wallets](https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/pull/4785). Ark is another example of a kind of LSP that got so enshrined that it become a new protocol that depends on it entirely. ## Protocol complexity Even though the general idea of how Lightning is supposed to work can be understood by many people (as long as these people know how Bitcoin works) the Lightning protocol is not really easy: it will take a long time of big dedication for anyone to understand the details about the BOLTs -- this is a bad thing if we want a world of users that have at least an idea of what they are doing. Moreover, with each new cool idea someone has that gets adopted by the protocol leaders, it increases in complexity and some of the implementors are kicked out of the circle, therefore making it easier for the remaining ones to proceed with more and more complexity. It's the same process by which Chrome won the browser wars, kicked out all competitors and proceeded to make a supposedly open protocol, but one that no one can implement as it gets new and more complex features every day, all envisioned by the Chrome team. ## Liquidity issues? I don't believe these are a real problem if all the other things worked, but still the old criticism that Lightning requires parking liquidity and that has a cost is not a complete non-issue, specially given the LSP-centric model.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# neuron.vim I started using this [neuron][neuron] thing to create an update this same [zettelkasten](nostr:naddr1qqyrwwfh8yurgefnqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c7qmjrw), but the [existing vim plugin](https://github.com/ihsanturk/neuron.vim) had too many problems, so I forked it and ended up changing almost everything. Since the upstream repository was somewhat abandoned, most users and people who were trying to contribute upstream migrate to my fork too. - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/neuron.vim> [neuron]: https://github.com/srid/neuron

@ 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

# hledger-web A Haskell app that uses [Miso](https://hackage.haskell.org/package/miso) and [hledger's Haskell libraries](https://hledger.org/) plus [ghcjs](https://github.com/ghcjs/ghcjs) to be compiled to a web page, and then adds [optional remoteStorage](https://remotestorage.io/) so you can store your ledger data somewhere else. This was my introduction to Haskell and also built at a time I thought remoteStorage was a good idea that solved many problems, and that it could use some help in the form of just yet another somewhat-useless-but-cool project using it that could be [added to their wiki](https://wiki.remotestorage.io/Apps). - <https://hledger.alhur.es/> - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/hledger-web> ## See also - [My stupid introduction to Haskell](nostr:naddr1qqyrxveevscrqcmrqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cxd5qyk) - [LessPass remoteStorage](nostr:naddr1qqyrsctpxfjnqepeqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cfa6z2z) - [TiddlyWiki remoteStorage](nostr:naddr1qqyxxve4x33nqerrqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cat32d3)

@ 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

# Carl R. Rogers sobre a ciência > Creio que o objetivo primário da ciência é fornecer uma hipótese, uma convicção e uma fé mais seguras e que satisfaçam melhor o próprio investigador. Na medida em que o cientista procura provar qualquer coisa a alguém -- um erro em que incorri mais de uma vez --, creio que ele está se servindo da ciência para remediar uma insegurança pessoal, desviando-a do seu verdadeiro papel criativo a serviço do indivíduo. _Tornar-se Pessoa_, página aleatória

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Module Linker  A browser extension that reads source code on GitHub and tries to find links to imported dependencies so you can click on them and navigate through either GitHub or package repositories or base language documentation. Works for many languages at different levels of completeness. - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/module-linker> - <https://module-linker.alhur.es/> - <https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/module-linker> - <https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/dglofghjinifeolcpjfjmfdnnbaanggn>

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Using Spacechains and Fedimint to solve scaling What if instead of trying to create complicated "layer 2" setups involving noveau cryptographic techniques we just did the following: - we take that Fedimint source code and remove the "mint" stuff, and just use their federation stuff secure coins with multisig; - then we make a spacechain; - and we make the federations issue multisig-btc tokens on it; - and then we put some uniswap-like thing in there to allow these tokens to be exchanged freely. ## Why? The recent spike in fees caused by Ordinals and BRC-20 shitcoinery has shown that Lightning isn't a silver bullet. Channels are too fragile, it costs a lot to open a channel under a high fee environment, to run a routing node and so on. People who want to keep using Lightning are instead flocking to the big Lightning custodial providers: WalletofSatoshi, ZEBEDEE, OpenNode and so on. We could leverage that trust people have in these companies (and individuals) operating shadow Lightning providers and turn each of these into a btc-token issuer. Each issue their own token, transactions flow freely. Each person can hold only assets from the issuers they trust more.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# comentário pertinente de Olavo de Carvalho sobre atribuições indevidas de acontecimentos à "ordem espontânea" Eis aqui um exemplo entre outros mil, extraído das minhas apostilas de aulas, de como se analisam as relações entre fatores deliberados e casuais na ação histórica. O sr, Beltrão está INFINITAMENTE ABAIXO da possibilidade de discutir essas coisas, e por isso mesmo me atribui uma simploriedade que é dele próprio e não minha: Já citei mil vezes este parágrafo de Georg Jellinek e vou citá-lo de novo: “Os fenômenos da vida social dividem-se em duas classes: aqueles que são determinados essencialmente por uma vontade diretriz e aqueles que existem ou podem existir sem uma organização devida a atos de vontade. Os primeiros estão submetidos necessariamente a um plano, a uma ordem emanada de uma vontade consciente, em oposição aos segundos, cuja ordenação repousa em forças bem diferentes.” Essa distinção é crucial para os historiadores e os analistas estratégicos não porque ela é clara em todos os casos, mas precisamente porque não o é. O erro mais comum nessa ordem de estudos reside em atribuir a uma intenção consciente aquilo que resulta de uma descontrolada e às vezes incontrolável combinação de forças, ou, inversamente, em não conseguir enxergar, por trás de uma constelação aparentemente fortuita de circunstâncias, a inteligência que planejou e dirigiu sutilmente o curso dos acontecimentos. Exemplo do primeiro erro são os Protocolos dos Sábios de Sião, que enxergam por trás de praticamente tudo o que acontece de mau no mundo a premeditação maligna de um número reduzidos de pessoas, uma elite judaica reunida secretamente em algum lugar incerto e não sabido. O que torna essa fantasia especialmente convincente, decorrido algum tempo da sua publicação, é que alguns dos acontecimentos ali previstos se realizam bem diante dos nossos olhos. O leitor apressado vê nisso uma confirmação, saltando imprudentemente da observação do fato à imputação da autoria. Sim, algumas das idéias anunciadas nos Protocolos foram realizadas, mas não por uma elite distintamente judaica nem muito menos em proveito dos judeus, cuja papel na maioria dos casos consistiu eminentemente em pagar o pato. Muitos grupos ricos e poderosos têm ambições de dominação global e, uma vez publicado o livro, que em certos trechos tem lances de autêntica genialidade estratégica de tipo maquiavélico, era praticamente impossível que nada aprendessem com ele e não tentassem por em prática alguns dos seus esquemas, com a vantagem adicional de que estes já vinham com um bode expiatório pré-fabricado. Também é impossível que no meio ou no topo desses grupos não exista nenhum judeu de origem. Basta portanto um pouquinho de seletividade deformante para trocar a causa pelo efeito e o inocente pelo culpado. Mas o erro mais comum hoje em dia não é esse. É o contrário: é a recusa obstinada de enxergar alguma premeditação, alguma autoria, mesmo por trás de acontecimentos notavelmente convergentes que, sem isso, teriam de ser explicados pela forca mágica das coincidências, pela ação de anjos e demônios, pela "mão invisível" das forças de mercado ou por hipotéticas “leis da História” ou “constantes sociológicas” jamais provadas, que na imaginação do observador dirigem tudo anonimamente e sem intervenção humana. As causas geradoras desse erro são, grosso modo: Primeira: Reduzir as ações humanas a efeitos de forças impessoais e anônimas requer o uso de conceitos genéricos abstratos que dão automaticamente a esse tipo de abordagem a aparência de coisa muito científica. Muito mais científica, para o observador leigo, do que a paciente e meticulosa reconstituição histórica das cadeias de fatos que, sob um véu de confusão, remontam às vezes a uma autoria inicial discreta e quase imperceptível. Como o estudo dos fenômenos histórico-políticos é cada vez mais uma ocupação acadêmica cujo sucesso depende de verbas, patrocínios, respaldo na mídia popular e boas relações com o establishment, é quase inevitável que, diante de uma questão dessa ordem, poucos resistam à tentação de matar logo o problema com duas ou três generalizações elegantes e brilhar como sábios de ocasião em vez de dar-se o trabalho de rastreamentos históricos que podem exigir décadas de pesquisa. Segunda: Qualquer grupo ou entidade que se aventure a ações histórico-políticas de longo prazo tem de possuir não só os meios de empreendê-las, mas também, necessariamente, os meios de controlar a sua repercussão pública, acentuando o que lhe convém e encobrindo o que possa abortar os resultados pretendidos. Isso implica intervenções vastas, profundas e duradouras no ambiente mental. [Etc. etc. etc.] (no facebook em 17 de julho de 2013)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# A response to Achim Warner's "Drivechain brings politics to miners" article I mean this article: https://achimwarner.medium.com/thoughts-on-drivechain-i-miners-can-do-things-about-which-we-will-argue-whether-it-is-actually-a5c3c022dbd2 There are basically two claims here: ### 1. Some corporate interests might want to secure sidechains for themselves and thus they will bribe miners to have these activated First, it's hard to imagine why they would want such a thing. Are they going to make a proprietary KYC chain only for their users? They could do that in a corporate way, or with a federation, like Facebook tried to do, and that would provide more value to their users than a cumbersome pseudo-decentralized system in which they don't even have powers to issue currency. Also, if Facebook couldn't get away with their federated shitcoin because the government was mad, what says the government won't be mad with a sidechain? And finally, why would Facebook want to give custody of their proprietary closed-garden Bitcoin-backed ecosystem coins to a random, open and always-changing set of miners? But even if they do succeed in making their sidechain and it is very popular such that it pays miners fees and people love it. Well, then why not? Let them have it. It's not going to hurt anyone more than a proprietary shitcoin would anyway. If Facebook really wants a closed ecosystem backed by Bitcoin that probably means we are winning big. ### 2. Miners will be required to vote on the validity of debatable things He cites the example of a PoS sidechain, an assassination market, a sidechain full of nazists, a sidechain deemed illegal by the US government and so on. There is a simple solution to all of this: just kill these sidechains. Either miners can take the money from these to themselves, or they can just refuse to engage and freeze the coins there forever, or they can even give the coins to governments, if they want. It is an entirely good thing that evil sidechains or sidechains that use horrible technology that doesn't even let us know who owns each coin get annihilated. And it was the responsibility of people who put money in there to evaluate beforehand and know that PoS is not deterministic, for example. About government censoring and wanting to steal money, or criminals using sidechains, I think the argument is very weak because these same things can happen today and may even be happening already: i.e., governments ordering mining pools to not mine such and such transactions from such and such people, or forcing them to reorg to steal money from criminals and whatnot. All this is expected to happen in normal Bitcoin. But both in normal Bitcoin and in Drivechain decentralization fixes that problem by making it so governments cannot catch all miners required to control the chain like that -- and in fact fixing that problem is the only reason we need decentralization.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# idea: Rumple _a payments network based on trust channels_ This is the description of a Lightning-like network that will work only with credit or trust-based channels and exist alongside the normal Lightning Network. I imagine some people will think this is undesirable and at the same time very easy to do (such that if it doesn't exist yet it must be because no one cares), but in fact it is a very desirable thing -- which I hope I can establish below -- and at the same time a very non-trivial problem to solve, as the history of Ryan Fugger's Ripple project and posterior copies of it show. Read these first to get the full context: 1. [Ryan Fugger's Ripple](nostr:naddr1qqyxgenyxe3rzvf4qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c8pp8zu) 2. [Ripple and the problem of the decentralized commit](nostr:naddr1qqyrxcmzxa3nxv34qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cjrqar6) 3. [The Lightning Network solves the problem of the decentralized commit](nostr:naddr1qqyx2vekxg6rsvejqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823ccs2twc) 4. [Parallel Chains](nostr:naddr1qqyxzd3hx5uryvmrqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823ca5e585) ## Explanation about the name Since we're copying the fundamental Ripple idea from Ryan Fugger and since the name "Ripple" is now associated with a scam coin called XRP, and since Ryan Fugger has changed the name of his old website "Ripplepay" to "Rumplepay", we will follow his lead here. If "Ripplepay" was the name of a centralized prototype to the open peer-to-peer network "Ripple", now that the centralized version is called "Rumplepay" the peer-to-peer version must be called "Rumple". ## Now the idea Basically we copy the Lightning Network, but without HTLCs or channels being opened and closed with funds committed to them on multisig Bitcoin transactions published to the blockchain. Instead we use pure trust relationships like the original Ripple concept. And we use [the blockchain commit method](http://ripple.ryanfugger.com/Protocol/BlockChainCommitMethod.html), but instead of spending an absurd amount of money to use the actual Bitcoin blockchain instead we use a parallel chain. ## How exactly -- a protocol proposal attempt It could work like this: ### The parallel chain, or "Rumple Chain" 1. We define a parallel chain with a genesis block; 2. Following blocks must contain ``` a. the ID of the previous block; b. a list of up to 32768 entries of arbitrary 32-byte values; c. an ID constituted by sha256(the previous block ID + the merkle root of all the entries) ``` 3. To be mined, each parallel block must be included in the Bitcoin chain according [as explained above](nostr:naddr1qqyxzd3hx5uryvmrqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823ca5e585). Now that we have a structure for a simple "blockchain" that is completely useless, just blocks over blocks of meaningless values, we proceed to the next step of assigning meaning to these values. ### The off-chain payments network, or "Rumple Network" 1. We create a network of nodes that can talk to each other via TCP messages (all details are the same as the Lightning Network, except where mentioned otherwise); 2. These nodes can create trust channels to each other. These channels are backed by nothing except the willingness of one peer to pay the other what is owed. 3. When Alice creates a trust channel with Bob (`Alice trusts Bob`), contrary to what happens in the Lightning Network, it's A that can immediately receive payments through that channel, and everything A receives will be an IOU from Bob to Alice. So Alice should never open a channel to Bob unless Alice trusts Bob. But also Alice can choose the amount of trust it has in Bob, she can, for example, open a very small channel with Bob, which means she will only lose a few satoshis if Bob decides to exit scam her. (in the original Ripple examples these channels were always depicted as friend relationships, and they can continue being that, but it's expected -- given the experience of the Lightning Network -- that the bulk of the channels will exist between users and wallet provider nodes that will act as hubs). 4. As Alice receive a payment through her channel with Bob, she becomes a creditor and Bob a debtor, i.e., the balance of the channel moves a little to her side. Now she can use these funds to make payments over that channel (or make a payment that combines funds from multiple channels using [MPP](https://ln.dev/read/04-onion-routing#basic-multi-part-payments)). 5. If at any time Alice decides to close her channel with Bob, she can send all the funds she has standing there to somewhere else (for example, another channel she has with someone else, another wallet somewhere else, a shop that is selling some good or service, or a service that will aggregate all funds from all her channels and send a transaction to the Bitcoin chain on her behalf). 6. If at any time Bob leaves the network Alice is entitled by Bob's cryptographic signatures to knock on his door and demand payment, or go to a judge and ask him to force Bob to pay, or share the signatures and commitments online and hurt Bob's reputation with the rest of the network (but yes, none of these things is good enough and if Bob is a very dishonest person none of these things is likely to save Alice's funds). ### The payment flow 1. Suppose there exists a route `Alice->Bob->Carol` and Alice wants to send a payment to Carol. 2. First Alice reads an _invoice_ she received from Carol. The invoice (which can be pretty similar or maybe even the same as [BOLT11](https://ln.dev/read/11-payment-encoding)) contains a payment hash `h` and information about how to reach Carol's node, optionally an amount. Let's say it's 100 satoshis. 3. Using the routing information she gathered, Alice builds an onion and sends it to Bob, at the same time she offers to Bob a "conditional IOU". That stands for a signed commitment that Alice will owe Bob an 100 satoshis if in the next 50 blocks of the Rumple Chain there appears a block containing the preimage `p` such that `sha256(p) == h`. 4. Bob peels the onion and discovers that he must forward that payment to Carol, so he forwards the peeled onion and offers a conditional IOU to Carol with the same `h`. Bob doesn't know Carol is the final recipient of the payment, it could potentially go on and on. 5. When Carol gets the conditional IOU from Bob, she makes a list of all the nodes who have announced themselves as miners (which is not something I have mentioned before, but nodes that are acting as miners will must announce themselves somehow) and are online and bidding for the next Rumple block. Each of these miners will have previously published a random 32-byte value `v` they they intend to include in their next block. 6. Carol sends payments through routes to all (or a big number) of these miners, but this time the conditional IOU contains two conditions (values that must appear in a block for the IOU to be valid): `p` such that `sha256(p) == h` (the same that featured in the invoice) and `v` (which must be unique and constant for each miner, something that is easily verifiable by Carol beforehand). Also, instead of these conditions being valid for the next 50 blocks they are valid only for the single next block. 7. Now Carol broadcasts `p` to the mempool and hopes one of the miners to which she sent conditional payments sees it and, allured by the possibility of cashing in Carol's payment, includes `p` in the next block. If that does not happen, Carol can try again in the next block. ## Why bother with this at all? 1. **The biggest advantage of Lightning is its openness** It has been said multiple times that if trust is involved then we don't need Lightning, we can use Coinbase, or worse, Paypal. This is very wrong. Lightning is good specially because it serves as a bridge between Coinbase, Paypal, other custodial provider and someone running their own node. All these can transact freely across the network and pay each other without worrying about who is in which provider or setup. Rumple inherits that openness. In a Rumple Network anyone is free to open new trust channels and immediately route payments to anyone else. Also, since Rumple payments are also based on the reveal of a preimage it can do swaps with Lightning inside a payment route from day one (by which I mean one can pay from Rumple to Lightning and vice-versa). 3. **Rumple fixes Lightning's fragility** Lightning is too fragile. It's known that Lightning is vulnerable to multiple attacks -- like the [flood-and-loot](https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-lightning-network-is-vulnerable-to-looting-new-research-explains) attack, for example, although not an attack that's easy to execute, it's still dangerous even if failed. Given the existence of these attacks, it's important to not ever open channels with random anonymous people. Some degree of trust must exist between peers. But one does not even have to consider attacks. The creation of HTLCs is a liability that every node has to do multiple times during its life. Every initiated, received or forwarded payment require adding one HTLC then removing it from the commitment transaction. Another issue that makes trust needed between peers is the fact that channels can be closed unilaterally. Although this is a feature, it is also a bug when considering high-fee environments. Imagine you pay $2 in fees to open a channel, your peer may close that unilaterally in the next second and then you have to pay another $15 to close the channel. The opener pays (this is also a feature that [can double as a bug](https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2020-October/002804.html) by itself). Even if it's not you opening the channel, a peer can open a channel with you, make a payment, then clone the channel, and now you're left with, say, an output of 800 satoshis, which is equal to zero if network fees are high. So you should only open channels with people you know and know aren't going to actively try to hack you and people who are not going to close channels and impose unnecessary costs on you. But even considering a fully trusted Lightning Network, even if -- to be extreme -- you only opened channels with yourself, these channels would still be fragile. If some HTLC gets stuck for any reason (peer offline or some weird small incompatibility between node softwares) and you're forced to close the channel because of that, there are the extra costs of sweeping these UTXO outputs plus the total costs of closing and reopening a channel that shouldn't have been closed in the first place. Even if HTLCs don't get stuck, a [fee renegotiation event during a mempool spike](https://twitter.com/renepickhardt/status/1321862538859073548) may cause channels to force-close, become valueless or settle for very high closing fee. Some of these issues are mitigated by Eltoo, others by only having channels with people you trust. Others referenced above, plus the [the griefing attack](https://twitter.com/joostjgr/status/1308414364911841281) and in general the ability of anyone to spam the network for free with payments that can be pending forever or a lot of payments fail repeatedly makes it very fragile. Rumple solves most of these problems by not having to touch the blockchain at all. Fee negotiation makes no sense. Opening and closing channels is free. Flood-and-loot is a non-issue. The griefing attack can be still attempted as funds in trust channels must be reserved like on Lightning, but since there should be no theoretical limit to the number of prepared payments a channel can have, the griefing must rely on actual amounts being committed, which prevents large attacks from being performed easily. 4. **Rumple fixes Lightning's unsolvable reputation issues** In the Lightning Conference 2019, Rusty Russell promised there would be pre-payments on Lightning someday, since everybody was aware of potential spam issues and pre-payments would be the way to solve that. Fast-forward to November 2020 and these pre-payments have become an [apparently unsolvable problem](https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2020-October/002826.html)[^thread-402]: no one knows how to implement them reliably without destroying privacy completely or introducing worse problems. Replacing these payments with tables of reputation between peers is also an unsolved problem[^reputation-lightning], for the same reasons explained in the thread above. 5. **Rumple solves the hot wallet problem** Since you don't have to use Bitcoin keys or sign transactions with a Rumple node, only your channel trust is at risk at any time. 6. **Rumple ends custodianship** Since no one is storing other people's funds, a big hub or wallet provider can be used in multiple payment routes, but it cannot be immediately classified as a "custodian". At best, it will be a big debtor. 7. **Rumple is fun** Opening channels with strangers is boring. Opening channels with friends and people you trust even a little makes that relationship grow stronger and the trust be reinforced. (But of course, like it happens in the Lightning Network today, if Rumple is successful the bulk of trust will be from isolated users to big reliable hubs.) ## Questions or potential issues 1. **So many advantages, yes, but trusted? Custodial? That's easy and stupid!** Well, an enormous part of the current Lightning Network (and also onchain Bitcoin wallets) already rests on trust, mainly trust between users and custodial wallet providers like ZEBEDEE, Alby, Wallet-of-Satoshi and others. Worse: on the current Lightning Network users not only trust, they also expose their entire transaction history to these providers[^hosted-channels]. Besides that, as detailed in point 3 of the previous section, there are many unsolvable issues on the Lightning protocol that make each sovereign node dependent on some level of trust in its peers (and the network in general dependent on trusting that no one else will spam it to death). So, given the current state of the Lightning Network, to trust peers like Rumple requires is not a giant change -- but it is still a significant change: in Rumple you shouldn't open a large trust channel with someone just because it looks trustworthy, you must personally know that person and only put in what you're willing to lose. In known brands that have reputation to lose you can probably deposit more trust, same for long-term friends, and that's all. Still it is probably good enough, given the existence of MPP payments and the fact that the purpose of Rumple is to be a payments network for day-to-day purchases and not a way to buy real estate. 2. **Why would anyone run a node in this parallel chain?** I don't know. Ideally every server running a Rumple Network node will be running a Bitcoin node and a Rumple chain node. Besides using it to confirm and publish your own Rumple Network transactions it can be set to do BMM mining automatically and maybe earn some small fees comparable to running a Lightning routing node or a JoinMarket yield generator. Also it will probably be very lightweight, as pruning is completely free and no verification-since-the-genesis-block will take place. 10. **What is the maturity of the debt that exists in the Rumple Network or its legal status?** By default it is to be understood as being payable _on demand for payments occurring inside the network_ (as credit can be used to forward or initiate payments by the creditor using that channel). But details of settlement outside the network or what happens if one of the peers disappears cannot be enforced or specified by the network. Perhaps some standard optional settlement methods (like a Bitcoin address) can be announced and negotiated upon channel creation inside the protocol, but nothing more than that. [^thread-402]: Read at least the first 10 messages of the thread to see how naïve proposals like you and me could have thought about are brought up and then dismantled very carefully by the group of people most committed to getting Lightning to work properly. [^reputation-lightning]: See also the footnote at [Ripple and the problem of the decentralized commit](nostr:naddr1qqyrxcmzxa3nxv34qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cjrqar6). [^hosted-channels]: Although that second part can be solved by [hosted channels](https://gist.github.com/btcontract/d4122a79911eef2620f16b3dfe2850a8).

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# "Você só aprendeu mesmo uma coisa quando consegue explicar para os outros" Mentira. Tá certo que existe um ponto em que você acha que sabe algo mas não consegue explicar, mas não necessariamente isso significa não saber. Conseguir explicar não depende de saber, mas de verbalizar. Podemos saber muitas coisas sem as conseguir verbalizar. Aliás, para a maior parte das experiências humanas verbalizar é que é a parte difícil. Por último, é importante dizer que a verbalização é uma abstração e portanto quando alguém tenta explicar algo e se força a fazer uma abstração está arriscando substituir a experiência concreta ou mesmo o conhecimento difuso de algo por aquela abstração e com isso ficar mais burro -- me parece que esse é risco é maior quanto mais prematura for a tentativa de explicação e quando mais sucesso a abstração improvisada fizer.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Criteria for activating Drivechain on Bitcoin [Drivechain](nostr:naddr1qq9xgunfwejkx6rpd9hqzythwden5te0ve5kzar2v9nzucm0d5pzqwlsccluhy6xxsr6l9a9uhhxf75g85g8a709tprjcn4e42h053vaqvzqqqr4gumtjfnp) is, in essence, just a way to give Bitcoin users the option to deposit their coins in a hashrate escrow. If Bitcoin is about coin ownership, in theory there should be no objection from anyone on users having the option to do that: my keys, my coins etc. In other words: even if you think hashrate escrows are a terrible idea and miners will steal all coins from that, you shouldn't care about what other people do with their own money. There are only two reasonable objections that could be raised by normal Bitcoin users against Drivechain: 1. Drivechain adds code complexity to `bitcoind` 2. Drivechain perverts miner incentives of the Bitcoin chain If these two objections can be reasonably answered there remains no reason for not activating the Drivechain soft-fork. ## 1 To address **1** we can just take a look at the code once it's done (which I haven't) but from my understanding the extra validation steps needed for ensuring hashrate escrows work are very minimal and self-contained, they shouldn't affect anything else and the risks of introducing some catastrophic bug are roughly zero (or the same as the risks of any of the dozens of refactors that happen every week on Bitcoin Core). For the BMM/BIP-301 part, again the surface is very small, but we arguably do not need that at all, since [anyprevout](https://anyprevout.xyz/) (once that is merged) enables blind merge-mining in way that is probably better than BIP-301, and that soft-fork is also very simple, plus already loved and accepted by most of the Bitcoin community, implemented and reviewed on Bitcoin Inquisition and is live on the official Bitcoin Core signet. ## 2 To address **2** we must only point that BMM ensures that Bitcoin miners don't have to do any extra work to earn basically all the fees that would come from the sidechain, as competition for mining sidechain blocks would bid the fee paid to Bitcoin miners up to the maximum economical amount. It is irrelevant if there is MEV on the sidechain or not, everything that reaches the Bitcoin chain does that in form of fees paid in a single high-fee transaction paid to any Bitcoin miner, regardless of them knowing about the sidechain or not. Therefore, there are no centralization pressure or pervert mining incentives that can affect Bitcoin land. Sometimes it's argued that Drivechain may facilitate the ocurrence of a transaction paying a fee so high it would create incentives for reorging the Bitcoin chain. There is no reason to believe Drivechain would make this more likely than an actual attack than anyone can already do today or, as has happened, some rich person typing numbers wrong on his wallet. In fact, if a drivechain is consistently paying high fees on its BMM transactions that is an incentive for Bitcoin miners to keep mining those transactions one after the other and not harm the users of sidechain by reorging Bitcoin. Moreover, there are many factors that exist today that can be seen as centralization vectors for Bitcoin mining: arguably one of them is non-blind merge mining, of which we have [a (very convoluted) example on the Stacks shitcoin](https://twitter.com/fiatjaf/status/1684171939298803712), and introducing the possibility of blind merge-mining on Bitcoin would basically remove any reasonable argument for having such schemes, therefore reducing the centralizing factor of them.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# IPFS problems: Dynamic links Content-addressability is cool and we all like it, but we all also know we can't live in a world without readable and memorizeable names. IPFS has proposed IPNS, the Interplanetary Name System (the names are very cool indeed), since its beggining (or maybe it was some months after the first IPFS idea, which would indicate this problem arrived as an afterthought). It has been said IPNS would work in a manner similar to Git heads and branches (this was probably part of Juan Benet's marketing pitches that were immensely repeated in the first years, that IPFS was a mix between Torrents, Git and some other cool technology). This remains a distant promise, however. IPNS has been, for the last years, a very slow, unrecommended by their own developers and unusable way of addressing content that is basically just a pointer from a public key to an object hash. Recommendations fall on using a domain and dnslink, the way to tell IPFS nodes you own a domain and that can be used to identify an object hash. That works, but it is not the wonder of decentralization that was promised, and still, it's just a pointer. Any key-value store, database of filesystem can do pointers. --- Here I'm not saying, like tons of stupid people have on the internet, that IPFS should support dynamic links so we can build web apps on it. No, I would be pretty fine with just static links for static content, and continue to use the other internet protocols for things that needed to be dynamic.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Splitpages The simplest possible service: it splitted PDF pages in half. Created specially to solve the problem of those scanned books that come with two pages side-by-side as if they were a single page and are much harder to read on Kindle because of that.  It required me to learn about Heroku Buildpacks though, and fork or contribute to a Heroku Buildpack that embedded a [mupdf][mupdf] binary. - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/splitpages> - <https://splitpages.herokuapp.com/> [mupdf]: <https://mupdf.com/>

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Why I don't like NIP-26 as a solution for key management NIP-26 was created out of the needs of the Nostr integration at https://minds.com/. They wanted Minds users to be able to associate their "custodial" Nostr key with an external self-owned key. [NIP-26](https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/26.md) looked like a nice fit for the job, because it would allow supporting clients to associate the two identities _statelessly_ (i.e. by just seeing one event published by Minds but with a delegation tag on it the client would be able to associate that with the self-owned external key without anything else[^1]). The big selling point of NIP-26 (to me) was that it was fully _optional_. Clients were free to not implement it and they would not suffer much. They would just see "bob@minds.com" published this, and "bob-self-owned" published that. They would probably know intuitively that these two were the same person, or not, but it wouldn't be an issue. Both would still be identified as Bob and have a picture, a history and so on. Moreover, this wasn't expected to happen a lot, it would be mostly for the small intersection of people that wanted to have their own keys and also happened to be using one of these "custodial Nostr" platforms like Minds. At some point, though, NIP-26 started to be seen as _the solution for key management_ on Nostr. The idea is that someone will generate a very safe key on a hardware device and guard it as their most precious treasure without it ever touching the internet, and use it just to sign delegation tags. Then use multiple of these delegation tags, one for each different Nostr app, and maybe rotate them every month or so, details are unclear. This breaks the previous expectations I had for NIP-26 entirely, as now these keys become faceless entities that can't be associated with anything _except their "master" key_ (the one that is in cold storage). So in a world in which most Nostr users are using NIP-26 for everything, clients that do not implement NIP-26 become completely useless, as all they will see is a constant stream of random keys. They won't be able to follow anyone or interact with anyone, as these keys will not identify any concrete person on their back, they will vanish all the time and new keys will show up and the world will be chaotic. So now every client must implement NIP-26 to become usable at all, it is not _optional_ anymore. You may argue that making NIP-26 a de facto mandatory NIP isn't a bad thing and is worth the cost, but I think it breaks a lot of the simplicity of the protocol. It would probably be worth the cost if we knew NIP-26 was an actual complete solution, but it definitely is not, it is partial, and not the most elegant thing in the world. I think key management can be solved in multiple different ways that can all work together or not, but most importantly they can all remain optional. More thoughts on these multiple ways can be found at [Thoughts on Nostr key management](nostr:naddr1qqyrwvnxx4jrzef5qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cchlq3c). If I am wrong about all this and we really come to the conclusion that we need a _de facto mandatory **key delegation**_ method for Nostr, so be it -- but in that case, considering that we will break backwards-compatibility anyway, I think there might be a better design than NIP-26, more optimized and easier to implement, I don't know how exactly. But I really think we shouldn't rush that. [^1]: as opposed to other suggestions that would also work, but that would require dealing with multiple events -- for example, the external user could publish a new replaceable event -- or use `kind:0` -- to say they wanted to grandfather the Minds key into their umbrella, while the Minds key would also need to signal its acceptance of that. This also had the problem of requiring changes every time a new replaceable event of such kind was found. Although I am unsure now, at the time me and William agreed this was worse than NIP-26 with the delegation tag.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# LessPass remoteStorage [LessPass](https://www.lesspass.com/) is a nice idea: a password manager without any state. Just remember one master password and you can generate a different one for every site using the power of hashes. But it has a very bad issue: some sites require just numbers, others have a minimum or maximum character limits, some require non-letter characters, uppercase characters, others forbid these and so on. The solution: to allow you to specify parameters when generating the password so you can fit a generated password on every service. The problem with the solution: it creates state. Now you must remember what parameters you used when generating a password for each site. This was a way to store these settings on a [remoteStorage](https://wiki.remotestorage.io/Apps) bucket. Since it isn't confidential information in any way, that wasn't a problem, and I thought it was a good fit for remoteStorage. Some time later I realized it maybe would be better to have a centralized repository hosting all weird requirements for passwords each domain forced on its users, and let LessPass use data from that central place when generating a password. Still stateful, not ideal, not very far from a centralized password manager, but still requiring less trust and less cryptographic assumptions. - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/lesspass-remotestorage> - <https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/lesspass-remotestorage/> - <https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/lesspass-remotestorage/aogdpopejodechblppdkpiimchbmdcmc> - <https://lesspass.alhur.es/> ## See also - [hledger-web](nostr:naddr1qqyrsefkvvck2efkqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cffvz7c) - [TiddlyWiki remoteStorage](nostr:naddr1qqyxxve4x33nqerrqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cat32d3)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Idéia de um sistema jurídico centralizado, mas com um pouco de lógica um processo, é, essencialmente, imagino eu na minha ingenuidade leiga, um apelo que se faz ao juiz para que este reconheça certos fatos como probantes de um certo fenômeno tipificado por uma certa lei. imagino então o seguinte: uma petição não é mais um enorme documento escrito numa linguagem nojenta com referências a leis e a evidências factuais espalhadas segundo a (in) capacidade ensaística do advogado, mas apenas um esquema lógico - talvez até um diagrama desenhado (ou talvez quem sabe uma série de instruções compreensíveis por um computador?) - mostrando a ligação entre a lei e os fatos e os pedidos, por exemplo: 1. a lei tal diz que ninguém pode vender 2. fulano vendeu cigarros 3. é prova de que fulano vendeu cigarros ia foto tirada na rua tal no dia tal que mostra fulano vendendo cigarros 4. a mesma lei pede que fulano pague uma multa este exemplo está ainda muito verborrágico, mas é só um exemplo simples. coisas mais complicadas precisariam de outras formas de expressão caso queiramos evitar as longas dissertações jurídicas em voga. a idéia é que o esquema acima vale por si. um proto-juiz pode julgá-lo como válido ou inválido apenas pela sua lógica interna. a outra parte do julgamento seria a ligação desse esquema com a realidade externa: anexados à petição viriam as evidências. no caso, anexada ao ponto 3 viria uma foto do fulano. ao ponto 1 também precisa ser anexado o texto da lei referida, mas isto pode ser feito automaticamente pelo número da lei. uma vez que tenhamos um esquema lógico válido um outro proto-juiz, ou vários outros, pode julgar individualmente cada evidência: ver se o texto da lei confere com a interpretação feita no ponto 1, e se a foto anexada ao ponto 3 é mesmo a foto do réu vendendo cigarro e não a de um urso comendo laranjas. cada um desses julgamentos pode ser feito sem que o proto-juiz tenha conhecimento do resto das coisas do processo: o primeiro proto-juiz não precisa ver a foto ou a lei, o segundo não precisa ver o esquema lógico ou a foto, o terceiro não precisa ver a lei nem o esquema lógico, e mesmo assim teríamos um julgamento de procedência ou não da petição ao final, o mais impessoal e provavelmente o mais justo possível. a defesa consistiria em apontar erros no esquema lógico ou falhas no nexo entre a realidade é o esquema. por exemplo: 3. uma foto assim não é uma prova de que fulano vendeu, ele podia estar só passando lá perto. * ele estava de fato só passando lá perto. do que é prova este documento mostrando seu comparecimento a uma aula do curso de direito da UFMG no mesmo horário. --- perdoem-me se estiver falando besteira, mas são 5h e estou ainda dormindo. obviamente há vários pontos problemáticos aí, e quero entendê-los, mas a forma geral me parece bem razoável. o que descrevi acima é uma proposta, digamos, de sistema jurídico que não se diferencia em nada do nosso sistema jurídico atual, exceto na forma (não no sentido escolástico). é também uma tentativa de compreender sua essência. as vantagens desse formato ao atual são muitas: - menos papel, coisas pra ler, repetição infinita de citações legais e longuíssimas dissertações escritas por advogados analfabetos que destroem a língua e a inteligência de todos - diminuição drástica do tempo gasto por cada juiz em cada processo - diminuição do poder de cada juiz (se cada ato de julgamento humano necessário em cada processo pode ser feito por qualquer juiz, sem conhecimento dos outros aspectos do mesmo processo, tudo é muito mais rápido, e cada julgamento desses pode ser feito por vários juízes diferentes, escolhidos aleatoriamente) - diminuição da pomposidade de casa juiz: com menos poder e obrigações maus simples, um juiz não precisa ser mais uma pessoa especial que ganha milhões, pode ser uma pessoa comum, um proto-juiz, ganhando menos (o que possibilitaria até ter mais desses e aumentar a confiabilidade de cada julgamento) - os juízes podem trabalhar da casa deles e a qualquer momento - passa a ter sentido a existência de um sistema digital de processos (porque é ridículo que o sistema digital atual seja só uma forma de passar documentos do Word de um lado para o outro) - o fim das audiências de conciliação, que são uma monstruosidade criada apenas pela necessidade de diminuir a quantidade de processos em tramitação e acabam retirandobo sentido da justiça (as partes são levemente pressionadas a ignorar a validade ou não das suas posições e fazer um acordo, sob pena de o juiz ficar com raiva delas depois) milhares de precauções devem ser tomadas caso um sistema desses vá ser implantado (ahahah), talvez manter uma forma de julgamento tradicional, de corpo presente e com um juiz ou júri que tem conhecimento de toda situação, mas apenas para processos que chegarem até certo ponto, e assim por diante. ## Ver também * [P2P reputation thing](nostr:naddr1qqyrqv3cxumnydfsqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cnjc88q) para um fundamento de um sistema jurídico anárquico.

@ 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

# doulas.club A full catalog of all Brazilian doulas with data carefully scrapped from many websites that contained partial catalogs and some data manually included. All this packaged as a _Couchapp_ and served directly from **Cloudant**. This was done because the idea of doulas was good, but I spotted an issue: pregnant womwn should know many doulas before choosing one that would match well, therefore a full catalog with a lot of information was necessary. This was a huge amount of work mostly wasted. Many doulas who knew about this didn't like it and sent angry and offensive emails telling me to remove them. This was information one should know before choosing a doula. ### See also - [About CouchDB](nostr:naddr1qqyrwepevf3n2wf5qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c0jq39e)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Motte-and-bailey  há [aqui](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-words-words-words/) um artigo, escrito por um sujeito provavelmente esquerdista, ateu e tal, que toca num ponto importante sobre o discurso dessas esquerdas defensoras de minorias. ele introduz brevemente o conceito da _motte-and-bailey doctrine_, que é um nome bacana que deram para a estratégia que esses conhecidos e amigos seus de esquerda usam para dizer os maiores absurdos na internet e em grupos fechados esquerdistas, mas, quando confrontados por você, parecem ser mansos, inteligentes e gente boa, como você sempre esperou que fossem. o sujeito é meio confuso, mas o fato mesmo de ele ser esquerdista valida mais ainda o argumento.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Músicas que você já conhece É bom escutar as mesmas músicas que você já conhece um pouco. cada nova escuta te deixa mais familiarizado e faz com que aquela música se torne parte do seu cabedal interno de melodias.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# fieldbook-to-sql This used to turn books from the late multi-things-manager (or tridimensional spreadsheets provider) [fieldbook.com](http://web.archive.org/web/20180103200604/https://fieldbook.com/) into complete SQLite3 databases. It was referenced in their official shutdown message and helped people move data off (it would have been better if they had open-sourced the entire site, I don't understand why they haven't). - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/fieldbook-to-sql>

@ 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

# A chatura Kelsen Já presenciei várias vezes este mesmo fenômeno: há um grupo de amigos ou proto-amigos conversando alegremente sobre o conservadorismo, o tradicionalismo, o anti-comunismo, o liberalismo econômico, o livre-mercado, a filosofia olavista. É um momento incrível porque para todos ali é sempre tão difícil encontrar alguém com quem conversar sobre esses assuntos. Eis que um deles fez faculdade de direito. Tendo feito faculdade de direito por acreditar que essa lhe traria algum conhecimento (já que todos os filósofos de antigamente faziam faculdade de direito!) esse sujeito que fez faculdade de direito, ao contrário dos demais, não toma conhecimento de que a sua faculdade é uma nulidade, uma vergonha, uma época da sua vida jogada fora -- e crê que são valiosos os conteúdos que lhe foram transmitidos pelos professores que estão ali para ajudar os alunos a se preparem para o exame da OAB. Começa a falar de Kelsen. A teoria pura do direito, hermenêutica, filosofia do direito. A conversa desanda. Ninguém sabe o que dizer. A filosofia pura do direito não está errada porque é apenas uma lógica pura, e como tal não pode ser refutada; e por não ter qualquer relação com o mundo não há como puxar um outro assunto a partir dela e sair daquele território. Os jovens filósofos perdem ali as próximas duas horas falando de Kelsen, Kelsen. Uma presença que os ofende, que parece errada, que tem tudo para estar errada, mas está certa. Certa e inútil, ela lhes devora as idéias, que são digeridas pela teoria pura do direito. É imperativo estabelecer esta regra: só é permitido falar de Kelsen se suas idéias não forem abordadas ou levadas em conta. Apenas elogios ou ofensas serão tolerados: Kelsen era um bom homem; Kelsen era um bobão. Pronto. --- Eis aqui um exemplo gravado do fenômeno descrito acima: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKb8Ij5ThvA:> o Flavio Morgenstern todo simpático, elogiando o outro, falando coisas interessantes sobre o mundo; e o outro, que devia ser amigo dele antes de entrar para a faculdade de direito, começa a falar de Kelsen, com bastante confiança de que aquilo é relevante, e dá-lhe Kelsen, filosofia do direito, toda essa chatice tremenda.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Liberalismo oitocentista Quando comecei a ler sobre "liberalismo" na internet havia sempre umas listas de livros recomendados, uns Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman e Alexis de Tocqueville. "A Democracia na América". Pra mim parecia estranho aquele papo de democracia quando eu estava interessado era em como funcionaria um mercado livre, sem regulações e tal. Parece que Tocqueville era uma herança do mesmo povo que adorava a expressão "liberalismo clássico". O liberalismo clássico era uma coisa política que ia contra a monarquia e em favor da democracia, e aí Tocqueville se encaixava muito bem. Poucos anos se passaram e tudo mudou. Agora acho que alguém lendo na internet não vai ver menção nenhuma a Tocqueville ou liberalismo clássico, essa chatice de democracia e suas [chatices legalistas](nostr:naddr1qqyr2df58qekxce3qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c0n53d9). O "libertarianismo", também um nome infeliz, tomou conta de tudo, e cresceu muito mais do que o movimento liberal-da-internet jamais imaginou que seria possível. Os libertários brasileiros são anarquistas, detestam a democracia, reconhecem nela um [vetor de ataque](nostr:naddr1qqyrxvtxxf3nse3sqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823ccyra4y) dos socialistas a qualquer pontinha de livre-mercado que exista -- e às liberdades individuais dos cidadãos (este aqui ainda um ponto em comum com os liberais oitocentistas). São inclusive muito mais propensos a defender a monarquia do que a democracia. E isso é uma coisa boa. Finalmente uma pessoa pode defender princípios razoáveis de livre-mercado e individualismo sem precisar se associar com o movimento setecentistas e oitocentista que fez coisas boas, mas também foi responsável por coisas horríveis como a revolução francesa e todos os seus absurdos, e de onde saiu todo o movimento socialista. - [Democracia na América](nostr:naddr1qqyrzc3ev3jn2vrpqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c8ynvrd)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# A prediction market as a distributed set of oracle federations See also: [Truthcoin as a spacechain](nostr:naddr1qqyrqcfsxumrsvmpqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823chvhy2j). This is not Truthcoin, but hopefully the essence of what makes it good is present here: permissionless, uncensorable prediction markets for fun, profit, making cheap talk expensive and revolutionizing the emergence and diffusion of knowledge in society. ## The idea The idea is just to reuse Fedimint's codebase to implement federated _oracle corporations_ that will host individual prediction markets inside them. Pegging in and out of a federation can be done through Lightning gateways, and once inside the federation users can buy and sell shares of individual markets using a native LMSR market-maker. Then we make a decentralized directory of these bets using something simple like [Nostr](https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nostr) so everybody can just join any market very easily. ## Why? The premise of this idea is that we can't have a centralized prediction market platform because governments will shut it down, but we can instead have a pseudonymous _oracle corporation_ that also holds the funds being gambled at each time in a multisig Bitcoin wallet and hope for the best. Each corporation may exist to host a single market and then vanish afterwards -- its members returning later to form a new corporation and host a new market before leaving again. There is custodial risk, but the fact that the members may accrue reputation as the time passes and that this is not one big giant multisig holding all the funds of everybody but one multisig for each market makes it so this is slightly better. In any case, no massive amounts are expected to be used in this scheme, which defeats some of the use cases of prediction markets (funding public goods, for example), but since these are so advanced and society is not yet ready for them, we can leave them for later and first just try to get some sports betting working. This proto-truthcoin implementation should work just well enough to increase the appetite of bitcoiners and society in general for more powerful prediction markets. ## Why is this better than DLCs? Because DLCs have no liquidity. In their current implementations _and in all future plans from DLC enthusiasts_ they don't even have **order books**. They're not seen very much as general-purpose prediction markets, but mostly as a way to create monetary instruments and derivatives. They could work as prediction markets, but then they would need order books and order books are terrible for liquidity. LMSR market makers are much better. ## But it is custodial! If you make a public order book tied to known oracles using a DLC the oracle may also be considered custodial since it becomes really easy for him to join multiple trades as a counterpart then lie and steal the money. The bets only really "discreet" if they're illiquid meaningless bets between two guys. If they're happening in a well-known public place they're not discreet anymore. DLC proponents may say this can be improved by users using multiple oracles and forming effectively a federation between them, but that is hardly different from choosing a reputable _oracle corporation_ in this scheme and trusting that for the life of the bet. ## But [Hivemind](https://bitcoinhivemind.com) is better! Yes.

@ 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 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

# Truthcoin as a spacechain To be clear, the term "spacechain" here refers only to the general concept of [blindly merge-mined (BMM)](https://gist.github.com/RubenSomsen/5e4be6d18e5fa526b17d8b34906b16a5) chains without a native money-token, not including the ["spacecoins"](https://medium.com/@RubenSomsen/21-million-bitcoins-to-rule-all-sidechains-the-perpetual-one-way-peg-96cb2f8ac302). The basic idea is that for [Truthcoin/Hivemind](https://bitcoinhivemind.com/) to work we need 1. Balances of Votecoin tokens, i.e. a way to keep track of who owns how much of the _oracle corporation_; 2. Bitcoin tokens to be used for buying and selling prediction market shares, i.e. money to gamble; 3. A blockchain, i.e. some timestamping service that emits blocks ordered with transactions and can keep track of internal state and change the state -- including the balances of the Votecoin tokens and of the Bitcoin tokens that are assigned to individual prediction markets according to predefined rules; A spacechain, i.e. a blindly merge-mined chain, gives us 1 and 3. We can just write any logic for that and that should be very easy. It doesn't give us 2, and it also has the problem of how the spacechain users can pay the spacechain miners (which is why the spacecoins were envisioned in the first place, but we don't have spacecoins here). But remember we have votecoins already. Votecoins (VTC) should represent a share in the _oracle corporation_, which means they entitle their holders to some revenue -- even though they also burden their holders with the duty to vote in event outcomes (at the risk of losing part of their own votecoin balance) --, and they can be exchanged, so we can assume they will have _some_ value. So we could in theory use these valuable tokens to pay the spacechain miners. That wouldn't be great because it pervert their original purpose and wouldn't solve the problem 2 from above -- unless we also used the votecoins to bet in which case they wouldn't be just another shitcoin in the planet with no network effect competing against Bitcoin and would just cause harm to humanity. What we can do instead is to create a native mechanism for issuing virtual Bitcoin tokens (vBTC) in this chain, collaterized by votecoins, then we can use these vBTC to both gamble (solve problem 2) and pay miners (fix the hole in the spacechain BMM design). For example, considering the VTC to be worth 0.001 BTC, any VTC holder could put 0.005 VTC and get 0.001 vBTC, then use to gamble or sell to others who want to gamble. The VTC holder still technically owns the VTC and can and must still participate in the oracle decisions. They just have to pay the BTC back before they can claim their VTC back if they want to send it elsewhere. They stand to gain by selling vBTC if there is a premium for vBTC over BTC (i.e. people want to gamble) and then rebuying vBTC back once that premium goes away or reverts itself. For this scheme to work the chain must know the exchange rate between VTC and BTC, which can be provided by the _oracle corporation_ itself.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Haskell Monoids You've seen that `<>` syntax and noticed it is imported from `Data.Monoid`? I've always thought `<>` was a pretty complex mathematical function and it was very odd that people were using it for `Text` values, like `"whatever " <> textValue <> " end."`. It turns out `Text` is a Monoid. That means it implements the Monoid class (or typeclass), that means it has a particular way of being concatenated. Any list could be a Monoid, any abstraction you can think of for which it makes sense to concatenate could be a Monoid, and it would use the same `<>` syntax. What exactly `<>` would do with that value when concatenating depends on its typeclass implementation of Monoid. We can assume, for example, that `Text` implements Monoid by just joining the text bytes, and now we can use `<>` without getting puzzled about it.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Soft-forks on Bitcoin A traditional soft-fork activation plays out like this: 1. someone makes a proposal 2. if half-dozen respected Core developers like that, they implement it and talk about it 3. everybody loves the idea 4. they ship it in Bitcoin Core 5. miners turn it onA traditional soft-fork activation plays out like this: A traditional soft-fork failure plays out like this: 1. someone makes a proposal 2. if half-dozen respected Core developers do not care much about the idea, they don't do anything 3. people fight on Twitter about the merits of the idea forever A sidechain activation within [BIP-300](nostr:naddr1qq9xgunfwejkx6rpd9hqzythwden5te0ve5kzar2v9nzucm0d5pzqwlsccluhy6xxsr6l9a9uhhxf75g85g8a709tprjcn4e42h053vaqvzqqqr4gumtjfnp) plays out like this: 1. someone writes the sidechain software 2. if a bunch of people are interested in that, they start playing with it in test mode 3. if it is really good people launch a proposal to miners 4. miners vote yes or no

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Rede Relâmpago Ao se referir à _Lightning Network_ do [O que é Bitcoin?](nostr:naddr1qqrky6t5vdhkjmspz9mhxue69uhkv6tpw34xze3wvdhk6q3q80cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsxpqqqp65wp3k3fu), nós, brasileiros e portugueses, devemos usar o termo "Relâmpago" ou "Rede Relâmpago". "Relâmpago" é uma palavra bonita e apropriada, e fácil de pronunciar por todos os nossos compatriotas. Chega de anglicismos desnecessários. Exemplo de uma conversa hipotética no Brasil usando esta nomenclatura: – Posso pagar com Relâmpago? – Opa, claro! Vou gerar um boleto aqui pra você. Repare que é bem mais natural e fácil do que a outra alternativa: – Posso pagar com láitenim? – Leite ninho?

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Eltoo Read [the paper](https://blockstream.com/eltoo.pdf), it's actually nice and small. You can read only everything up to section 4.2 and it will be enough. Done. Ok, you don't want to. Or you tried but still want to read here. Eltoo is a way of keeping payment channel state that works better than the original scheme used in _Lightning_. Since Lightning is a bunch of different protocols glued together, it can It replace just the part the previously dealed with keeping the payment channel. Eltoo works like this: A and B want a payment channel, so they create a multisig transaction with deposits from both -- or from just one, doesn't matter. That transaction is only spendable if both cooperate. So if one of them is unresponsive or non-cooperative the other must have a way to get his funds back, so they also create an **update** transaction but don't publish it to the blockchain. That update transaction spends to a **settlement** transaction that then distributes the money back to A and B as their balances say. If they are cooperative they can change the balances of the channel by just creating new **update** transactions and **settlement** transactions and number them like 1, 2, 3, 4 etc.  _Solid arrows means a transaction is presigned to spend only that previous other transaction; dotted arrows mean it's a floating transaction that can spend any of the previous._ ## Why do they need and update and a settlement transaction? Because if B publishes **update2** (in which his balances were greater) A needs some time to publish **update4** (the latest, which holds correct state of balances). Each **update** transaction can be spent by any newer **update** transaction immediately or by its own specific **settlement** transaction only after some time -- or some blocks. Hopefully you got that. ## How do they close the channel? If they're cooperative they can just agree to spend the funding transaction, that first multisig transaction I mentioned, to whatever destinations they want. If one party isn't cooperating the other can just publish the latest **update** transaction, wait a while, then publish its **settlement** transaction. ## How is this better than the previous way of keeping channel states? Eltoo is better because nodes only have to keep the last set of update and settlement transactions. Before they had to keep all intermediate state updates. ## If it is so better why didn't they do it first? Because they didn't have the idea. And also because they needed an update to the Bitcoin protocol that allowed the presigned **update** transactions to spend any of the previous **update** transactions. This protocol update is called `SIGHASH_NOINPUT`[^anyprevout], you've seen this name out there. By marking a transaction with `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` it enters a mystical state and becomes a _floating transaction_ that can be bound to any other [transaction](nostr:naddr1qqyr2e34xycnyephqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cun2wfz) as long as its unlocking script matches the locking script. ## Why can't update2 bind itself to update4 and spend that? Good question. It can. But then it can't anymore, because Eltoo uses `OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY` to ensure that doesn't actually check not a locktime, but a sequence. It's all arcane stuff. And then Eltoo **update** transactions are numbered and their lock/unlock scripts will only match if a transaction is being spent by another one that's greater than it. ## Do Eltoo channels expire? No. ## What is that "on-chain protocol" they talk about in the paper? That's just an example to guide you through how the off-chain protocol works. Read carefully or don't read it at all. The off-chain mechanics is different from the on-chain mechanics. Repeating: the on-chain protocol is useless in the real world, it's just a didactic tool. [^anyprevout]: Later `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` was modified to fit better with Taproot and Schnorr signatures and renamed to `SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT`.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# idea: Link sharing incentivized by satoshis See <https://2key.io/> and <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEwRv7qw4fY&t=192s>. I think the general idea is to make a self-serving automatic referral program for individual links, but I wasn't patient enough to deeply understand neither of the above ideas. Solving fraud is an issue. People can fake clicks. One possible solution is to track conversions instead of clicks, but then it's too complex as the receiving side must do stuff and be trusted to do it correctly.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# A crappy zk-rollups explanation attempt (Considering the example of zksync.io) (Also, don't believe me on any of this.) 1. They are sidechains. 2. You move tokens to the sidechain by depositing it on an Ethereum contract. Then your account is credited in the sidechain balance. 3. Then you can make payments inside the sidechain by signing transactions and sending them to a central operator. 4. The central operator takes transactions from a bunch of people, computes the new sidechain balances state and publishes a hash of that state to the Ethereum contract. 5. The idea is that a single transaction in the blockchain contains a bunch of sidechain transactions. 6. The operator also sends to the contract an abbreviated list of the sidechain transactions. The trick is making all signatures condensed in a single zero-knowledge proof which is enough for the contract to verify that the transition from the previous state to the new is good. 7. Apparently they can fit 500 sidechain transactions in one mainchain transaction (each is 12 bytes). So I believe it's fair to say all this zk-rollup fancyness could be translated into "a system for aggregating transactions". 8. I don't understand how the zero-knowledge proof works, but in this case it is a SNARK and requires a trusted setup, which I imagine is similar to [this one](https://petertodd.org/2016/cypherpunk-desert-bus-zcash-trusted-setup-ceremony). * [On "zk-rollups" applied to Bitcoin](nostr:naddr1qqyrzd3jvymkxve5qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c2c9rut)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Veterano não é dono de bixete "VETERANO NÃO É DONO DE BIXETE". A frase em letras garrafais chama a atenção dos transeuntes neófitos. Paira sobre um cartaz amarelo que lista várias reclamações contra os "trotes machistas", que, na opinião do responsável pelo cartaz, "não é brincadeira, é opressão". Eis aí um bizarro exemplo de como são as coisas: primeiro todos os universitários aprovam a idéia do trote, apoiam sua realização e até mesmo desejam sofrer o trote -- com a condição de o poderem aplicar eles mesmos depois --, louvam as maravilhas do mundo universitário, onde a suprema sabedoria se esconde atrás de rituais iniciáticos fora do alcance da imaginação do homem comum e rude, do pobre e do filhinho-de-papai das faculdades privadas; em suma: fomentam os mais baixos, os mais animalescos instintos, a crueldade primordial, destroem em si mesmos e nos colegas quaisquer valores civilizatórios que tivessem sobrado ali, ficando todos indistingüíveis de macacos agressivos e tarados. Depois vêm aí com um cartaz protestar contra os assédios -- que sem dúvida acontecem em larguíssima escala -- sofridos pelas calouras de 17 anos e que, sendo também novatas no mundo universitário, ainda conservam um pouco de discernimento e pudor. A incompreensão do fenômeno, porém, é tão grande, que os trotes não são identificados como um problema mental, uma doença que deve ser tratada e eliminada, mas como um sintoma da opressão machista dos homens às mulheres, um produto desta civilização paternalista que, desde que Deus é chamado "o Pai" e não "a Mãe", corrompe a benéfica, pura e angélica natureza do homem primitivo e o torna esta tão torpe criatura. Na opinião dos autores desse cartaz é preciso, pois, continuar a destruir o que resta da cultura ocidental, e então esperar que haja trotes menos opressores.

@ 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

# 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

# gravity IPFS is nice as a personal archiving tool (edit: it's not). You store a bunch of data and make it available to the public. The problem is that no one will ever know you have that data, therefore you need a place to publish it somewhere. Gravity was an attempt of being the tool for this job. It was a website that showcased the collections from users, and it was also a command-line client that used your IPFS keys for authentication and allowed you to paste IPFS URIs and names and descriptions. The site was intended to be easy to run so you could have multiple stellar bodies aggregating content and interact with them all in a standardized manner. It also had an ActivityPub/"fediverse" integration so people could follow Gravity server users from Mastodon and friends and see new data they published as "tweets". - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/gravity> ## See also - [How IPFS is broken](nostr:naddr1qqyxgdfsxvck2dtzqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c8y87ll) - [litepub](nostr:naddr1qqyxzcecxs6x2c3sqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823czz6dgn)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# idea: "numbeo" with satoshis This site has a crowdsourced database of cost-of-living in many countries and cities: <https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/> and it sells the data people write there freely. It's wrong! Could be an fruitful idea to pay satoshis for people to provide data.

@ 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

# Token-Curated Registries ## So you want to build a TCR? TCRs (Token Curated Registries) are a construct for maintaining registries on Ethereum. Imagine you have lots of scissor brands and you want a list with only the good scissors. You want to make sure only the good scissors make into that list and not the bad scissors. For that, people will tell you, you can just create a TCR of the best scissors! It works like this: some people have the token, let's call it Scissor Token. Some other person, let's say it's a scissor manufacturer, wants to put his scissor on the list, this guy must acquire some Scissor Tokens and "stake" it. Holders of the Scissor Tokens are allowed to vote on "yes" or "no". If "no", the manufactures loses his tokens to the holders, if "yes" then its tokens are kept in deposit, but his scissor brand gets accepted into the registry. Such a simple process, they say, have strong incentives for being the best possible way of curating a registry of scissors: consumers have the incentive to consult the list because of its high quality; manufacturers have the incentive to buy tokens and apply to join the list because the list is so well-curated and consumers always consult it; token holders want the registry to accept good and reject bad scissors because that good decisions will make the list good for consumers and thus their tokens more valuable, bad decisions will do the contrary. It doesn't make sense, to reject everybody just to grab their tokens, because that would create an incentive against people trying to enter the list. Amazing! How come such a simple system of voting has such enourmous features? Now we can have lists of everything so well-curated, and for that we just need Ethereum tokens! Now let's imagine a different proposal, of my own creation: SPCR, Single-person curated registries. Single-person Curated Registries are equal to TCR, except they don't use Ethereum tokens, it's just a list in a text file kept by a single person. People can apply to join, and they will have to give the single person some amount of money, the single person can reject or accept the proposal and so on. Now let's look at the incentives of SPCR: people will want to consult the registry because it is so well curated; vendors will want to enter the registry because people are consulting it; the single person will want to accept the good and reject the bad applicants because these good decisions are what will make the list valuable. Amazing! How such a single proposal has such enourmous features! SPCR are going to take over the internet! ## What TCR enthusiasts get wrong? TCR people think they can just list a set of incentives for something to work and assume that something will work. Mix that with Ethereum hype and they think theyve found something unique and revolutionary, while in fact they're just making a poor implementation of "democracy" systems that fail almost everywhere. The life is not about listing a set of "incentives" and then considering the problems solved. Almost everybody on the Earth has the incentive for being rich: being rich has a lot of advantages over being poor, however not all people get rich! Why are the incentives failing? Curating lists is a hard problem, it involves a lot of knowledge about the problem that just holding a token won't give you, it involves personal preferences, politics, it involves knowing where is the real limit between "good" and "bad". The Single Person list may have a good result if the single person doing the curation is knowledgeable and honest (yes, you can game the system to accept your uncle's scissors and not their competitor that is much better, for example, without losing the entire list reputation), same thing for TCRs, but it can also fail miserably, and it can appear to be good but be in fact not so good. In all cases, the list entries will reflect the preferences of people choosing and other things that aren't taken into the incentives equation of TCR enthusiasts. ## We don't need lists The most important point to be made, although unrelated to the incentive story, is that we don't need lists. Imagine you're looking for a scissor. You don't want someone to tell if scissor A or B are "good" or "bad", or if A is "better" than B. You want to know if, for your specific situation, or for a class of situations, A will serve well, and do that considering A's price and if A is being sold near you and all that. Scissors are the worst example ever to make this point, but I hope you get it. If you don't, try imagining the same example with schools, doctors, plumbers, food, whatever. Recommendation systems are badly needed in our world, and TCRs don't solve these at all.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# P2P reputation thing Each node shares a blob of the reputations they have, which includes a confidence number. The number comes from the fact that reputations are inherited from other nodes they trust and averaged by their confidence in these. Everything is mixed for plausible deniability. By default a node only shares their stuff with people they manually add, to prevent government from crawling everybody's database. Also to each added friend nodes share a different identity/pubkey (like giving a new Bitcoin address for every transaction) (derived from hip32) (and since each identity can only be contacted by one other entity the node filters incoming connections to download their database: "this identity already been used? no, yes, used with which peer?"). ## Network protocol Maybe the data uploader/offerer initiates connection to the receiver over Tor so there's only a Tor address for incoming data, never an address for a data source, i.e. everybody has an address, but only for requesting data. How to request? Post an encrypted message in an IRC room or something similar (better if messages are stored for a while) targeted to the node/identity you want to download from, along with your Tor address. Once the node sees that it checks if you can download and contacts you. The encrypted messages could have the target identity pubkey prefix such that the receiving node could try to decrypt only some if those with some probability of success. Nodes can choose to share with anyone, share only with pre-approved people, share only with people who know one of their addresses/entities (works like a PIN, you give the address to someone in the street, that person can reach you, to the next person you give another address etc., you can even have a public address and share limited data with that). ## Data model Each entry in a database should be in the following format: ``` internal_id : real_world_identifier [, real_world_identifier...] : tag ``` Which means you can either associate one or multiple real world identifier with an internal id and associate the real person designated by these identifiers with a tag. the tag should be part of the standard or maybe negotiated between peers. it can be things like `scammer`, `thief`, `tax collector` etc., or `honest`, `good dentist` etc. defining good enough labels may be tricky. `internal_id` should be created by the user who made the record about the person. At first this is not necessary, but additional bloat can be added to the protocol if the federated automated message posting boards are working in the sense that each user can ask for more information about a given id and the author of that record can contact the person asking for information and deliver free text to them with the given information. For this to work the internal id must be a public key and the information delivered must be signed with the correspondent private key, so the receiver of the information will know it's not just some spammer inventing stuff, but actually the person who originated that record.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Democracia na América Alexis de Tocqueville escreveu um livro só elogiando o sistema político dos Estados Unidos. E mesmo tendo sido assim, e mesmo tendo escrito o seu livro quase 100 anos antes do mais precoce sinal de decadência da democracia na América, percebeu coisas que até hoje quase ninguém percebe: o mandato da suprema corte é um enorme poder, uma força centralizadora, imune ao voto popular e com poderes altamente indefinidos e por isso mesmo ilimitados. Não sei se ele concluiu, porém, que não existe nem pode existir balanço perfeito entre poderes. Sempre haverá furos. De qualquer maneira, o homem é um gênio apenas por ter percebido isso e outras coisas, como o fato da figura do presidente, também obviamente um elemento centralizador, não ser tão poderosa quanto a figura de um rei da França, por exemplo. Mas ao mesmo tempo, por entre o véu de elogios (sempre muito sóbrios) deixou escapar que provavelmente também achava que não poderia durar para sempre a fraqueza do cargo de presidente. - [Democracy as a failed open-network protocol](nostr:naddr1qqyrxvtxxf3nse3sqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823ccyra4y) - [Família e propriedade](nostr:naddr1qqyrwwpnxesnqvmrqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c4s2ruz) - [Liberalismo oitocentista](nostr:naddr1qqyr2wfev5uxgwpsqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c2z2jc9)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Custom spreadsheets The idea was to use it to make an app that would serve as [_custom database for everything_](nostr:naddr1qqyxgcejv5unzd33qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cz3va32) and interact with the spreadsheet so people could play and calculate with their values after they were created by the custom app, something like an MS Access integrated with Excel? My first attempt that worked (I believe there was an attempt before but I have probably deleted it from everywhere) was this `react-microspreadsheet` thing (at the time called `react-spreadsheet` before I donated the npm name to someone who asked): - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/react-microspreadsheet> This was a very good spreadsheet component that did many things current "react spreadsheet" components out there don't do. It had formulas; support for that handle thing that you pulled with the mouse and it autofilled cells with a pattern; it had keyboard navigation with Ctrl, Shift, Ctrl+Shift; it had that thing through which you copy-pasted formulas and they would change their parameters depending on where you pasted them (implemented in a very poor manner because I was using and thinking about Excel in [baby mode][you-suck-at-excel] at the time). Then I tried to make it into "a small sheet you can share" kind of app through assemblymade.com, and eventually as I tried to add more things bugs began to appear. Then there was `cycle6-spreadsheet`: - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/spreadsheet-cycle6> If I remember well this was very similar to the other one, although made almost 2 years after. Despite having the same initial goal of the other (the multi-app custom database thing) it only yielded: - [Sidesheet](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sidesheet/iheklhbgdljkmijlfajakikbgemncmf), a Chrome extension that opened a spreadsheet on the side of the screen that you could use to make calculations and so on. It worked, but had too many bugs that probably caused me to give up entirely. I'm not sure which of the two spreadsheets above powers <http://sheets.alhur.es>. [you-suck-at-excel]: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nbkaYsR94c>

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# TiddlyWiki remoteStorage [TiddlyWiki](https://tiddlywiki.com/) is very good and useful, but since at this time I used multiple computers during the week, it wouldn't work for me to use it as a single file on my computer, so I had to hack its internal tiddler saving mechanism to instead save the raw data of each tiddler to [remoteStorage](https://remotestorage.io/) and load them from that place also (ok, there was in theory a plugin system, but I had to read and understand the entire unformatted core source-code anyway). There was also a [server](https://github.com/fiatjaf/tiddlywiki-remotestorage-server) that fetched tiddlywikis from anyone's remoteStorage buckets (after authorization) and served these to the world, a quick and nice way to publish a TiddlyWiki -- which is a problem all people in TiddlyWiki struggle against. - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/tiddlywiki-remotestorage> - <https://tiddly.alhur.es/> ## See also - [hledger-web](nostr:naddr1qqyrsefkvvck2efkqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cffvz7c) - [LessPass remoteStorage](nostr:naddr1qqyrsctpxfjnqepeqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cfa6z2z)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# requesthub.xyz  An app that was supposed to be some kind of declarative connector between two services, one that sent webhooks and the other that accepted HTTP requests of any kind. You would proxy and transform the webhooks using RequestHub and create a new request to the other service using that data. The transformations were declared in the almighty [`jq`](https://stedolan.github.io/jq/) language. It worked and had other functions planned for the future, but I guess it was too arcane, even I was confused by it sometimes. Also it was very prone to spam (involuntary) attacks like some that did happen. Maybe it would work better in a world of anonymous satoshi payments.  Later I tried to revive it as a Trello Power-Up that would create comments on cards automatically according to some transformation rules and webhooks received. - [requesthub.xyz](https://archive.is/nGyH3) - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/requesthub.xyz> - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/requesthub-trello>

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# busca múltipla na estante virtual  A single-page app made in Elm with a Go backend that scrapped estantevirtual.com.br in real-time for search results of multiple different search terms and aggregated the results per book store, so when you want to buy many books you can find the stores that have the biggest part of what you want and buy everything together, paying less for the delivery fee. It had a very weird unicode issue I never managed to solve, something with the encoding estantevirtual.com.br used. I also planned to build the entire checkout flow directly in this UI, but then decided it wasn't worth it. The search flow only was already good enough. - <https://estantevirtual.alhur.es/> - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/estantevirtual>

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# There's a problem with using Git concepts for everything We've been seeing a surge in applications that use Git to store other things than code, or that are based on Git concepts and so enable "forking, merging and distributed collaboration" for things like blogs, recipes, literature, music composition, normal files in a filesystem, databases. The problem with all this is they will either: 1. assume the user will commit manually and expect that commit to be composed by a set of meaningful changes, and the commiter will also add a message to the commit, describing that set of meaningful, related changes; or 2. try to make the committing process automatic and hide it from the user, so will producing meaningless commits, based on random changes in many different files (it's not "files" if we are talking about a recipe or rows in a table, but let's say "files" for the sake of clarity) that will probably not be related and not reduceable to a meaningful commit message, or maybe the commit will contain only the changes to a single file, and its commit message would be equivalent to "updated `<name of the file>`". Programmers, when using Git, _think in Git_, i.e., they work with version control in their minds. They try hard to commit together only sets of meaningful and related changes, even when they happen to make unrelated changes in the meantime, and that's why there are commands like `git add -p` and many others. Normal people, to whom many of these git-based tools are intended to (and even programmers when out of their code-world), are much less prone to _think in Git_, and that's why another kind of abstraction for fork-merge-collaborate in non-code environments must be used.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Sol e Terra A Terra não gira em torno do Sol. Tudo depende do ponto de referência e não existe um ponto de referência absoluto. Só é melhor dizer que a Terra gira em torno do Sol porque há outros planetas fazendo movimentos análogos e aí fica mais fácil para todo mundo entender os movimentos tomando o Sol como ponto de referência.

@ 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

# Google, Uber e ostracismo Pensando sobre como o Google poderia implementar uma solução "pure software" para o problema dos programinhas de carona paga -- já que agora parece que o Waze vai virar tipo um Uber -- me vi pensando em que poderia haver punições bastante severas e para-legais para infratores dos regulamentos internos do serviço. Digamos, por exemplo, que é proibido pelas regras do serviço que o motorista ou o passageiro agridam um ao outro de qualquer maneira. Para ser qualificado como um potencial usuário, tanto o motorista quanto o passageiro devem ser usuários de longa data dos serviços do Google, possuir um email no Gmail com trocentas mensagens sendo recebidas e enviadas todos os dias, um enorme arquivo, coisas guardadas no Google Drive e/ou outros serviços do Google sendo usados. Caso o sujeito agrida o motorista, roube-o ou faça qualquer outra coisa não-permitida, o Google pode, imediatamente, cancelar seu acesso a todos os serviços. Depois, com mais calma, pode-se tentar alguma coisa por meio da justiça estatal, mas essa punição seria tão imediata e tão incondicional (bom, poderia haver um julgamento interno dentro do Google para avaliar o que aconteceu mesmo, mas pronto, nada de milanos na justiça penal e depois uma punição fajuta qualquer.) Esse tipo de punição imediata já desencorajaria a maioria dos infratores, imagino eu. É a própria idéia anarquista da punição por ostracismo. O cara fica excluído da sociedade até que a sociedade (neste caso, o Google) decida perdoá-lo por qualquer motivo. A partir daí é possível imaginar que os outros vários "silos" deste mundo -- Facebook, Vivo, Diamond Mall, SuperNosso -- possam também aderir, caso concordem com o julgamento do Google, e vice-versa, e também impedirem o infrator de usar os seus serviços. Mas o grande tchans disto aqui é que esse processo pode começar com um único agente, desde que ele seja grande o suficiente para que a sua ostracização, sozinha, já seja uma punição quase suficiente para o infrator.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Reisman on opportunity cost If I bought things for 10 and sold them for 20 did I earn a profit of 10? -- Yes, says common sense. -- No, says the economist, because you could have bought a bond that yielded you some return with those initial 10 then spent your time working for someone else instead of working in your sales business. If that yielded more money than 10 then you actually had a loss. That is crazy, because it produces an economy in which everybody is always losing all the time, except one ideal person who makes all the correct investment decisions and thus has no opportunity cost. That person has a profit of zero. -- George Reisman in <https://www.bobmurphyshow.com/139>

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Uma boa margem - No primeiro semestre da faculdade de Economia nós, os alunos, fomos guiados por um livro imbecil chamado "Introdução à Economia". O livro listava lá trocentas coisas que economistas supostamente faziam como parte da sua natureza de economistas. Uma delas era, lembro-me desta frase, "economistas pensam na margem". - De início eu não entendi onde era essa margem, mas a professora passou quase uma aula inteira explicando (isto é, lendo o capítulo) que "pensar na margem" era considerar que pequenas mudanças nas condições de qualquer coisa causariam mudanças em pequenos grupos de pessoas: as pessoas que estavam na margem da mudança. - Por exemplo, se um limão custa 5 reais e 100.000 pessoas compram limão todo dia, se aumentamos o preço para 5,05 pode ser que, sei lá, só 99.873 continuem comprando. Faz sentido, não faz? Isto era tão óbvio para mim no primeiro período de faculdade que não imaginei que alguém precisasse explicar, por isso não percebi qual era a da margem. - Até hoje, porém, vejo pessoas o tempo todo afirmarem categoricamente que o "cinco centavos não vão fazer diferença nenhuma, as pessoas vão continuar comprando o limão como sempre compraram" e invocando em defesa desta tese argumentos perfeitamente lógicos como "até parece que você ia deixar de comprar seu limão por causa de 5 centavos", "eu nem olho o preço das coisas no supermercado" e "as pessoas precisam do limão, então elas vão ter que comprar, não importa o preço". - Muitas destas pessoas entenderão a explicação sobre a margem, mas na próxima oportunidade que tiverem falharão em perceber a analogia ou em se lembrarem da margem e novamente evocarão os seus chavões. Para outras pessoas, porém, o pensamento na margem faz parte do bom senso habitual. - Tirando fora a inútil conclusão de que a maior parte das pessoas é burra, sobra-nos um problema. - __Discussão__ - Estaria o autor do livro, contra sua própria vontade, enunciando uma verdade acerca dos tipos de pessoas que povoam a sociedade, "os economistas", que são economistas desde o berço, e que "pensam na margem" por natureza, contra "o resto", os não-economistas, que não pensam na margem, não importa o que se faça? - Esta é uma solução bem mixuruca. Nem é uma solução, na verdade, além disto ela deixa escapar um outro problema: por que diabos um sujeito que não consegue entender o problema do limão se candidata a um diploma de economista? - Bom, talvez aqui a hipótese da burrice generalizada explique bem as coisas: aparentemente a burrice que há nas universidades, no valor dos diplomas, na natureza da escola e em sua relação com as universidades faça com que jovens sejam despejados em qualquer curso sem terem noção nenhuma do que eles mesmos esperam que se dê lá. Ei-lo. - Há algum outro mistério aqui? O bom senso (enquanto um conhecimento apreendido dos meus vizinhos de sociedade) me ensinou a pensar na margem, ou não? Onde eu aprendi isso? Por que eu penso assim e o meu vizinho não? - Imagino que Bernard Lonergan responderia dizendo que os economistas são pessoas que tiveram esse __insight__ e as outras pessoas não. Para as que tiveram o insight ele aparece já como uma obviedade, para os que não tiveram ele não é nem percebido como possibilidade (do contrário ele se efetuaria automaticamente como insight). - Neste caso, o que explica que pessoas entendam o caso do limão, caso se lhas explique com calma, mas falhem em aplicá-lo, minutos depois, a laranjas? - Há casos de economistas famosos e premiados que não conseguem conceber, por exemplo, que o aumento do salário mínimo possa fazer com que menos pessoas contratem funcionários -- na margem. Estes mesmos economistas passariam facilmente no teste do limão. Paul Krugman é um exemplo clássico de pessoa definitivamente "economista" (pelo critério do limão), mas que falha na aplicação do mesmo princípio a situações em que ele tem interesse político. - Aqui caímos num outro problema totalmente diferente, mas talvez a dissonância cognitiva explique. - Falha na aplicação de analogias não é um defeito, segundo me parece. Afinal de contas cada nova aplicação de uma analogia ou de relação previamente conhecida é, em si, um novo insight. O insight pode não ocorrer facilmente em certas condições. Mas, nestes casos, imagino que com algum auxílio (alguém que te lembre da analogia correta a ser aplicada ali, fazendo com que você a teste por si mesmo) o insight ocorra. - Também posso considerar que eu estou errado e que é ilógico pensar que cinco centavos farão com que menos pessoas comprem o limão. Há centenas de estudos "empíricos" que mostram como "pensar na margem" é correto, mas estes estudos são todos inconclusivos, ou afetados por dissonância cognitiva por parte dos autores, economistas, que já começaram a fazer o estudo sabendo da conclusão. Tudo isto parece razoável. Tenho para mim, no entando, que não é nada razoável, mas um absurdo louco.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Sparko This started as a reimplementation of the [Spark Wallet](https://github.com/shesek/spark-wallet) server (which also included the client app, copied directly) because NodeJS isn't a proper way to distribute software to end users and it was also a pain for me to install. I could do a program that ran as a single binary. Then when [c-lightning](https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning/) released their plugin infrastructe I made this a plugin. And then introduced fine-grained method authorization for multiple keys, and full-blown [SSE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server-sent_events)-based subscriptions for plugin events. It is a now a single wrapper that can be used to develop apps that talk to a Lightning layer very easily, as well as a simple wallet. It is integrated into [Zeus](https://zeusln.app/), [LNbits](https://github.com/lnbits/lnbits) and <https://tip.bigsun.xyz/>. - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/sparko> ## See also - [trustedcoin](nostr:naddr1qqyx2wp4vgekgwfsqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c04z53s)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# GraphQL vs REST Today I saw this: https://github.com/stickfigure/blog/wiki/How-to-(and-how-not-to)-design-REST-APIs And it reminded me why GraphQL is so much better. It has also reminded me why HTTP is so confusing and awful as a protocol, especially as a protocol for structured data APIs, with all its status codes and headers and bodies and querystrings and content-types -- but let's not talk about that for now. People complain about GraphQL being great for frontend developers and bad for backend developers, but I don't know who are these people that apparently love reading guides like the one above of how to properly construct ad-hoc path routers, decide how to properly build the JSON, what to include and in which circumstance, what status codes and headers to use, all without having any idea of what the frontend or the API consumer will want to do with their data. It is a much less stressful environment that one in which we can just actually perform the task and fit the data in a preexistent schema with types and a structure that we don't have to decide again and again while anticipating with very incomplete knowledge the usage of an extraneous person -- i.e., an environment with GraphQL, or something like GraphQL. By the way, I know there are some people that say that these HTTP JSON APIs are not the real REST, but that is irrelevant for now.

@ 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

# UBI calculations The United States population (counting only people more than 25 years old) is `222098080 people`, the United States GDP is `20807000000000 USD`. The Federal government has received `5845968000000` in taxes in 2019. The standard UBI plan (from Andrew Yang) is to give $1000 to each person every month, which means a total annual expenditure of `2665176960000 USD`, or `12.81%` of the GDP and `45.59%` of all tax money received from the federal government. Mandatory spending (which includes healthcare and social security) corresponds to $2.7 trillion, or `46.18%` of annual receipts. Discretionary spending (which includes education and military stuff) corresponds to $1.3 trillion, or `22.23%` of annual receipts. ## Does it fit? If you are capable of cutting more-or-less all spending in social security (`17.10%` of federal receipts), all military (`11.56%`), all education, transportation, housing, veterans benefits and most other things the federal government does (`11.30%`) and parts of Medicare and Medicaid (`26.17%`) then it will be possible to fit UBI. Welcome to the leftist paradise, one in which the government budget has to be drastically cut in every possible (cruel?) way. ### Data sources - <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States> - <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Structure> - <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_United_States> - <https://www.bea.gov/tools/> - <https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-would-andrew-yang-give-americans-1000-per-month-with-this-tax>

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Software ## 2013 - [tempreites](nostr:naddr1qqyrgvpjxf3kzep3qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cs7qvaw) ## 2014 - [contratos.alhur.es](nostr:naddr1qqyrjde3xd3xgvtrqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cg7tgqg) - [microanalytics](nostr:naddr1qqyr2cfcv56nvdtyqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823ct57qq4) - [doulas.club](nostr:naddr1qqyxxdec8yerwce4qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823csucsny) - [rosetta.alhur.es](nostr:naddr1qqyxvdmzxu6nscfsqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c8zu03s) - [Webvatar](nostr:naddr1qqyrje348qexgc3sqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cgqmsck) ## 2015 - [Gerador de tabelas de todos contra todos](nostr:naddr1qqyxxwf58qckvd3jqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cza9wzl) - [questo.email](nostr:naddr1qqyrvvpnveskzvnrqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823ce8mca6) - [jekmentions](nostr:naddr1qqyrvcmxxgmn2cnpqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823crzww00) - [Websites For Trello](nostr:naddr1qqyrydpkvverwvehqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c9d4yku) - [Temperos](nostr:naddr1qqyrvvpevgurzwfeqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cvyhzdz) - [Trello Attachment Editor](nostr:naddr1qqyrzv35vf3ngefsqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cl4cxff) - [WelcomeBot](nostr:naddr1qqyrqv3nx4skzdpnqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c8q7km6) - [Classless Templates](nostr:naddr1qqyxyv35vymk2vfsqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cqwgdau) ## 2016 - [Module Linker](nostr:naddr1qqyx2cejxfnrxwrpqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c3w8fr0) - [Boardthreads](nostr:naddr1qqyxvwfk8p3xvdmrqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823ceq46m6) - [Batch for Trello](nostr:naddr1qqyxxep4vsckydpcqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cqun23v) - [Custom spreadsheets](nostr:naddr1qqyxgvenxycxgcesqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823caghvd9) - [SummaDB](nostr:naddr1qqyxvefkx4jxzv35qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cl55g3s) - [Flowi.es](nostr:naddr1qqyxycn9x5crweryqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c9nlf3h) - [Trelew](nostr:naddr1qqyxgvnxvvunsetrqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cku8e7a) - [Washer](nostr:naddr1qqyxgwtzxpnrwv3nqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cseh7t7) - [hyperscript-go](nostr:naddr1qqyxzwpnxyukzvtyqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cmh22hw) - [jiq](nostr:naddr1qqyrqvfjv33rxcenqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cd86z7d) - [busca múltipla na estante virtual](nostr:naddr1qqyrvdt9xq6r2dp5qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cnlqqm3) - [Splitpages](nostr:naddr1qqyxgeryve3nxerrqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cdeke65) - [requesthub.xyz](nostr:naddr1qqyxxdf38ycrswfcqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cal6jdg) ## 2017 - [trackingco.de](nostr:naddr1qqyxgwt9xuck2dn9qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cqnzcdc) - [jq-web](nostr:naddr1qqyrzvrzxqcx2dfsqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c90hqwz) - [Filemap](nostr:naddr1qqyrwcekv33rze3kqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c23ya8a) - [IPFS-dropzone](nostr:naddr1qqyrjvrx8p3xyvesqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cwpfruw) - [sitio](nostr:naddr1qqyrjctyxg6nvepnqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823ccsaa3c) - [rel](nostr:naddr1qqyrxvecx43r2wfhqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823crt09d2) ## 2018 - [ijq](nostr:naddr1qqyxzcfhv4jx2vfhqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cyanqcm) - [sitios.xyz](nostr:naddr1qqyrsep48qckyetyqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cdnzkwk) - [hledger-web](nostr:naddr1qqyrsefkvvck2efkqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cffvz7c) - [LessPass remoteStorage](nostr:naddr1qqyrsctpxfjnqepeqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cfa6z2z) - [TiddlyWiki remoteStorage](nostr:naddr1qqyxxve4x33nqerrqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cat32d3) - [fieldbook-to-sql](nostr:naddr1qqyrzcmxv4snvvpnqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cj2xnqd) - [jq-finder](nostr:naddr1qqyryvejvycn2cnpqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823ccw20rx) - [jiq-web](nostr:naddr1qqyxxcf5x33rse3kqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cyttamq) - [superform.xyz](nostr:naddr1qqyx2wpe8p3nzdpkqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c077s2q) - [piln](nostr:naddr1qqyxve3svsmrvwtxqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c29s0he) - [gravity](nostr:naddr1qqyxyet9v5mr2vfkqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cjfzxgy) - [howoldis](nostr:naddr1qqyxge3jvvcr2vejqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823ctyq8wc) - [litepub](nostr:naddr1qqyxzcecxs6x2c3sqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823czz6dgn) ## 2019 - [Etleneum](nostr:naddr1qqyrjcny8qcn2ve4qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823crwzz2w) - [@lntxbot](nostr:naddr1qqyrydpex4jnwetxqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cmkr70c) - [mcldsp](nostr:naddr1qqyrvcmyx3skzdpjqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cph0s0j) - [Sparko](nostr:naddr1qqyx2vpnvs6nze3jqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c362tx2) ## 2020 - [lnchannels](nostr:naddr1qqyx2vtrxymxgvt9qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c8wq3qm) - [trustedcoin](nostr:naddr1qqyx2wp4vgekgwfsqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c04z53s) - [localchat](nostr:naddr1qqyxyetrxcmrjc3cqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cj6vucg)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# jq-web I took [`jq`](https://stedolan.github.io/jq/)'s C code and compiled it with [Emscripten](http://kripken.github.io/emscripten-site/), then added a wrapper so it would run on a browser with either `asm.js` or WebAssembly. I believe I needed it for [requesthub.xyz](nostr:naddr1qqyxxdf38ycrswfcqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cal6jdg) but I'm not sure I ever used it there. I also intended to use it on another (secret) project that relied on heavy data manipulation on the client, but it turned out to be too slow for that so I opted to use JavaScript directly. Later I used it for a client-side [Etleneum](nostr:naddr1qqyrjcny8qcn2ve4qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823crwzz2w) simulator, but removed it later as it was impossible to replicate most of the Etleneum functionality on the client so the simulator was too broken and confusing. - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/jq-web> ## See also -

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Reasons for miners to not steal See [Drivechain](nostr:naddr1qq9xgunfwejkx6rpd9hqzythwden5te0ve5kzar2v9nzucm0d5pzqwlsccluhy6xxsr6l9a9uhhxf75g85g8a709tprjcn4e42h053vaqvzqqqr4gumtjfnp) for an introduction. Here we'll just have a list of reasons why miners would not steal: - they will lose future fees from that specific drivechain: you can discount all future fees and condense them into a single present number in order to do some mathematical calculation. - they may lose future fees from all other Drivechains, if the users assume they will steal from those too. - Bitcoin will be devalued if they steal, because: - Bitcoin is worth more if it has Drivechains working, because it is more useful, has more use-cases, more users. Without Drivechains it necessarily has to be worth less. - Bitcoin has more fee revenue if has Drivechains working, which means it has a bigger chance of surviving going forward and being more censorship-resistant and resistant to State attacks, therefore it has to worth more if Drivechains work and less if they don't. - Bitcoin is worth more if the public perception is that Bitcoin miners are friendly and doing their work peacefully instead of being a band of revolted peons that are constantly threating to use their 75% hashrate to do evil things such as: - double-spending attacks; - censoring of transactions for a certain group of people; - selfish mining. - if Bitcoin is devalued its price is bound to fall, meaning that miners will lose on - their future mining rewards; - their ASIC investiment; - the same coins they are trying to steal from the drivechain. - if a mining pool tries to steal, they will risk losing their individual miners to other pools that don't. - whenever a steal attempt begins, the coins in the drivechain will lose value (if the steal attempt is credible their price will drop quite substantially), which means that if a coalition of miners really try to steal, there is an incentive for another coalition of miners to buy some devalued coins and then stop the steal.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Soft-fork activation through `bitcoind` competition Or: how to activate [_Drivechain_](nostr:naddr1qq9xgunfwejkx6rpd9hqzythwden5te0ve5kzar2v9nzucm0d5pzqwlsccluhy6xxsr6l9a9uhhxf75g85g8a709tprjcn4e42h053vaqvzqqqr4gumtjfnp). Imagine a world in which there are 10 different `bitcoind` flavors, as described in [`bitcoind` decentralization](nostr:naddr1qqyxzcfevscxzvnrqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823chus9ym). Now how do you enable a soft-fork? Flavor 1 enables it. Seeing that nothing bad happened, flavor 2 enables it. Then flavor 3 enables it. And so on. When what is perceived by miners to be a big chunk of support for the proposal, a miner can try to mine a block that contains the new feature. No need for a flag day or a centralized decision making process that depends on one or two courageous leaders to enable a timer. --- This probably sounds silly, and maybe is.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Trello Attachment Editor A static JS app that allowed you to authorize with your Trello account, fetch the board structure, find attachments, edit them in the browser then replace them in the cards. Quite a nice thing. I believe it was done to help with [Websites For Trello](nostr:naddr1qqyrydpkvverwvehqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c9d4yku) attached scripts and CSS files. - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/trello-attachments> - <https://fiatjaf.github.io/trello-attachments/#/login> ### See also - [Temperos](nostr:naddr1qqyrvvpevgurzwfeqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cvyhzdz)

@ 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

# Cadeias, crimes e cidadãos de bem A idéia de ficar dentro duma dessas penitenciárias superlotadas é aterrorizante para qualquer cidadão de bem, logo, nenhum cidadão de bem comete crimes puníveis dessa maneira. Mas os cidadãos de bem já não os cometeriam de qualquer modo, é um outro tipo de gente, que não o cidadão de bem, que comete os piores crimes (não quero dizer que o "cidadão de bem" é melhor do que o outro absolutamente, estou só usando um conceito mais-ou-menos identificável). O problema disso é que todos esses mesmos cidadãos de bem imaginam que a existência da cadeia e da punição-padrão movida pelo Estado afasta do crime milhões de pessoas que, sem isso, cometeriam crimes horríveis, mas que com isso vivem vidas normais. A verdade, me parece, é que quem fica assim tão aterrorizado com a idéia da cadeia e da punição-padrão é a pessoa que já por natureza não cometeria esses crimes.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# As valas comuns de Manaus https://www.terra.com.br/noticias/brasil/cidades/manaus-comeca-a-enterrar-em-valas-coletivas,e7da8b2579e7f032629cf65fa27a11956wd2qblx.html  Todo o Estado do Amazonas tem 193 mortos por Coronavirus, mas essa foto de "valas coletivas" sendo abertas em Manaus tem aproximadamente 500 túmulos. As notícias de "calamidade total" já estão acontecendo pelo menos desde o dia 11 (https://www.oantagonista.com/brasil/manaus-sao-paulo-e-rio-de-janeiro-nao-podem-relaxar-com-as-medidas-de-distanciamento/). O comércio está fechado por decreto desde o final de março (embora a matéria diga que as pessoas não estão respeitando).

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# IPFS problems: Inefficiency Imagine you have two IPFS nodes and unique content, created by you, in the first one. From the second, you can connect to the first and everyhing looks right. You then try to fetch that content. After some seconds it starts coming, the progress bar begins to move, that's slow, very slow, doing an rsync would have been 20 times faster. The progress bar halts. You investigate, the second node is not connected to the first anymore. Why, if that was the only source for the file we're trying to fetch? It remains a mistery to this day. You reconnect manually, the progress bar moves again, halts, you're disconnected again. Instead of reconnecting you decide to add the second node to the first node's "Bootstrap" list. I once tried to run an IPFS node on a VPS and store content on S3. There are two S3 datastore plugins available. After fixing some issues in one of them, recompiling go-ipfs, figuring out how to read settings from the IPFS config file, creating an init profile and recompiling again I got the node running. It worked. My idea was to host a bunch of data on that node. Data would be fetched from S3 on demand so there would be cheap and fast access to it from any IPFS node or gateway. IPFS started doing hundreds of calls to S3 per minute – something I wouldn't have known about if I hadn't inserted some log statements in the plugin code, I mean before the huge AWS bill arrived. Apparently that was part of participation on the DHT. Adjusting some settings turned my node into a listen-only thing as I intended, but I'm not 100% sure it would work as an efficient content provider, and I'll never know, as the memory and CPU usage got too high for my humble VPS and I had to turn it down.

@ 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

# A estrutura lógica do livro didático Todos os livros didáticos e cursos expõem seus conteúdos a partir de uma organização lógica prévia, um esquema de todo o conteúdo que julgam relevante, tudo muito organizadinho em tópicos e subtópicos segundo a ordem lógica que mais se aproxima da ordem natural das coisas. Imagine um sumário de um manual ou livro didático. A minha experiência é a de que esse método serve muito bem para ninguém entender nada. A organização lógica perfeita de um campo de conhecimento é o resultado **final** de um estudo, não o seu início. As pessoas que escrevem esses manuais e dão esses cursos, mesmo quando sabem do que estão falando (um acontecimento aparentemente raro), o fazem a partir do seu próprio ponto de vista, atingido após uma vida de dedicação ao assunto (ou então copiando outros manuais e livros didáticos, o que eu chutaria que é o método mais comum). Para o neófito, a melhor maneira de entender algo é através de imersões em micro-tópicos, sem muita noção da posição daquele tópico na hierarquia geral da ciência. * [Revista Educativa](nostr:naddr1qqyxgvfcxajkxe3cqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cfx0trx), um exemplo de como não ensinar nada às crianças. * [Zettelkasten](nostr:naddr1qqyrwwfh8yurgefnqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c7qmjrw), a ordem surgindo do caos, ao invés de temas se encaixando numa ordem preexistentes.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Empreendendorismo de boteco Há no Brasil, não sei se em algum outro país, esse tipo que acha que sabe tudo e, falando alto e com convicção acaba convencendo todos os que sabem não saber nada. Entre os papéis que pode assumir o sabidão, um dos mais nocivos é o do _empreendedor_, o conhecedor de negócios, o que sabe quanto as coisas valem. Você conhece este homem, caro leitor, ele é aquele que, com sua voz alta e convicta, afirma coisas como "isso dá muito dinheiro" ou "tal empresa ganha dinheiro demais". É aquele que tem a fórmula do dinheiro infinito: "se você quiser ganhar dinheiro é só comprar tal coisa e revender", às vezes adicionando o sufixo "simples!". É também o que têm noção da realidade: "se eu tivesse dinheiro pra investir abriria um tal negócio, dá muito dinheiro", ele sabe que não é qualquer um que pode ser milionário: "mas precisa ter muito capital", diz ele. Em suma, é esse tipo que espalha essa idéia, vinda não sei daonde, de que qualquer empreendimento é coisa simples e que os empresários de sucesso são homens que já tinham dinheiro e que não tiveram dificuldade alguma em multiplicá-lo. Hoje, com a invasão dessas pessoas aos cargos públicos, o Estado vive uma grande fase de empreendendorismo, com "investimentos" em empresas de futuro que "dinamizarão" a economia (ah, as "startups" e todo o seu capital estatal!) e, principalmente, com empreendimentos próprios, como foi o caso, por exemplo, dos estádios para a Copa de 2014: além da propaganda de todos os lados, desde os jornalistas infectados pelo empreendendorismo de boteco que repetiam "os estádios darão muito lucro, pois comportam não-sei-quantas pessoas e ainda podem ser usados para eventos" aos próprios técnicos do governo que faziam contratos com administradoras com cláusulas do tipo "o Estado garante aqui um lucro de 20 bilhões por ano, menos que isto a gente completa" e ainda eram aclamados pela mídia por sua certeza de que 20 bilhões eram pouco.