@ e31e84c4:77bbabc0

*Bitcoin and Fixed Income was Written By Wyatt O’Rourke. If you enjoyed this article then support his writing, directly, by donating to his lightning wallet: ultrahusky3@primal.net* Fiduciary duty is the obligation to act in the client’s best interests at all times, prioritizing their needs above the advisor’s own, ensuring honesty, transparency, and avoiding conflicts of interest in all recommendations and actions. This is something all advisors in the BFAN take very seriously; after all, we are legally required to do so. For the average advisor this is a fairly easy box to check. All you essentially have to do is have someone take a 5-minute risk assessment, fill out an investment policy statement, and then throw them in the proverbial 60/40 portfolio. You have thousands of investment options to choose from and you can reasonably explain how your client is theoretically insulated from any move in the \~markets\~. From the traditional financial advisor perspective, you could justify nearly anything by putting a client into this type of portfolio. All your bases were pretty much covered from return profile, regulatory, compliance, investment options, etc. It was just too easy. It became the household standard and now a meme. As almost every real bitcoiner knows, the 60/40 portfolio is moving into psyop territory, and many financial advisors get clowned on for defending this relic on bitcoin twitter. I’m going to specifically poke fun at the ‘40’ part of this portfolio. The ‘40’ represents fixed income, defined as… > An investment type that provides regular, set interest payments, such as bonds or treasury securities, and returns the principal at maturity. It’s generally considered a lower-risk asset class, used to generate stable income and preserve capital. Historically, this part of the portfolio was meant to weather the volatility in the equity markets and represent the “safe” investments. Typically, some sort of bond. First and foremost, the fixed income section is most commonly constructed with U.S. Debt. There are a couple main reasons for this. Most financial professionals believe the same fairy tale that U.S. Debt is “risk free” (lol). U.S. debt is also one of the largest and most liquid assets in the market which comes with a lot of benefits. There are many brilliant bitcoiners in finance and economics that have sounded the alarm on the U.S. debt ticking time bomb. I highly recommend readers explore the work of Greg Foss, Lawrence Lepard, Lyn Alden, and Saifedean Ammous. My very high-level recap of their analysis: - A bond is a contract in which Party A (the borrower) agrees to repay Party B (the lender) their principal plus interest over time. - The U.S. government issues bonds (Treasury securities) to finance its operations after tax revenues have been exhausted. - These are traditionally viewed as “risk-free” due to the government’s historical reliability in repaying its debts and the strength of the U.S. economy - U.S. bonds are seen as safe because the government has control over the dollar (world reserve asset) and, until recently (20 some odd years), enjoyed broad confidence that it would always honor its debts. - This perception has contributed to high global demand for U.S. debt but, that is quickly deteriorating. - The current debt situation raises concerns about sustainability. - The U.S. has substantial obligations, and without sufficient productivity growth, increasing debt may lead to a cycle where borrowing to cover interest leads to more debt. - This could result in more reliance on money creation (printing), which can drive inflation and further debt burdens. In the words of Lyn Alden “Nothing stops this train” Those obligations are what makes up the 40% of most the fixed income in your portfolio. So essentially you are giving money to one of the worst capital allocators in the world (U.S. Gov’t) and getting paid back with printed money. As someone who takes their fiduciary responsibility seriously and understands the debt situation we just reviewed, I think it’s borderline negligent to put someone into a classic 60% (equities) / 40% (fixed income) portfolio without serious scrutiny of the client’s financial situation and options available to them. I certainly have my qualms with equities at times, but overall, they are more palatable than the fixed income portion of the portfolio. I don’t like it either, but the money is broken and the unit of account for nearly every equity or fixed income instrument (USD) is fraudulent. It’s a paper mache fade that is quite literally propped up by the money printer. To briefly be as most charitable as I can – It wasn’t always this way. The U.S. Dollar used to be sound money, we used to have government surplus instead of mathematically certain deficits, The U.S. Federal Government didn’t used to have a money printing addiction, and pre-bitcoin the 60/40 portfolio used to be a quality portfolio management strategy. Those times are gone. ### Now the fun part. How does bitcoin fix this? Bitcoin fixes this indirectly. Understanding investment criteria changes via risk tolerance, age, goals, etc. A client may still have a need for “fixed income” in the most literal definition – Low risk yield. Now you may be thinking that yield is a bad word in bitcoin land, you’re not wrong, so stay with me. Perpetual motion machine crypto yield is fake and largely where many crypto scams originate. However, that doesn’t mean yield in the classic finance sense does not exist in bitcoin, it very literally does. Fortunately for us bitcoiners there are many other smart, driven, and enterprising bitcoiners that understand this problem and are doing something to address it. These individuals are pioneering new possibilities in bitcoin and finance, specifically when it comes to fixed income. Here are some new developments – Private Credit Funds – The Build Asset Management Secured Income Fund I is a private credit fund created by Build Asset Management. This fund primarily invests in bitcoin-backed, collateralized business loans originated by Unchained, with a secured structure involving a multi-signature, over-collateralized setup for risk management. Unchained originates loans and sells them to Build, which pools them into the fund, enabling investors to share in the interest income. Dynamics - Loan Terms: Unchained issues loans at interest rates around 14%, secured with a 2/3 multi-signature vault backed by a 40% loan-to-value (LTV) ratio. - Fund Mechanics: Build buys these loans from Unchained, thus providing liquidity to Unchained for further loan originations, while Build manages interest payments to investors in the fund. Pros - The fund offers a unique way to earn income via bitcoin-collateralized debt, with protection against rehypothecation and strong security measures, making it attractive for investors seeking exposure to fixed income with bitcoin. Cons - The fund is only available to accredited investors, which is a regulatory standard for private credit funds like this. Corporate Bonds – MicroStrategy Inc. (MSTR), a business intelligence company, has leveraged its corporate structure to issue bonds specifically to acquire bitcoin as a reserve asset. This approach allows investors to indirectly gain exposure to bitcoin’s potential upside while receiving interest payments on their bond investments. Some other publicly traded companies have also adopted this strategy, but for the sake of this article we will focus on MSTR as they are the biggest and most vocal issuer. Dynamics - Issuance: MicroStrategy has issued senior secured notes in multiple offerings, with terms allowing the company to use the proceeds to purchase bitcoin. - Interest Rates: The bonds typically carry high-yield interest rates, averaging around 6-8% APR, depending on the specific issuance and market conditions at the time of issuance. - Maturity: The bonds have varying maturities, with most structured for multi-year terms, offering investors medium-term exposure to bitcoin’s value trajectory through MicroStrategy’s holdings. Pros - Indirect Bitcoin exposure with income provides a unique opportunity for investors seeking income from bitcoin-backed debt. - Bonds issued by MicroStrategy offer relatively high interest rates, appealing for fixed-income investors attracted to the higher risk/reward scenarios. Cons - There are credit risks tied to MicroStrategy’s financial health and bitcoin’s performance. A significant drop in bitcoin prices could strain the company’s ability to service debt, increasing credit risk. - Availability: These bonds are primarily accessible to institutional investors and accredited investors, limiting availability for retail investors.  Interest Payable in Bitcoin – River has introduced an innovative product, bitcoin Interest on Cash, allowing clients to earn interest on their U.S. dollar deposits, with the interest paid in bitcoin. Dynamics - Interest Payment: Clients earn an annual interest rate of 3.8% on their cash deposits. The accrued interest is converted to Bitcoin daily and paid out monthly, enabling clients to accumulate Bitcoin over time. - Security and Accessibility: Cash deposits are insured up to $250,000 through River’s banking partner, Lead Bank, a member of the FDIC. All Bitcoin holdings are maintained in full reserve custody, ensuring that client assets are not lent or leveraged. Pros - There are no hidden fees or minimum balance requirements, and clients can withdraw their cash at any time. - The 3.8% interest rate provides a predictable income stream, akin to traditional fixed-income investments. Cons - While the interest rate is fixed, the value of the Bitcoin received as interest can fluctuate, introducing potential variability in the investment’s overall return. - Interest rate payments are on the lower side Admittedly, this is a very small list, however, these types of investments are growing more numerous and meaningful. The reality is the existing options aren’t numerous enough to service every client that has a need for fixed income exposure. I challenge advisors to explore innovative options for fixed income exposure outside of sovereign debt, as that is most certainly a road to nowhere. It is my wholehearted belief and call to action that we need more options to help clients across the risk and capital allocation spectrum access a sound money standard. Additional Resources - [River: The future of saving is here: Earn 3.8% on cash. Paid in Bitcoin.](http://bitcoin%20and%20fixed%20ihttps//blog.river.com/bitcoin-interest-on-cash/ncome) - [Onramp: Bitcoin, The Emergent Asset Class](https://onrampbitcoin.docsend.com/view/j4wje7kgvw357tt9) - [MicroStrategy: MicroStrategy Announces Pricing of Offering of Convertible Senior Notes](https://www.microstrategy.com/press/microstrategy-announces-pricing-of-offering-of-convertible-senior-notes_09-18-2024) --- *Bitcoin and Fixed Income was Written By Wyatt O’Rourke. If you enjoyed this article then support his writing, directly, by donating to his lightning wallet: ultrahusky3@primal.net*

@ a849beb6:b327e6d2

<img src="https://blossom.primal.net/e306357a7e53c4e40458cf6fa5625917dc8deaa4d1012823caa5a0eefb39e53c.jpg"> \ \ It was another historic week for both bitcoin and the Ten31 portfolio, as the world’s oldest, largest, most battle-tested cryptocurrency climbed to new all-time highs each day to close out the week just shy of the $100,000 mark. Along the way, bitcoin continued to accumulate institutional and regulatory wins, including the much-anticipated approval and launch of spot bitcoin ETF options and the appointment of several additional pro-bitcoin Presidential cabinet officials. The timing for this momentum was poetic, as this week marked the second anniversary of the pico-bottom of the 2022 bear market, a level that bitcoin has now hurdled to the tune of more than 6x despite the litany of bitcoin obituaries published at the time. The entirety of 2024 and especially the past month have further cemented our view that bitcoin is rapidly gaining a sense of legitimacy among institutions, fiduciaries, and governments, and we remain optimistic that this trend is set to accelerate even more into 2025. Several Ten31 portfolio companies made exciting announcements this week that should serve to further entrench bitcoin’s institutional adoption. AnchorWatch, a first of its kind bitcoin insurance provider offering 1:1 coverage with its innovative use of bitcoin’s native properties, announced it has been designated a Lloyd’s of London Coverholder, giving the company unique, blue-chip status as it begins to write bitcoin insurance policies of up to $100 million per policy starting next month. Meanwhile, Battery Finance Founder and CEO Andrew Hohns appeared on CNBC to delve into the launch of Battery’s pioneering private credit strategy which fuses bitcoin and conventional tangible assets in a dual-collateralized structure that offers a compelling risk/return profile to both lenders and borrowers. Both companies are clearing a path for substantially greater bitcoin adoption in massive, untapped pools of capital, and Ten31 is proud to have served as lead investor for AnchorWatch’s Seed round and as exclusive capital partner for Battery. As the world’s largest investor focused entirely on bitcoin, Ten31 has deployed nearly $150 million across two funds into more than 30 of the most promising and innovative companies in the ecosystem like AnchorWatch and Battery, and we expect 2025 to be the best year yet for both bitcoin and our portfolio. Ten31 will hold a first close for its third fund at the end of this year, and investors in that close will benefit from attractive incentives and a strong initial portfolio. Visit ten31.vc/funds to learn more and get in touch to discuss participating.\ \ **Portfolio Company Spotlight**  [Primal](http://primal.net/) is a first of its kind application for the Nostr protocol that combines a client, caching service, analytics tools, and more to address several unmet needs in the nascent Nostr ecosystem. Through the combination of its sleek client application and its caching service (built on a completely open source stack), Primal seeks to offer an end-user experience as smooth and easy as that of legacy social media platforms like Twitter and eventually many other applications, unlocking the vast potential of Nostr for the next billion people. Primal also offers an integrated wallet (powered by [Strike BLACK](https://x.com/Strike/status/1755335823023558819)) that substantially reduces onboarding and UX frictions for both Nostr and the lightning network while highlighting bitcoin’s unique power as internet-native, open-source money.  ### **Selected Portfolio News** AnchorWatch announced it has achieved Llody’s Coverholder status, allowing the company to provide unique 1:1 bitcoin insurance offerings starting in [December](https://x.com/AnchorWatch/status/1858622945763131577).\ \ Battery Finance Founder and CEO Andrew Hohns appeared on CNBC to delve into the company’s unique bitcoin-backed [private credit strategy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26bOawTzT5U). Primal launched version 2.0, a landmark update that adds a feed marketplace, robust advanced search capabilities, premium-tier offerings, and many [more new features](https://primal.net/e/note1kaeajwh275kdwd6s0c2ksvj9f83t0k7usf9qj8fha2ac7m456juqpac43m). Debifi launched its new iOS app for Apple users seeking non-custodial [bitcoin-collateralized loans](https://x.com/debificom/status/1858897785044500642). ### **Media** Strike Founder and CEO Jack Mallers [joined Bloomberg TV](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4z-2v_0H1k) to discuss the strong volumes the company has seen over the past year and the potential for a US bitcoin strategic reserve.  Primal Founder and CEO Miljan Braticevic [joined](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqR_IQfKic8) The Bitcoin Podcast to discuss the rollout of Primal 2.0 and the future of Nostr.  Ten31 Managing Partner Marty Bent [appeared on](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WwZDEtVxOE&t=1556s) BlazeTV to discuss recent changes in the regulatory environment for bitcoin.  Zaprite published a customer [testimonial video](https://x.com/ZapriteApp/status/1859357150809587928) highlighting the popularity of its offerings across the bitcoin ecosystem.  ### **Market Updates** Continuing its recent momentum, bitcoin reached another new all-time high this week, clocking in just below $100,000 on Friday. Bitcoin has now reached a market cap of [nearly $2 trillion](https://companiesmarketcap.com/assets-by-market-cap/), putting it within 3% of the market caps of Amazon and Google.  After receiving SEC and CFTC approval over the past month, long-awaited options on spot bitcoin ETFs were fully [approved](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-etf-options-set-hit-082230483.html) and launched this week. These options should help further expand bitcoin’s institutional [liquidity profile](https://x.com/kellyjgreer/status/1824168136637288912), with potentially significant [implications](https://x.com/dgt10011/status/1837278352823972147) for price action over time. The new derivatives showed strong performance out of the gate, with volumes on options for BlackRock’s IBIT reaching [nearly $2 billion](https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2024/11/20/bitcoin-etf-options-introduction-marks-milestone-despite-position-limits/) on just the first day of trading despite [surprisingly tight](https://x.com/dgt10011/status/1858729192105414837) position limits for the vehicles.  Meanwhile, the underlying spot bitcoin ETF complex had yet another banner week, pulling in [$3.4 billion](https://farside.co.uk/btc/) in net inflows.  New reports [suggested](https://archive.is/LMr4o) President-elect Donald Trump’s social media company is in advanced talks to acquire crypto trading platform Bakkt, potentially the latest indication of the incoming administration’s stance toward the broader “crypto” ecosystem.  On the macro front, US housing starts [declined M/M again](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-single-family-housing-starts-134759234.html) in October on persistently high mortgage rates and weather impacts. The metric remains well below pre-COVID levels.  Pockets of the US commercial real estate market remain challenged, as the CEO of large Florida developer Related indicated that [developers need further rate cuts](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-11-19/miami-developer-says-real-estate-market-needs-rate-cuts-badly) “badly” to maintain project viability.  US Manufacturing PMI [increased slightly](https://www.fxstreet.com/news/sp-global-pmis-set-to-signal-us-economy-continued-to-expand-in-november-202411220900) M/M, but has now been in contraction territory (&lt;50) for well over two years. The latest iteration of the University of Michigan’s popular consumer sentiment survey [ticked up](https://archive.is/fY5j6) following this month’s election results, though so did five-year inflation expectations, which now sit comfortably north of 3%.  ### **Regulatory Update** After weeks of speculation, the incoming Trump administration appointed hedge fund manager [Scott Bessent](https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2024/11/22/donald-trump-chooses-hedge-fund-executive-scott-bessent-for-treasury-secretary.html) to head up the US Treasury. Like many of Trump’s cabinet selections so far, Bessent has been a [public advocate](https://x.com/EleanorTerrett/status/1856204133901963512) for bitcoin.  Trump also [appointed](https://www.axios.com/2024/11/19/trump-commerce-secretary-howard-lutnick) Cantor Fitzgerald CEO Howard Lutnick – another outspoken [bitcoin bull](https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2024/09/04/tradfi-companies-want-to-transact-in-bitcoin-says-cantor-fitzgerald-ceo/) – as Secretary of the Commerce Department.  Meanwhile, the Trump team is reportedly considering creating a new [“crypto czar”](https://archive.is/jPQHF) role to sit within the administration. While it’s unclear at this point what that role would entail, one report indicated that the administration’s broader “crypto council” is expected to move forward with plans for a [strategic bitcoin reserve](https://archive.is/ZtiOk). Various government lawyers suggested this week that the Trump administration is likely to be [less aggressive](https://archive.is/Uggnn) in seeking adversarial enforcement actions against bitcoin and “crypto” in general, as regulatory bodies appear poised to shift resources and focus elsewhere.  Other updates from the regulatory apparatus were also directionally positive for bitcoin, most notably FDIC Chairman Martin Gruenberg’s confirmation that he [plans to resign](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/19/fdics-gruenberg-says-he-will-resign-jan-19-00190373) from his post at the end of President Biden’s term.  Many critics have alleged Gruenberg was an architect of [“Operation Chokepoint 2.0,”](https://x.com/GOPMajorityWhip/status/1858927571666096628) which has created banking headwinds for bitcoin companies over the past several years, so a change of leadership at the department is likely yet another positive for the space. SEC Chairman Gary Gensler also officially announced he plans to resign at the start of the new administration. Gensler has been the target of much ire from the broader “crypto” space, though we expect many projects outside bitcoin may continue to struggle with questions around the [Howey Test](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/howey-test.asp). Overseas, a Chinese court ruled that it is [not illegal](https://www.benzinga.com/24/11/42103633/chinese-court-affirms-cryptocurrency-ownership-as-legal-as-bitcoin-breaks-97k) for individuals to hold cryptocurrency, even though the country is still ostensibly [enforcing a ban](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58678907) on crypto transactions.  ### **Noteworthy** The incoming CEO of Charles Schwab – which administers over $9 trillion in client assets – [suggested](https://x.com/matthew_sigel/status/1859700668887597331) the platform is preparing to “get into” spot bitcoin offerings and that he “feels silly” for having waited this long. As this attitude becomes more common among traditional finance players, we continue to believe that the number of acquirers coming to market for bitcoin infrastructure capabilities will far outstrip the number of available high quality assets.  BlackRock’s 2025 Thematic Outlook notes a [“renewed sense of optimism”](https://www.ishares.com/us/insights/2025-thematic-outlook#rate-cuts) on bitcoin among the asset manager’s client base due to macro tailwinds and the improving regulatory environment. Elsewhere, BlackRock’s head of digital assets [indicated](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TE7cAw7oIeA) the firm does not view bitcoin as a “risk-on” asset.  MicroStrategy, which was a sub-$1 billion market cap company less than five years ago, briefly breached a [$100 billion equity value](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/microstrategy-breaks-top-100-u-191842879.html) this week as it continues to aggressively acquire bitcoin. The company now holds nearly 350,000 bitcoin on its balance sheet.  Notably, Allianz SE, Germany’s largest insurer, [spoke for 25%](https://bitbo.io/news/allianz-buys-microstrategy-notes/) of MicroStrategy’s latest $3 billion convertible note offering this week, suggesting [growing appetite](https://x.com/Rob1Ham/status/1860053859181199649) for bitcoin proxy exposure among more restricted pools of capital.  The [ongoing meltdown](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/11/22/synapse-bankruptcy-thousands-of-americans-see-their-savings-vanish.html) of fintech middleware provider Synapse has left tens of thousands of customers with nearly 100% deposit haircuts as hundreds of millions in funds remain missing, the latest unfortunate case study in the fragility of much of the US’s legacy banking stack.  ### **Travel** - [BitcoinMENA](https://bitcoin2024.b.tc/mena), Dec 9-10 - [Nashville BitDevs](https://www.meetup.com/bitcoinpark/events/302533726/?eventOrigin=group_upcoming_events), Dec 10 - [Austin BitDevs](https://www.meetup.com/austin-bitcoin-developers/events/303476169/?eventOrigin=group_upcoming_events), Dec 19 - [Nashville Energy and Mining Summit](https://www.meetup.com/bitcoinpark/events/304092624/?eventOrigin=group_events_list), Jan 30

@ a39d19ec:3d88f61e

A state-controlled money supply can influence the development of socialist policies and practices in various ways. Although the relationship is not deterministic, state control over the money supply can contribute to a larger role of the state in the economy and facilitate the implementation of socialist ideals. ## Fiscal Policy Capabilities When the state manages the money supply, it gains the ability to implement fiscal policies that can lead to an expansion of social programs and welfare initiatives. Funding these programs by creating money can enhance the state's influence over the economy and move it closer to a socialist model. The Soviet Union, for instance, had a centralized banking system that enabled the state to fund massive industrialization and social programs, significantly expanding the state's role in the economy. ## Wealth Redistribution Controlling the money supply can also allow the state to influence economic inequality through monetary policies, effectively redistributing wealth and reducing income disparities. By implementing low-interest loans or providing financial assistance to disadvantaged groups, the state can narrow the wealth gap and promote social equality, as seen in many European welfare states. ## Central Planning A state-controlled money supply can contribute to increased central planning, as the state gains more influence over the economy. Central banks, which are state-owned or heavily influenced by the state, play a crucial role in managing the money supply and facilitating central planning. This aligns with socialist principles that advocate for a planned economy where resources are allocated according to social needs rather than market forces. ## Incentives for Staff Staff members working in state institutions responsible for managing the money supply have various incentives to keep the system going. These incentives include job security, professional expertise and reputation, political alignment, regulatory capture, institutional inertia, and legal and administrative barriers. While these factors can differ among individuals, they can collectively contribute to the persistence of a state-controlled money supply system. In conclusion, a state-controlled money supply can facilitate the development of socialist policies and practices by enabling fiscal policies, wealth redistribution, and central planning. The staff responsible for managing the money supply have diverse incentives to maintain the system, further ensuring its continuation. However, it is essential to note that many factors influence the trajectory of an economic system, and the relationship between state control over the money supply and socialism is not inevitable.

@ 87730827:746b7d35

Original: https://techreport.com/crypto-news/brazil-central-bank-ban-monero-stablecoins/ Brazilian’s Central Bank Will Ban Monero and Algorithmic Stablecoins in the Country =================================================================================== Brazil proposes crypto regulations banning Monero and algorithmic stablecoins and enforcing strict compliance for exchanges. * * * **KEY TAKEAWAYS** * The Central Bank of Brazil has proposed **regulations prohibiting privacy-centric cryptocurrencies** like Monero. * The regulations **categorize exchanges into intermediaries, custodians, and brokers**, each with specific capital requirements and compliance standards. * While the proposed rules apply to cryptocurrencies, certain digital assets like non-fungible tokens **(NFTs) are still ‘deregulated’ in Brazil**.  In a Notice of Participation announcement, the Brazilian Central Bank (BCB) outlines **regulations for virtual asset service providers (VASPs)** operating in the country. **_In the document, the Brazilian regulator specifies that privacy-focused coins, such as Monero, must be excluded from all digital asset companies that intend to operate in Brazil._** Let’s unpack what effect these regulations will have. Brazil’s Crackdown on Crypto Fraud ---------------------------------- If the BCB’s current rule is approved, **exchanges dealing with coins that provide anonymity must delist these currencies** or prevent Brazilians from accessing and operating these assets. The Central Bank argues that currencies like Monero make it difficult and even prevent the identification of users, thus creating problems in complying with international AML obligations and policies to prevent the financing of terrorism. According to the Central Bank of Brazil, the bans aim to **prevent criminals from using digital assets to launder money**. In Brazil, organized criminal syndicates such as the Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC) and Comando Vermelho have been increasingly using digital assets for money laundering and foreign remittances. > … restriction on the supply of virtual assets that contain characteristics of fragility, insecurity or risks that favor fraud or crime, such as virtual assets designed to favor money laundering and terrorist financing practices by facilitating anonymity or difficulty identification of the holder. > > – [Notice of Participation](https://www.gov.br/participamaisbrasil/edital-de-participacao-social-n-109-2024-proposta-de-regulamentacao-do-) The Central Bank has identified that **removing algorithmic stablecoins is essential to guarantee the safety of users’ funds** and avoid events such as when Terraform Labs’ entire ecosystem collapsed, losing billions of investors’ dollars. The Central Bank also wants to **control all digital assets traded by companies in Brazil**. According to the current proposal, the [national regulator](https://techreport.com/cryptocurrency/learning/crypto-regulations-global-view/) will have the **power to ask platforms to remove certain listed assets** if it considers that they do not meet local regulations. However, the regulations will not include [NFTs](https://techreport.com/statistics/crypto/nft-awareness-adoption-statistics/), real-world asset (RWA) tokens, RWA tokens classified as securities, and tokenized movable or real estate assets. These assets are still ‘deregulated’ in Brazil. Monero: What Is It and Why Is Brazil Banning It? ------------------------------------------------ Monero ($XMR) is a cryptocurrency that uses a protocol called CryptoNote. It launched in 2013 and ‘erases’ transaction data, preventing the sender and recipient addresses from being publicly known. The Monero network is based on a proof-of-work (PoW) consensus mechanism, which incentivizes miners to add blocks to the blockchain.  Like Brazil, **other nations are banning Monero** in search of regulatory compliance. Recently, Dubai’s new digital asset rules prohibited the issuance of activities related to anonymity-enhancing cryptocurrencies such as $XMR. Furthermore, exchanges such as **Binance have already announced they will delist Monero** on their global platforms due to its anonymity features. Kraken did the same, removing Monero for their European-based users to comply with [MiCA regulations](https://techreport.com/crypto-news/eu-mica-rules-existential-threat-or-crypto-clarity/). Data from Chainalysis shows that Brazil is the **seventh-largest Bitcoin market in the world**.  In Latin America, **Brazil is the largest market for digital assets**. Globally, it leads in the innovation of RWA tokens, with several companies already trading this type of asset. In Closing ---------- Following other nations, Brazil’s regulatory proposals aim to combat illicit activities such as money laundering and terrorism financing. Will the BCB’s move safeguard people’s digital assets while also stimulating growth and innovation in the crypto ecosystem? Only time will tell. References ---------- Cassio Gusson is a journalist passionate about technology, cryptocurrencies, and the nuances of human nature. With a career spanning roles as Senior Crypto Journalist at CriptoFacil and Head of News at CoinTelegraph, he offers exclusive insights on South America’s crypto landscape. A graduate in Communication from Faccamp and a post-graduate in Globalization and Culture from FESPSP, Cassio explores the intersection of governance, decentralization, and the evolution of global systems. [View all articles by Cassio Gusson](https://techreport.com/author/cassiog/)

@ 5e5fc143:393d5a2c

Now test old reliable front end Stay tuned more later Keeping this as template long note for debugging in future as come across few NIP-33 post edit issues

@ af9c48b7:a3f7aaf4

## Chef's notes This simple, easy, no bake desert will surely be the it at you next family gathering. You can keep it a secret or share it with the crowd that this is a healthy alternative to normal pie. I think everyone will be amazed at how good it really is. ## Details - ⏲️ Prep time: 30 - 🍳 Cook time: 0 - 🍽️ Servings: 8 ## Ingredients - 1/3 cup of Heavy Cream- 0g sugar, 5.5g carbohydrates - 3/4 cup of Half and Half- 6g sugar, 3g carbohydrates - 4oz Sugar Free Cool Whip (1/2 small container) - 0g sugar, 37.5g carbohydrates - 1.5oz box (small box) of Sugar Free Instant Chocolate Pudding- 0g sugar, 32g carbohydrates - 1 Pecan Pie Crust- 24g sugar, 72g carbohydrates ## Directions 1. The total pie has 30g of sugar and 149.50g of carboydrates. So if you cut the pie into 8 equal slices, that would come to 3.75g of sugar and 18.69g carbohydrates per slice. If you decided to not eat the crust, your sugar intake would be .75 gram per slice and the carborytrates would be 9.69g per slice. Based on your objective, you could use only heavy whipping cream and no half and half to further reduce your sugar intake. 2. Mix all wet ingredients and the instant pudding until thoroughly mixed and a consistent color has been achieved. The heavy whipping cream causes the mixture to thicken the more you mix it. So, I’d recommend using an electric mixer. Once you are satisfied with the color, start mixing in the whipping cream until it has a consistent “chocolate” color thorough. Once your satisfied with the color, spoon the mixture into the pie crust, smooth the top to your liking, and then refrigerate for one hour before serving.

@ 41e6f20b:06049e45

Let me tell you a beautiful story. Last night, during the speakers' dinner at Monerotopia, the waitress was collecting tiny tips in Mexican pesos. I asked her, "Do you really want to earn tips seriously?" I then showed her how to set up a Cake Wallet, and she started collecting tips in Monero, reaching 0.9 XMR. Of course, she wanted to cash out to fiat immediately, but it solved a real problem for her: making more money. That amount was something she would never have earned in a single workday. We kept talking, and I promised to give her Zoom workshops. What can I say? I love people, and that's why I'm a natural orange-piller.

@ bcea2b98:7ccef3c9

Weekends are the perfect time to unwind, explore, or spend time doing what we love. How would you spend your ideal weekend? Would it be all about relaxation, or would you be out and about? For me, an ideal weekend would start with a slow Saturday morning, a good book and coffee. Then I would spend the afternoon exploring local trails and looking for snacks. Then always a slow Sunday night hopefully. originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/760492

@ fd208ee8:0fd927c1

## You have no idea I regularly read comments from people, on here, wondering how it's possible to marry -- or even simply be friends! -- with someone who doesn't agree with you on politics. I see this sentiment expressed quite often, usually in the context of Bitcoin, or whatever _pig is currently being chased through the village_, as they say around here.  It seems rather sensible, but I don't think it's as hard, as people make it out to be. Further, I think it's a dangerous precondition to set, for your interpersonal relationships, because the political field is constantly in flux. If you determine who you will love, by their opinions, do you stop loving them if their opinions change, or if the opinions they have become irrelevant and a new set of opinions are needed -- and their new ones don't match your new ones? We could see this happen to relationships en masse, during the Covid Era, and I think it happens every day, in a slow grind toward the disintegration of interpersonal discourse. I suspect many people do stop loving, at that point, as they never really loved the other person for their own sake, they loved the other person because they thought the other person was exactly like they are. But no two people are alike, and the longer you are in a relationship with someone else, the more the initial giddiness wears off and the trials and tribulations add up, the more you notice how very different you actually are. This is the point, where best friends and romantic couples say, _We just grew apart._ But you were always apart. You were always two different people. You just didn't notice, until now.  I've also always been surprised at how many same-party relationships disintegrate because of some disagreement over some particular detail of some particular topic, that they generally agree on. To me, it seems like an irrelevant side-topic, but _they can't stand to be with this person_... and they stomp off. So, I tend to think that it's less that opinions need to align to each other, but rather than opinions need to align in accordance with the level of interpersonal tolerance they can bring into the relationship. ## I was raised by relaxed revolutionaries Maybe I see things this way because my parents come from two diverging political, cultural, national, and ethnic backgrounds, and are prone to disagreeing about a lot of "important" (to people outside their marriage) things, but still have one of the healthiest, most-fruitful, and most long-running marriages of anyone I know, from that generation. My parents, you see, aren't united by their opinions. They're united by their relationship, which is something _outside_ of opinions. Beyond opinions. Relationships are what turn two different people into one, cohesive unit, so that they slowly grow together. Eventually, even their faces merge, and their biological clocks tick to the same rhythm. They eventually become one entity that contains differing opinions about the same topics. It's like magic, but it's the result of a mindset, not a worldview. Or, as I like to quip: > The best way to stay married, is to not get divorced.  My parents simply determined early on, that they would stay together, and whenever they would find that they disagreed on something that _didn't directly pertain to their day-to-day existence with each other_ they would just agree-to-disagree about that, or roll their eyes, and move on. You do you. Live and let live. My parents have some of the most strongly held personal opinions of any people I've ever met, but they're also incredibly tolerant and can get along with nearly anyone, so their friends are a confusing hodgepodge of _people we liked and found interesting enough to keep around_. Which makes their house parties really fun, and highly unusual, in this day and age of mutual-damnation across the aisle.  The things that did affect them, directly, like which school the children should attend or which country they should live in, etc. were things they'd sit down and discuss, and somehow one opinion would emerge, and they'd again... move on. And that's how my husband and I also live our lives, and it's been working surprisingly well. No topics are off-limits to discussion (so long as you don't drone on for too long), nobody has to give up deeply held beliefs, or stop agitating for the political decisions they prefer. You see, we didn't like that the other always had the same opinion. We liked that the other always held their opinions strongly. That they were passionate about their opinions. That they were willing to voice their opinions; sacrifice to promote their opinions. And that they didn't let anyone browbeat or cow them, for their opinions, not even their best friends or their spouse. But that they were open to listening to the other side, and trying to wrap their mind around the possibility that they _might just be wrong about something_.  We married each other because we knew: this person really cares, this person has thought this through, and they're in it, to win it. What "it" is, is mostly irrelevant, so long as it doesn't entail torturing small animals in the basement, or raising the children on a diet of Mountain Dew and porn, or something. Live and let live. At least, it's never boring. At least, there's always something to ~~argue~~ talk about. At least, we never think... we've just grown apart.

@ 4ba8e86d:89d32de4

Tutorial feito por Grom mestre⚡poste original abaixo: http://xh6liiypqffzwnu5734ucwps37tn2g6npthvugz3gdoqpikujju525yd.onion/240277/tutorial-criando-e-acessando-sua-conta-de-email-pela-i2p?show=240277#q240277 Bom dia/tarde/noite a todos os camaradas. Seguindo a nossa série de tutoriais referentes a tecnologias essenciais para a segurança e o anonimato dos usuários, sendo as primeiras a openPGP e a I2P, lhes apresento mais uma opção para expandir os seus conhecimentos da DW. Muitos devem conhecer os serviços de mail na onion como DNMX e mail2tor, mas e que tal um serviço de email pela I2P. Nesse tutorial eu vou mostrar a vocês como criar a sua primeira conta no hq.postman.i2p e a acessar essa conta. É importante que vocês tenham lido a minha primeira série de tutoriais a respeito de como instalar, configurar e navegar pela I2P nostr:nevent1qqsyjcz2w0e6d6dcdeprhuuarw4aqkw730y542dzlwxwssneq3mwpaspz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsygzt4r5x6tvh39kujvmu8egqdyvf84e3w4e0mq0ckswamfwcn5eduspsgqqqqqqsyp5vcq Esse tutorial é um pré-requisito para o seguinte e portanto recomendo que leia-os antes de prosseguir com o seguinte tutorial. O tutorial de Kleopatra nostr:nevent1qqs8h7vsn5j6qh35949sa60dms4fneussmv9jd76n24lsmtz24k0xlqzyp9636rd9ktcjmwfxd7ru5qxjxyn6uch2uhas8utg8wa5hvf6vk7gqcyqqqqqqgecq8f7 é complementar dado que é extremamente recomendado assinar e criptografar as mensagens que seguem por emails pela DW. Sem mais delongas, vamos ao tutorial de fato. ## 1. Criando uma conta de email no hq.postman Relembrando: Esse tutorial considera que você já tenha acesso à I2P. Entre no seu navegador e acesse o endereço hq.postman.i2p. O roteador provavelmente já contém esse endereço no seu addressbook e não haverá a necessidade de inserir o endereço b32 completo. Após entrar no site vá para a página '1 - Creating a mailbox' https://image.nostr.build/d850379fe315d2abab71430949b06d3fa49366d91df4c9b00a4a8367d53fcca3.jpg Nessa página, insira as credenciais de sua preferências nos campos do formulário abaixo. Lembre-se que o seu endereço de email aceita apenas letras e números. Clique em 'Proceed' depois que preencher todos os campos. https://image.nostr.build/670dfda7264db393e48391f217e60a2eb87d85c2729360c8ef6fe0cf52508ab4.jpg Uma página vai aparecer pedindo para confirmar as credenciais da sua nova conta. Se tudo estiver certo apenas clique em 'Confirm and Create Mailbox'. Se tudo ocorrer como conforme haverá uma confirmação de que a sua nova conta foi criada com sucesso. Após isso aguarde por volta de 5 minutos antes de tentar acessá-la, para que haja tempo suficiente para o servidor atualizar o banco de dados. https://image.nostr.build/ec58fb826bffa60791fedfd9c89a25d592ac3d11645b270c936c60a7c59c067f.jpg https://image.nostr.build/a2b7710d1e3cbb36431acb9055fd62937986b4da4b1a1bbb06d3f3cb1f544fd3.jpg Pronto! Sua nova conta de email na I2P foi criada. Agora vamos para a próxima etapa: como acessar a sua conta via um cliente de email. ## 2. Configurando os túneis cliente de SMTP e POP3 O hq.postman não possui um cliente web que nos permite acessar a nossa conta pelo navegador. Para isso precisamos usar um cliente como Thunderbird e configurar os túneis cliente no I2Pd que serão necessários para o Thunderbird se comunicar com o servidor pela I2P. Caso não tenha instalado o Thunderbird ainda, faça-o agora antes de prosseguir. Vamos configurar os túneis cliente do servidor de email no nosso roteador. Para isso abra um terminal ou o seu gestor de arquivos e vá para a pasta de configuração de túneis do I2P. Em Linux esse diretório se localiza em /etc/i2pd/tunnels.d. Em Windows, essa pasta se localiza em C:\users\user\APPDATA\i2pd. Na pasta tunnels.d crie dois arquivos: smtp.postman.conf e pop-postman.conf. Lembre-se que em Linux você precisa de permissões de root para escrever na pasta de configuração. Use o comando sudoedit <nome_do_arquivo> para isso. Edite-os conforme as imagens a seguir: Arquivo pop-postman.conf https://image.nostr.build/7e03505c8bc3b632ca5db1f8eaefc6cecb4743cd2096d211dd90bbdc16fe2593.jpg Arquivo smtp-postman.conf https://image.nostr.build/2d06c021841dedd6000c9fc2a641ed519b3be3c6125000b188842cd0a5af3d16.jpg Salve os arquivos e reinicie o serviço do I2Pd. Em Linux isso é feito pelo comando: ``` sudo systemctl restart i2pd ``` Entre no Webconsole do I2Pd pelo navegador (localhost:7070) e na seção I2P Tunnels, verifique se os túneis pop-postman e smtp-postman foram criados, caso contrário verifique se há algum erro nos arquivos e reinicie o serviço. Com os túneis cliente criados, vamos agora configurar o Thunderbird ## 3. Configurando o Thunderbird para acessar a nossa conta Abra o Thunderbird e clique em criar uma nova conta de email. Se você não tiver nenhum conta previamente presente nele você vai ser diretamente recebido pela janela de criação de conta a seguir. https://image.nostr.build/e9509d7bd30623716ef9adcad76c1d465f5bc3d5840e0c35fe4faa85740f41b4.jpg https://image.nostr.build/688b59b8352a17389902ec1e99d7484e310d7d287491b34f562b8cdd9dbe8a99.jpg Coloque as suas credenciais, mas não clique ainda em Continuar. Clique antes em Configure Manually, já que precisamos configurar manualmente os servidores de SMTP e POP3 para, respectivamente, enviar e receber mensagens. Preencha os campos como na imagem a seguir. Detalhe: Não coloque o seu endereço completo com o @mail.i2p, apenas o nome da sua conta. https://image.nostr.build/4610b0315c0a3b741965d3d7c1e4aff6425a167297e323ba8490f4325f40cdcc.jpg Clique em Re-test para verificar a integridade da conexão. Se tudo estiver certo uma mensagem irá aparecer avisando que as configurações do servidores estão corretas. Clique em Done assim que estiver pronto para prosseguir. https://image.nostr.build/8a47bb292f94b0d9d474d4d4a134f8d73afb84ecf1d4c0a7eb6366d46bf3973a.jpg A seguinte mensagem vai aparecer alertando que não estamos usando criptografia no envio das credenciais. Não há problema nenhum aqui, pois a I2P está garantindo toda a proteção e anonimato dos nossos dados, o que dispensa a necessidade de uso de TLS ou qualquer tecnologia similar nas camadas acima. Marque a opção 'I Understand the risks' e clique em 'Continue' https://image.nostr.build/9c1bf585248773297d2cb1d9705c1be3bd815e2be85d4342227f1db2f13a9cc6.jpg E por fim, se tudo ocorreu como devido sua conta será criada com sucesso e você agora será capaz de enviar e receber emails pela I2P usando essa conta. https://image.nostr.build/8ba7f2c160453c9bfa172fa9a30b642a7ee9ae3eeb9b78b4dc24ce25aa2c7ecc.jpg ## 4. Observações e considerações finais Como informado pelo próprio site do hq.postman, o domínio @mail.i2p serve apenas para emails enviados dentro da I2P. Emails enviados pela surface devem usar o domínio @i2pmai.org. É imprescindível que você saiba usar o PGP para assinar e criptografar as suas mensagens, dado que provavelmente as mensagens não são armazenadas de forma criptografada enquanto elas estão armazenadas no servidor. Como o protocolo POP3 delete as mensagens no imediato momento em que você as recebe, não há necessidade de fazer qualquer limpeza na sua conta de forma manual. Por fim, espero que esse tutorial tenha sido útil para vocês. Que seu conhecimento tenha expandido ainda mais com as informações trazidas aqui. Até a próxima.

@ a367f9eb:0633efea

Last week, an investigation by Reuters revealed that Chinese researchers have been using open-source AI tools to build nefarious-sounding models that may have some military application. The [reporting](https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/chinese-researchers-develop-ai-model-military-use-back-metas-llama-2024-11-01/) purports that adversaries in the Chinese Communist Party and its military wing are taking advantage of the liberal software licensing of American innovations in the AI space, which could someday have capabilities to presumably harm the United States. > In a June paper reviewed by Reuters, six Chinese researchers from three institutions, including two under the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) leading research body, the Academy of Military Science (AMS), detailed how they had used an early version of Meta’s Llama as a base for what it calls “ChatBIT”. > > The researchers used an earlier Llama 13B large language model (LLM) from Meta, incorporating their own parameters to construct a military-focused AI tool to gather and process intelligence, and offer accurate and reliable information for operational decision-making. While I’m doubtful that today’s existing chatbot-like tools will be the ultimate battlefield for a new geopolitical war (queue up the computer-simulated war from the Star Trek episode “A Taste of Armageddon“), this recent exposé requires us to revisit why large language models are released as open-source code in the first place. Added to that, should it matter that an adversary is having a poke around and may ultimately use them for some purpose we may not like, whether that be China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran? The number of open-source AI LLMs continues to grow each day, with projects like Vicuna, LLaMA, BLOOMB, Falcon, and Mistral available for download. In fact, there are over one million open-source LLMs available as of writing this post. With some decent hardware, every global citizen can download these codebases and run them on their computer. With regard to this specific story, we could assume it to be a selective leak by a competitor of Meta which created the LLaMA model, intended to harm its reputation among those with cybersecurity and national security credentials. There are potentially trillions of dollars on the line. Or it could be the revelation of something more sinister happening in the military-sponsored labs of Chinese hackers who have already been caught attacking American infrastructure, data, and yes, your credit history? As consumer advocates who believe in the necessity of liberal democracies to safeguard our liberties against authoritarianism, we should absolutely remain skeptical when it comes to the communist regime in Beijing. We’ve written as much many times. At the same time, however, we should not subrogate our own critical thinking and principles because it suits a convenient narrative. Consumers of all stripes deserve technological freedom, and innovators should be free to provide that to us. And open-source software has provided the very foundations for all of this. Open-source matters When we discuss open-source software and code, what we’re really talking about is the ability for people other than the creators to use it. The various licensing schemes – ranging from GNU General Public License (GPL) to the MIT License and various public domain classifications – determine whether other people can use the code, edit it to their liking, and run it on their machine. Some licenses even allow you to monetize the modifications you’ve made. While many different types of software will be fully licensed and made proprietary, restricting or even penalizing those who attempt to use it on their own, many developers have created software intended to be released to the public. This allows multiple contributors to add to the codebase and to make changes to improve it for public benefit. Open-source software matters because anyone, anywhere can download and run the code on their own. They can also modify it, edit it, and tailor it to their specific need. The code is intended to be shared and built upon not because of some altruistic belief, but rather to make it accessible for everyone and create a broad base. This is how we create standards for technologies that provide the ground floor for further tinkering to deliver value to consumers. Open-source libraries create the building blocks that decrease the hassle and cost of building a new web platform, smartphone, or even a computer language. They distribute common code that can be built upon, assuring interoperability and setting standards for all of our devices and technologies to talk to each other. I am myself a proponent of open-source software. The server I run in my home has dozens of dockerized applications sourced directly from open-source contributors on GitHub and DockerHub. When there are versions or adaptations that I don’t like, I can pick and choose which I prefer. I can even make comments or add edits if I’ve found a better way for them to run. Whether you know it or not, many of you run the Linux operating system as the base for your Macbook or any other computer and use all kinds of web tools that have active repositories forked or modified by open-source contributors online. This code is auditable by everyone and can be scrutinized or reviewed by whoever wants to (even AI bots). This is the same software that runs your airlines, powers the farms that deliver your food, and supports the entire global monetary system. The code of the first decentralized cryptocurrency Bitcoin is also open-source, which has allowed thousands of copycat protocols that have revolutionized how we view money. You know what else is open-source and available for everyone to use, modify, and build upon? PHP, Mozilla Firefox, LibreOffice, MySQL, Python, Git, Docker, and WordPress. All protocols and languages that power the web. Friend or foe alike, anyone can download these pieces of software and run them how they see fit. Open-source code is speech, and it is knowledge. We build upon it to make information and technology accessible. Attempts to curb open-source, therefore, amount to restricting speech and knowledge. Open-source is for your friends, and enemies In the context of Artificial Intelligence, many different developers and companies have chosen to take their large language models and make them available via an open-source license. At this very moment, you can click on over to Hugging Face, download an AI model, and build a chatbot or scripting machine suited to your needs. All for free (as long as you have the power and bandwidth). Thousands of companies in the AI sector are doing this at this very moment, discovering ways of building on top of open-source models to develop new apps, tools, and services to offer to companies and individuals. It’s how many different applications are coming to life and thousands more jobs are being created. We know this can be useful to friends, but what about enemies? As the AI wars heat up between liberal democracies like the US, the UK, and (sluggishly) the European Union, we know that authoritarian adversaries like the CCP and Russia are building their own applications. The fear that China will use open-source US models to create some kind of military application is a clear and present danger for many political and national security researchers, as well as politicians. A bipartisan group of US House lawmakers want to put export controls on AI models, as well as block foreign access to US cloud servers that may be hosting AI software. If this seems familiar, we should also remember that the US government once classified cryptography and encryption as “munitions” that could not be exported to other countries (see The Crypto Wars). Many of the arguments we hear today were invoked by some of the same people as back then. Now, encryption protocols are the gold standard for many different banking and web services, messaging, and all kinds of electronic communication. We expect our friends to use it, and our foes as well. Because code is knowledge and speech, we know how to evaluate it and respond if we need to. Regardless of who uses open-source AI, this is how we should view it today. These are merely tools that people will use for good or ill. It’s up to governments to determine how best to stop illiberal or nefarious uses that harm us, rather than try to outlaw or restrict building of free and open software in the first place. Limiting open-source threatens our own advancement If we set out to restrict and limit our ability to create and share open-source code, no matter who uses it, that would be tantamount to imposing censorship. There must be another way. If there is a “Hundred Year Marathon” between the United States and liberal democracies on one side and autocracies like the Chinese Communist Party on the other, this is not something that will be won or lost based on software licenses. We need as much competition as possible. The Chinese military has been building up its capabilities with trillions of dollars’ worth of investments that span far beyond AI chatbots and skip logic protocols. The theft of intellectual property at factories in Shenzhen, or in US courts by third-party litigation funding coming from China, is very real and will have serious economic consequences. It may even change the balance of power if our economies and countries turn to war footing. But these are separate issues from the ability of free people to create and share open-source code which we can all benefit from. In fact, if we want to continue our way our life and continue to add to global productivity and growth, it’s demanded that we defend open-source. If liberal democracies want to compete with our global adversaries, it will not be done by reducing the freedoms of citizens in our own countries. Last week, an investigation by Reuters revealed that Chinese researchers have been using open-source AI tools to build nefarious-sounding models that may have some military application. The reporting purports that adversaries in the Chinese Communist Party and its military wing are taking advantage of the liberal software licensing of American innovations in the AI space, which could someday have capabilities to presumably harm the United States. > In a June paper reviewed by[ Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/chinese-researchers-develop-ai-model-military-use-back-metas-llama-2024-11-01/), six Chinese researchers from three institutions, including two under the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) leading research body, the Academy of Military Science (AMS), detailed how they had used an early version of Meta’s Llama as a base for what it calls “ChatBIT”. > > The researchers used an earlier Llama 13B large language model (LLM) from Meta, incorporating their own parameters to construct a military-focused AI tool to gather and process intelligence, and offer accurate and reliable information for operational decision-making. While I’m doubtful that today’s existing chatbot-like tools will be the ultimate battlefield for a new geopolitical war (queue up the computer-simulated war from the *Star Trek* episode “[A Taste of Armageddon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon)“), this recent exposé requires us to revisit why large language models are released as open-source code in the first place. Added to that, should it matter that an adversary is having a poke around and may ultimately use them for some purpose we may not like, whether that be China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran? The number of open-source AI LLMs continues to grow each day, with projects like Vicuna, LLaMA, BLOOMB, Falcon, and Mistral available for download. In fact, there are over [one million open-source LLMs](https://huggingface.co/models) available as of writing this post. With some decent hardware, every global citizen can download these codebases and run them on their computer. With regard to this specific story, we could assume it to be a selective leak by a competitor of Meta which created the LLaMA model, intended to harm its reputation among those with cybersecurity and national security credentials. There are [potentially](https://bigthink.com/business/the-trillion-dollar-ai-race-to-create-digital-god/) trillions of dollars on the line. Or it could be the revelation of something more sinister happening in the military-sponsored labs of Chinese hackers who have already been caught attacking American[ infrastructure](https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/chinese-hackers-cisa-cyber-5-years-us-infrastructure-attack-rcna137706),[ data](https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/05/politics/chinese-hackers-us-telecoms/index.html), and yes, [your credit history](https://thespectator.com/topic/chinese-communist-party-credit-history-equifax/)? **As consumer advocates who believe in the necessity of liberal democracies to safeguard our liberties against authoritarianism, we should absolutely remain skeptical when it comes to the communist regime in Beijing. We’ve written as much[ many times](https://consumerchoicecenter.org/made-in-china-sold-in-china/).** At the same time, however, we should not subrogate our own critical thinking and principles because it suits a convenient narrative. Consumers of all stripes deserve technological freedom, and innovators should be free to provide that to us. And open-source software has provided the very foundations for all of this. ## **Open-source matters** When we discuss open-source software and code, what we’re really talking about is the ability for people other than the creators to use it. The various [licensing schemes](https://opensource.org/licenses) – ranging from GNU General Public License (GPL) to the MIT License and various public domain classifications – determine whether other people can use the code, edit it to their liking, and run it on their machine. Some licenses even allow you to monetize the modifications you’ve made. While many different types of software will be fully licensed and made proprietary, restricting or even penalizing those who attempt to use it on their own, many developers have created software intended to be released to the public. This allows multiple contributors to add to the codebase and to make changes to improve it for public benefit. Open-source software matters because anyone, anywhere can download and run the code on their own. They can also modify it, edit it, and tailor it to their specific need. The code is intended to be shared and built upon not because of some altruistic belief, but rather to make it accessible for everyone and create a broad base. This is how we create standards for technologies that provide the ground floor for further tinkering to deliver value to consumers. Open-source libraries create the building blocks that decrease the hassle and cost of building a new web platform, smartphone, or even a computer language. They distribute common code that can be built upon, assuring interoperability and setting standards for all of our devices and technologies to talk to each other. I am myself a proponent of open-source software. The server I run in my home has dozens of dockerized applications sourced directly from open-source contributors on GitHub and DockerHub. When there are versions or adaptations that I don’t like, I can pick and choose which I prefer. I can even make comments or add edits if I’ve found a better way for them to run. Whether you know it or not, many of you run the Linux operating system as the base for your Macbook or any other computer and use all kinds of web tools that have active repositories forked or modified by open-source contributors online. This code is auditable by everyone and can be scrutinized or reviewed by whoever wants to (even AI bots). This is the same software that runs your airlines, powers the farms that deliver your food, and supports the entire global monetary system. The code of the first decentralized cryptocurrency Bitcoin is also [open-source](https://github.com/bitcoin), which has allowed [thousands](https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/bitcoin-is-money-for-enemies) of copycat protocols that have revolutionized how we view money. You know what else is open-source and available for everyone to use, modify, and build upon? PHP, Mozilla Firefox, LibreOffice, MySQL, Python, Git, Docker, and WordPress. All protocols and languages that power the web. Friend or foe alike, anyone can download these pieces of software and run them how they see fit. Open-source code is speech, and it is knowledge. We build upon it to make information and technology accessible. Attempts to curb open-source, therefore, amount to restricting speech and knowledge. ## **Open-source is for your friends, and enemies** In the context of Artificial Intelligence, many different developers and companies have chosen to take their large language models and make them available via an open-source license. At this very moment, you can click on over to[ Hugging Face](https://huggingface.co/), download an AI model, and build a chatbot or scripting machine suited to your needs. All for free (as long as you have the power and bandwidth). Thousands of companies in the AI sector are doing this at this very moment, discovering ways of building on top of open-source models to develop new apps, tools, and services to offer to companies and individuals. It’s how many different applications are coming to life and thousands more jobs are being created. We know this can be useful to friends, but what about enemies? As the AI wars heat up between liberal democracies like the US, the UK, and (sluggishly) the European Union, we know that authoritarian adversaries like the CCP and Russia are building their own applications. The fear that China will use open-source US models to create some kind of military application is a clear and present danger for many political and national security researchers, as well as politicians. A bipartisan group of US House lawmakers want to put [export controls](https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-lawmakers-unveil-bill-make-it-easier-restrict-exports-ai-models-2024-05-10/) on AI models, as well as block foreign access to US cloud servers that may be hosting AI software. If this seems familiar, we should also remember that the US government once classified cryptography and encryption as “munitions” that could not be exported to other countries (see[ The Crypto Wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States)). Many of the arguments we hear today were invoked by some of the same people as back then. Now, encryption protocols are the gold standard for many different banking and web services, messaging, and all kinds of electronic communication. We expect our friends to use it, and our foes as well. Because code is knowledge and speech, we know how to evaluate it and respond if we need to. Regardless of who uses open-source AI, this is how we should view it today. These are merely tools that people will use for good or ill. It’s up to governments to determine how best to stop illiberal or nefarious uses that harm us, rather than try to outlaw or restrict building of free and open software in the first place. ## **Limiting open-source threatens our own advancement** If we set out to restrict and limit our ability to create and share open-source code, no matter who uses it, that would be tantamount to imposing censorship. There must be another way. If there is a “[Hundred Year Marathon](https://www.amazon.com/Hundred-Year-Marathon-Strategy-Replace-Superpower/dp/1250081343)” between the United States and liberal democracies on one side and autocracies like the Chinese Communist Party on the other, this is not something that will be won or lost based on software licenses. We need as much competition as possible. The Chinese military has been building up its capabilities with [trillions of dollars’](https://www.economist.com/china/2024/11/04/in-some-areas-of-military-strength-china-has-surpassed-america) worth of investments that span far beyond AI chatbots and skip logic protocols. The [theft](https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/06/20/1075088/chinese-amazon-seller-counterfeit-lawsuit/) of intellectual property at factories in Shenzhen, or in US courts by [third-party litigation funding](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/techland/litigation-finance-exposes-our-judicial-system-foreign-exploitation-210207) coming from China, is very real and will have serious economic consequences. It may even change the balance of power if our economies and countries turn to war footing. But these are separate issues from the ability of free people to create and share open-source code which we can all benefit from. In fact, if we want to continue our way our life and continue to add to global productivity and growth, it’s demanded that we defend open-source. If liberal democracies want to compete with our global adversaries, it will not be done by reducing the freedoms of citizens in our own countries. *Originally published on the website of the [Consumer Choice Center](https://consumerchoicecenter.org/open-source-is-for-everyone-even-your-adversaries/).*

@ c8cf63be:86691cfe

- [Wie es zu dem Buch kam](#wie-es-zu-dem-buch-kam) - [Vor dem Vorwort eine Erklärung](#vor-dem-vorwort-eine-erklärung) - [Prolog](#prolog) - [Die Zukunft im Heute oder Warum sind die Kinder wichtig](#die-zukunft-im-heute-oder-warum-sind-die-kinder-wichtig) - [Politik an den Bedürfnissen der Kinder ausgerichtet](#politik-an-den-bedürfnissen-der-kinder-ausgerichtet) - [Ableiten der Prinzipien einer an Kindern ausgerichteten Politik](#ableiten-der-prinzipien-einer-an-kindern-ausgerichteten-politik) - [Grundbestimmungen](#grundbestimmungen) - [Pazifismus](#pazifismus) - [Säkularismus](#säkularismus) - [Gegenwartsbezogenheit](#gegenwartsbezogenheit) - [Strukturelle Unabgeschlossenheit](#strukturelle-unabgeschlossenheit) - [Erhalt der natürlichen Lebensgrundlagen](#erhalt-der-natürlichen-lebensgrundlagen) - [Solidarität](#solidarität) - [Gerechtigkeit](#gerechtigkeit) - [Lebenszeit als Schatz](#lebenszeit-als-schatz) - [Kooperation statt Wettbewerb](#kooperation-statt-wettbewerb) - [Bekenntnis zu den universellen Menschenrechten](#bekenntnis-zu-den-universellen-menschenrechten) - [Formale Überlegungen](#formale-überlegungen) - [Die Partei als Labor](#die-partei-als-labor) - [Wer wird wie und warum Politiker in Deutschland](#wer-wird-wie-und-warum-politiker-in-deutschland)  ## Wie es zu dem Buch kam Oder Warum nicht eine Partei? Weil dieses Buch auch das Buch eines persönlichen Scheiterns ist in dem das Scheitern des Parteiprojektes abgearbeitet und korrigiert werden soll. 2016 haben wir begonnen mit der Konzeption einer Partei in Deutschland, motiviert durch die Erfahrung mit den Piraten schien der Weg über die Institutionen gehbar, die Zeit reif für neue Parteien und klare Werte. Als universellen Wert haben wir die Verantwortung gegenüber unseren Kindern herausgearbeitet. Sehr erstaunlich war dies der einzige Wert den wir brauchten, alles weitere ließ sich aus diesem einfachen und klaren Wert ableiten. So begannen wir mit einer Konzeption die wir in einem Wiki abgelegt haben. Ein Wiki Export dieser Zeit ist als Archiv abgelegt[1]. Satzung, Grundsätze, Geschäftsordnungen, Programm, Namen: “Kreis für Umwelt, Erwachsene, Kinder und ernsthafte Nachhaltigkeit” KUEKeN Aus der Erfahrung die wir mit den Piraten sammeln durften war klar, wenn die Partei erfolgreich sein sollte würde sie in der selben Art wie die Piraten unterlaufen und ausgehöhlt werden. Anders als das BSW [2] haben wir uns für eine Formale Absicherung der Partei entschieden. So entstanden die Grundbestimmungen. In unsere Vorstellung kamen die ganzen “ungeborenes Leben Schützen” Christen zu uns und wollten mit machen, und klar ist, diese Christen verwechseln etwas. Zwei Kinder später war schon Ende 2019. Aus der KUEKEN-Partei wurde derKUEKeN der der Verletzlichkeit ein Maskulin voranstellt, was auch formal nicht falsch ist, ist es doch der Kreis, ein griffiges Motto entwickelt “radikal trivial” das sowohl die Einfachheit als auch die Kompromisslosigkeit kombiniert. Einem Dreiklang aus **Kinder Verantwortung Zukunft** mit der Verantwortung als das Durchreichende Prinzip das unsere Kinder in die Zukunft führt. Exemplarisch haben wir Kampagnen entworfen[3] um die politischen Positionen zu verdeutlichen. Im Mai ’20 wäre das Myfest[4] gewesen und wir hätten einen neuen Anlauf für eine Parteigründung unternommen.(Prospekte und Luftballons waren gedruckt) Stattdessen kam Corona und die Idee, sich mit 70 Menschen in einem geschlossenen Raum über Stunden zu treffen, die Gründungsveranstaltung, war nicht angesagt sondern abgesagt. Ein einfaches Sprichwort sagt, “Wenn dir etwas dreimal passiert, bist du selber schuld.” Nach dem zweiten Scheitern galt es also etwas zu verändern. Damit entstand die Idee für dieses Buch. In diesem Buch kann ich, ein erster Wechsel der Perspektive[5], dem Gedanken, der den Kern der Partei ausmacht, nachgehen und entfalten. Die Universalität darstellen und, hier kommt der zweite Wechsel der Perspektive in einem Hoffmanneschen Sinne, mich an dich, wehrten Leser wenden. Ich möchte dich warnen fortzufahren. Wie Rokos Baselisk[6] hat das Folgende Konsequenzen. Denn Wissen kann nicht zurück genommen werden. In dieser Situation war ich, aber Wissen kann weiter gegeben werden und es verdoppelt sich. Und so kann es dann dir gehen: Wie es mir geht. Wir können wissen was wir tun sollten und sogar warum. Damit zu leben ist gar nicht so einfach, daher die eindringliche Warnung, noch, geneigter Leser, kannst du umkehren, das Buch zu schlagen und vergessen. Für mich ist es zu spät, meine Perspektive ist geschärft, so wie das Lernen der Schrift eine Veränderung im Gehirn bewirkt, die es uns unmöglich macht etwas nicht als einen Buchstaben oder als ein Wort zu erkennen so kann sich deine Anschauung der Wirklichkeit ändern. Die Differenz zwischen dem Erkannten und dem Wirklichen ist groß und wird größer. Diese Differenz wird eine Leerstelle werden die schmerzt. Aber vielleicht kennst du diesen Scherz auch schon.  ## Vor dem Vorwort eine Erklärung > *„Die Verdinglichung, kraft deren die einzig durch die Passivität der > Massen ermöglichte Machtstruktur diesen selbst als eiserne > Wirklichkeit entgegentritt, ist so dicht geworden, daß jede > Spontanität, ja die bloße Vorstellung vom wahren Sachverhalt notwendig > zur verstiegenen Utopie, zum abwegigen Sektierertum geworden ist. Der > Schein hat sich so konzentriert, daß ihn zu durchschauen objektiv den > Charakter der Halluzination gewinnt.“*[7] Wir unternehmen hier den Versuch eines *abwegigen Sektierertum*, wir skizzieren eine politische Kraft, in Form einer Partei, **mit dem Kindeswohle im Mittelpunkt**. Wir versuchen uns den *wahren Sachverhalt* klar zu machen: Wir sind auf einem sinkenden Schiff, seit je her war hier die Formel “Kinder und Frauen zuerst”. Unser Raumschiff Erde [8] ist in einem schlechten Zustand. [9] Die Skizze umfasst einen theoretischen Teil, der sich mit der Begründung für eine solche, “das Kindeswohl in den Mittelpunkt der politischen Aufmerksamkeit stellenden”, Politische Position und den sich daraus ergebenden Konsequenzen befasst. Wir entwickeln die Metaphysik einer *verstiegenen Utopie* [10]. Beispielhaft entwickeln wir ein Programm, das den Charakter einer “das Kindeswohl in den Mittelpunkt der Aufmerksamkeit stellenden Politik” anhand konkreter legeslativer Änderungen deutlich macht. Am Ende des Buches ist ein konkreter Bastelabschnitt, in dem die notwendigen formalen Strukturen beschrieben sind, um eine solche Partei in Deutschland zu gründen. Weil wir uns *abwegig* bewegen, werden sich viele, einfache Vorstellungen im ersten Moment fremd anfühlen, *abwegig* und *verstiegen*; hier hilft nur das Üben. Im Kapitel “Digging Deeper” gehen wir diesen Vorstellungen nach, in einem mehr praktischen Teil, den FAQ und den Erörterungen zur Begründung der “Kaderschule”. Begründung sind wichtig und dürfen nicht vernachlässigt werden, nur in der Erörterung und der schriftlichen Begründung öffnet sich das Kritische Denken.[11] Was sind *“wahre Sachverhalte”*? Die Antwort darauf kann nicht sein, es gibt keine. Poppers Beispiel ist einfach: Die Negation eines Falschen Satzes ist ein wahrer Satz.[12] Bescheiden können wir sagen, es gibt wahre Sätze, aber wir können die wahren nicht von den falschen unterscheiden [13]. Die Frage nach den wahren Sätzen ist eine Frage nach der Wirklichkeit. Eine schöne Frage: **Was ist wirklich?** Gibt es Staaten und Betriebe, wie Deutschland und Volkswagen? Oder gibt es nicht vielmehr, oder sagen wir weniger, nur Menschen und Dinge, wie Häuser, Produktionsanlagen und dergleichen. Wenn wir uns die einfache Wirklichkeit vorstellen, d.h. die Erde, wie sie um die Sonne kreist, die Menschen ,die Wesen und der Stoff aus dem wir alle gemacht sind, dann existieren diese Dinge wie Staaten, Betriebe u.ä. nicht. Sie existieren nur dadurch, das Menschen sie praktizieren. Wir Menschen produzieren diese *“eiserne Wirklichkeit”* die uns da *“entgegentritt”*. Genau deswegen ist sie eine zweite Wirklichkeit, keine erste. Eine von Menschen produzierte und wie alle Produkte menschlichen Handelns ist sie maßgeblich dadurch bestimmt was wir von der ersten Wirklichkeit, der wirklichen Wirklichkeit, glauben zu wissen. So wissen wir, das wir diese Dinge ändern können. Das die *Halluzination* die Wirklichkeit konkreter, schöner und wahrer beschreiben und formen kann -in ihrem Bilde-. Das Motto dieses *abwegigen Sektieretums* wird diese einfache Wirklichkeit sein: *radikal trivial* ist ihr Slogan.[14] Und Nichts weniger als “das Retten der Welt” und Ewiger Frieden” das erklärte Ziel.  ## Prolog Die Partei ist ein Vehikel, den öffentlichen Diskurs auf das relevante Thema der Gesellschaft zu lenken. Das relevante Thema, das uns angeht, ist die Zukunft; denn dies ist der Raum, der durch die Gegenwart gestaltbar ist. Hier liegt der Unterschied zwischen Verwaltung und Politik: Verwaltet wird die Gegenwart, das Primat der Politik ist die Gestaltung der Zukunft. Das klarste Zeichen der Zukunft sind die Kinder. Es sind unsere Kinder und sie sind immer auch Kinder der Gesellschaft. In ihnen zeichnet sich Verantwortung am deutlichsten ab. Diese Verantwortlichkeit liegt bei uns, den mündigen Bürgern etwa als Eltern, Großeltern, Erziehern und auch Politikern. Der Ausgangspunkt soll einfach sein, er soll bei der Frage liegen: Wie kann unsere Gesellschaft aufgebaut und strukturiert sein, sodass sie unseren Kindern eine gute Gesellschaft und Gemeinschaft bietet? Als gute Gesellschaft möge die Fähigkeit gelten, unsere Kinder zu wahreren, klügeren und besseren Menschen zu machen, als wir es sind. Es ist ein Freude anzuschauen. Ausgangspunkt jeden politischen Handelns wird so die Frage nach der Zweckhaftigkeit für unsere Kinder. Das ist ein radikaler Wandel der Perspektive. Wir folgen im ersten Schritt Hans Jonas, Fürsorge für den Nachwuchs: “Hier ist der Archetyp alles verantwortlichen Handelns \[…\]”.[15] Jeder von uns war ein Säugling, dessen Bedürftigkeit angenommen und entsprochen, dessen Anspruch auf Leben angenommen und positiv beantwortet wurde. Selbst in den tragischen Schicksalen von Ausgrenzung und Verstoßung sind wir Zeichen dieser Verantwortung, die, wenn nicht von den konkreten Menschen ausgeübt, durch Institutionen angenommen wird. Hier ist eine einfache und klare Natur des Menschen erkennbar : „Verantwortung im ursprünglichsten und massivsten Sinn folgt aus der Urheberschaft des Seins, an der über die aktuellen Erzeuger hinaus alle beteiligt sind, die der Fortpflanzung durch Nichtwiderruf ihres Fiat im eigen Fall beipflichten, also alle, die sich selber das Leben erlauben“.[16] Das sind wir: die erwachsenen und mündigen Bürger. Mit dieser Verantwortung gegenüber unseren Kindern nehmen wir auch die Verantwortung für uns selbst wahr. Denn wir selbst sind das notwendige Hilfsmittel, durch das sich diese Verantwortung realisiert. Wir sind uns selbst gegenüber verantwortlich, weil wir unseren Kindern gegenüber verantwortlich sind und niemand sonst diese Verantwortung übernehmen könnte. Eine Politik, die sich an den Kindern ausrichtet, ist somit immer auch eine Politik, die sich an den Menschen ausrichtet. So wenden wir uns wieder unserer eigentlichen Verantwortung den Menschen und zuvorderst den Kindern der Gesellschaft zu, unseren Kindern. Mit einer konsequenten Verfolgung der Kindesinteressen werden also ebenso die Interessen aller Mitglieder einer Gesellschaft vertreten und gleichzeitig eine zukunftsfähige und nachhaltige Politik betrieben. In einer aufgeklärten Demokratie kommt der kritischen Öffentlichkeit eine spezifische Funktion zu: die der Selbstkontrolle. Diese Funktion kann nur mit und durch die Mündigen und ihren kritischen Einsatz des Verstandes erreicht werden. Auch dieser kritischen Öffentlichkeit muss unsere Sorge gelten. Und dies in zweierlei Hinsicht: Ist es nach Kant zum Einen die ‘Feigheit und Faulheit’ in uns, die unsere Mündigkeit zeitlebens bedroht, und damit auch die Öffentlichkeit, deren unentbehrlicher Teil jeder von uns ist, zum anderen in der Erziehung der noch nicht mündigen, der Kinder. Sie allein bilden nach uns diese kritische Öffentlichkeit. So weist das durch die Verantwortung gestiftete Sorge-System eine differenzierte Struktur auf. Es sind die Mündigen, deren Aufgabe und Pflicht es ist, den Unmündigen zur Mündigkeit zu verhelfen. Unserer aufgeklärte Gesellschaft, ihr ganzes demokratisches System hängt von der Fähigkeit ab, diese Mündigkeit zu bewahren. Im Strom der vergehenden Zeit bedeutet bewahren, dass die nächste Generation von Menschen mindestens so mündig ist wie wir. Die nächste Generation von Menschen ist die unserer Kinder. Das sind keine Fremden: Wir sind ihre Eltern und Großeltern, ihrer Verwandten und die Freunde dieser Menschen. Immer sind wir den Kindern gegenüber in der Pflicht, die sich aus dieser Verantwortung ableitet. Es besteht ein generativer Vertrag, der sich zwischen Eltern und Kindern, aber im Besonderen auch zwischen Kindern und Großeltern entfaltet. Sie verbinden die Kinder mit dem Vergangenen und angereichertem Kulturellen, dem symbolischen Milieu. Erst in diesem generativen Gefüge ist es den Kindern möglich, eine konkrete Beziehung mit dem gesellschaftlichen, dem symbolischen Milieu, aufzunehmen und selbst in der Abfolge der Generationen diese Rollen ausüben zu können. Durch die Verbindung der Kinder mit den Alten schließt sich der Kreis der Generationen. Durch sie wird der Kreislauf des Werdens und Vergehens, der das Leben ist, erfahrbar. Es sind die langen Kreisläufe, die sich durch dieses intergeneratives Verhältnis erleben und erfahren lassen und nur die langen weiten Kreisläufe sind als Narration geeignet, den Sinn zu stiften. „Die noch lebende Elterngeneration vermittelt ihm \[dem Kind\] auf diese Weise die durch Generationen angehäufte Erfahrung, die es mit seinen verstorbenen Vorfahren in Verbindung setzt“.[17] Eine auf den verantwortlichen Zweck bezogene Wirtschaft ist bedürfnisorientiert. Die Bedürfnisse ergeben sich aus unserer Art und Weise, wie wir auf diese Welt bezogen sind. Dies sind die objektiven Zwecke die Wirtschaft begründen können. Das Produzieren von Bedürfnissen, die Basis unsere absatzorientierten Wirtschaft hat keinen Zweck innerhalb dieser Verantwortung. In einer Welt, in der die materiellen Grundbedürfnisse übererfüllt werden, bauen wir Maschinen nicht, um mehr Güter herstellen zu können. Wir bauen Maschinen, um mehr Zeit zu haben. Zeit, die wir unseren Kindern widmen können, wie es unsere Verantwortung ist. Da diese Verantwortung ein originärer Teil unseres Daseins ist, ist hier auch Lust und in der Lust auch Befriedigung, echte Befriedigung, wie sie der Konsum nicht zu leisten vermag. „Mit der Tochter oder dem Enkel spielen bedeutet Lachen und sich mit ihnen *<die Zeit zu vertreiben>* - ihnen ein wenig von der eigene Zeit zu widmen, und zwar nicht nur für ihr Gehirn, sondern auch für die Entwicklung ihre minderjährigen Aufmerksamkeit …“[18] Die Norm wird heute nicht mehr von dem Menschen definiert. Sie ist ein vom Marketing gestiftetes Produkt. Entsprechend enthält sie keine andere Zweckhaftigkeit als die des Konsums. Das Marketing richtet sich speziell an die Kinder und Jugendlichen, um ihre Aufmerksamkeit zu binden. Es zerstört den Generationenvertrag, indem es die Jugendlichen zu Vorbildern für uns Erwachsene macht. Krieg widerspricht dem Lebenszweck und leugnet unsere Verantwortung gegenüber dem Leben. Wir müssen aufhören mit Krieg und demnach mit der Produktion von Kriegsgerät. Auch hier wird so viel Lebenszeit investiert, die unwiederbringlich verloren geht. Die Zeit, die diese Erwachsenen nicht mit den Kindern verbringen, ist verloren, für die Kinder und auch für die Erwachsenen. Sie ist verloren für uns alle. Es ist die verlorene Zukunft, die wir alle erleben, der Krieg wütet überall auf der Welt. Das Leid und die Verzweiflung wachsen. Dies alles sind Kapriolen des Rationalen - Die Dialektik der Aufklärung. Diese Rationalität ist auf sich selbst bezogen und nicht mehr auf das Leben, so wird diese übersteigerte Rationalität irrational. “Nicht indem sie ihm die ganze Befriedigung gewährt, haben die losgelassenen Produktionskolosse das Individuum überwunden, sondern indem sie es als Subjekt auslöschten. Eben darin besteht ihre vollendete Rationalität, die mit ihrer Verrücktheit zusammenfällt.”[19] Sie sind das Ergebnis einer Rationalität, die sich abgelöst hat vom Zweck und damit auch von der Welt und den Menschen. An diesen Stellen können uns die Kinder helfen, die Welt und die Menschen wieder in den Blick zu nehmen, die Bedürftigkeit zu objektivieren und zu begründen. Die Kinder in den Fokus zu rücken, bewahrt uns vor dem Überschlag des Denkens, sogar vor dem popeligen *<eigenen Vorteil>*. Hans Johnas “Sieh hin und du weißt”[20] können wir als Vorwegnahme des Spiegeleuronennprinzips verstehen. Wir sind bestens ausgestattet, die Bedürftigkeit in anderen zu erkennen, zu reflektieren und sie zu unseren eigenen zu machen. In der Verantwortung für unsere Kinder finden wir eine ähnliche Subjekt-Entlastung wie im Ritus oder im Spiel. Denn sie macht uns zum Teil eines größeren Systems, eines „Sorge-Systems“. Es entsteht ein generativer Vertrag, der die Geschichte stiftet, in der wir alle eine Heimat finden: Denn was bleibt, sind die bunten Geschichten. Die eigene individuelle Geschichte ist auf Wohl und Wehe mit der Kollektiven verknüpft, die zu Ende ginge ohne unsere Kinder. Traurig und leer wird die Welt der letzten Menschen sein. ## Die Zukunft im Heute oder Warum sind die Kinder wichtig Beginnen wir mit den letzten Menschen, wie wir im letzten Abschnitt mit ihnen geschlossen haben. *“Traurig und leer wird die Welt der letzten Menschen sein,”* denn sie haben keine Zukunft. Ein großer Teil des Möglichkeitsraumes im Denken ist geschlossen und die Welt ist auf der einen Seite klein, auf der anderen Seite aber weit, leer und aufgegeben, stumm - in dem Sinne das sie nicht mehr antwortet auf den Menschen, ihm nichts mehr zu sagen hat. Wir finden diese Vorstellung in “Im Land der leeren Häuser”[21] von P.D. James und anschaulich in “Children of Men”[22] dargestellt. Obwohl in der Gegenwart verhaftet, scheint uns die Zukunft wichtig zu sein. Samuel Scheffler untersucht die Beziehung, die wir Gegenwärtigen mit dieser unseren Zukunft haben in “Der Tod und das Leben danach”[23]. Er entwickelt ein einfaches Gedankenexperiment: “Würde es uns etwas ausmachen, wenn wir wüssten, das 30 Tagen nach unserem,persönlichen Tot die Welt der Menschen enden würde?”[24] Naiv lässt sich antworten, “natürlich nicht, denn eine Prämisse ist ja, ich merke es nicht, es geschieht nach meinem Tod.” Ist dem so? Richtig ist, es geschieht nach meinem Tod, und richtig ist auch, nach meinem Tod merke ich nichts;[25] aber das Wissen ändert etwas. [26] Es wäre nur egal, wüsste ich nicht davon. Eine triviale Aussage. Wenn das Wissen um den Untergang einen, Unterschied macht, dann weil Wissen eine Art des Merkens ist. Wir würden bis an unser Lebensende merken, dass die Welt untergeht. Die Naive Antwort ist also nur ein Schlussfehler, sie hat eine falsche Prämisse. Nun ist Merken ein ganz neutraler Begriff, ich kann merken, wie es weh tut, oder wie schön es ist. Es bedarf also weiterer Überlegungen über das, wie es sich anfühlt, was wir merken, wenn wir Wissen, dass unsere Welt untergehen wird. Würde es uns glücklich machen oder eher traurig? Wäre es eine relevante Information in dem Sinne das sie beständig bleibt? Das wohl, denn sie hätte einen direkten Bezug zu jeder meiner folgenden Tätigkeiten. Markiert es den Endpunkt meiner Wirkunsmächtigkeit. Nichts was ich tun kann, wird über diese 30 Jahre hinaus bestehen, in einem sehr interessanten Sinne. Wenn wir sagen, “nicht über die 30 Jahre hinaus bestehen”, dann ist das formal nicht richtig, natürlich würde eine Büste oder ein Buch u.v.a. über diese 30 Jahre hinaus bestehen, aber, erstaunlicherweise, ist das nicht was wir meinen, was wir meinen ist: Es braucht einen Betrachter, ein Buch, einen Leser u.s.w.u.s.f., erst dieser Andere schafft einen Kontext, der, gefühlt, meine Bedeutung in die Dinge bringt auf das sie -meine Bedeutung- erhalten bleibt. Diese zutiefst konservative Natur unsere Gefühle wird uns noch öfter begegnen. Interessant ist auch die Abhängigkeit in der wir Heutigen zu diesen uns Nachfolgenden stehen, dieser Andere schafft für uns den Kontext, in dem wir uns in der Zukunft, einer Vorgestellten, zu Hause fühlen können. Hier sind wir Ahnen und wir hoffen auch in Zukunft zu der Gemeinschaft zu gehören, eine offene Tür zu finden, eine Heimat und Vertrautheit. “Wenn uns das überrascht, liegt das weniger daran das wir blind für unseren eigenen Altruismus wären, sondern vielmehr daran, dass wir unsere Unabhängigkeit und Selbstgenügsamkeit überschätzt haben”[27] … “Aus dieser Perspektive tritt weniger ihrer Abhängigkeit von uns als unsere Abhängigkeit von ihnen in den Vordergrund.”[28] Hier läßt sich einwenden, das eine Büste oder ein Buch ein recht spezifischer Gegenstand ist, der, in sich, den Betrachter voraussetzt. “Betrachten wir, um ein Repräsentatives Beispiel zu wählen, das Projekt nach einer Heilmethode gegen Krebs. Dieses Projekt ist aus mindestens zwei Gründen anfällig. Zum einen ist es ein Projekt, für das klar ist, dass der letztendliche Erfolg noch weit in der Zukunft liegen könnte. … Zweitens liegt der Wert dieses Projekts zuallererst in der Aussicht, einmal in der Lage zu sein, die Krankheit zu heilen und den Tot und das Leid zu verhindern, die sie verursacht.”[29] Was ist mit dem Straßenbau? Es ist eine Straße in das Nirgendwo, hören wir auf die Straße zu befahren verliert sie ihre Richtung, ihren Anfang und ihr Ende, sie führt von Nirgends nach Nirgends. Alle diese Infrastrukturprojekte sie gleichen dieser Straße in das Nirgendwo. So viele der Tätigkeiten und Projekte hängt an der Zukunft. Uns bliebe nur zu “warten bis die Zeit vergeht”.[30] Hier zeigt sich der universale Zugang, den unsere Kinder für uns bereiten, sie gewähren uns den Zugang zu unserer Zukunft, die, erst durch sie, zu der Unsrigen wird. Nur durch diese gestiftete Verbindung wird das bloße Vergehen von Zeit zu einer Geschichte, zu unsere Geschichte. Nicht nur für die Eltern, für uns alle, die wir jetzt und hier leben. Deswegen sind diese Kinder nicht nur die Kinder ihrer Eltern, sie sind auch die Kinder der Gesellschaft. Als narrative Wesen sind wir Menschen an den Zauber der Geschichte und des Erzählens gebunden: > *„Nur im Rahmen einer Narration kann das Ende als Vollendung > erscheinen. Ohne jeden narrativen Schein ist das Ende immer ein > absoluter Verlust, ein absoluter Mangel.“*[31]  # Politik an den Bedürfnissen der Kinder ausgerichtet oder Warum eine Partei? Das relevante Thema, das uns angeht, ist also die Zukunft. Das klarste Zeichen der Zukunft sind die Kinder. Es sind unsere Kinder, und sie sind immer auch Kinder der Gesellschaft. Wäre es nicht angebracht, bei 20% armen oder armutgefährdeten Kindern, Kinderhilfsvereine zu gründen und aktiv den Kindern zu helfen, vor Ort und bei den Kindern? Das tun wir bereits und schon lange und wir können all diesen Menschen dankbar sein für ihre Arbeit. Die traurige Feststellung ist, dass es keinen Einfluss hat. Das die Armut weiter wächst die Klima Katasrophe sich ausweitet, Kriege die Welt überziehen. Mit Hilfsvereinen Kindern helfen hilft Kindern. Wir brauchen mehr. Das Primat der Politik ist die Gestaltung der Zukunft. Das klarste Zeichen der Zukunft sind die Kinder. Die Kampage “Samstag gehört Vati mir” [32] der IG Metall war der erfolgreichste Arbeitskampf, der geführt wurde. Wenn die Bedürfnisse der Kinder in den Fokus der Aufmerksamkeit gestellt werden, lässt sich erfolgreich Politik für alle Menschen machen. Wiederholen wir aus dem Prolog: Der Ausgangspunkt soll einfach sein, er soll bei der Frage liegen: **Wie kann unsere Gesellschaft aufgebaut und strukturiert sein, sodass sie unseren Kindern eine gute Gesellschaft und Gemeinschaft bietet?** Ausgangspunkt jeden politischen Handelns wird so die Frage nach der Zweckhaftigkeit für unsere Kinder. Das ist ein **radikaler Wandel** der Perspektive. Hier steckt der radikale Wandel, den wir brauchen, er vollzieht sich nicht in der ersten Wirklichkeit, sondern in der Zweiten. Denn der Wandel ist ein Wandel der Perspektive, diese Perspektive nimmt die Sorge in den Fokus und setzt uns als werantwortliche Wesen, die wir sind, voraus. Deutschland ist eine Parteiendemokratie, der öffentliche Diskurs wird massgeblich durch die Parteienlandschaft geprägt. Sehr gut erkennbar ist das bei den Piraten gewesen, die für eine Zeit, ohne parlamentarische Mehrheiten, gar Sitze überhaupt, einen starken Einfluss auf den allgemeinen politischen Diskurs hatten, indem sie die anderen Parteien vor sich her trieben. Diese haben sich in der Zeit die Augen gerieben, und überlegt was sie tun können, begannen zu adaptieren, aber auch zu intrigieren. Erkennbar war schon hier: Die etablierten Parteien sind Fähnchen im Wind und wir können der Wind sein der Weht. “The Wind of Change” [33]. Das selbe Phänomen das wir nun, 2023, mit der AFD beobachten dürfen. Der FPD Chef: Das der “Sozialstaat mit seinen im europäischen Vergleich sehr hohen Leistungen wie ein Magnet wirkt.” [34] oder der amtierende Bundeskanzler: “Wir müssen schneller abschieben” [35] Wir müssen von den Piraten viel lernen, und versuchen deren Fehler zu vermeiden. Viele Fehler der Piraten waren formaler Natur, so erstaunlich das klingt. Die Form wird durch die Strukturen bestimmt, und diese Strukturen waren nicht fest, so hat sich die Form geändert. [36] es ist das selbe Schicksal das die Grünen ereilte, die den ersten deutschen Angriffskrieg geführt haben. Alternative Positionen werden systematisch aus dem politischen Geschehen entfernt wie der Name ‘Alternative Liste’ aus den Namen der Grünen verschwunden ist, oder der Frieden aus dem Programm der Grünen.  ## Ableiten der Prinzipien einer an Kindern ausgerichteten Politik Oder: Die Grundbestimmungen als der feste Anker in der realen Politik. Das Bestimmen des Grundes ist die die Basis der Erklärung und damit die Basis der kritischen Auseinandersetzung. Erst ein bestimmter Grund liefert die Basis auf der sich eine Argumentation und zwangsläufiges Handeln aufspannen lassen. Diese Gründe sind nicht geboten, denn Gebote werden gegeben, aber wir müssen Bestimmen, denn es gibt keine Instanz neben uns, hier sind wir allein und in der Verantwortung und damit müssen wir die Gründe bestimmen nach denen wir Handeln. Um eine Unterwanderung und Umdeutung vorzubeugen, werden die zentralen Kerne aus Prinzipien abgeleitet die sich in der Satzung als Grundbestimmungen wiederfinden bzw. aufgenommen werden, diese können nach Satzung [37] nur schwerlich geändert werden, wie das Grundgesetz für alle Parteien nur, deutlich spezifischer. Das Ziel ist es, das Grundgesetz diesen Grundbestimmungen anzunähern. Siehe: “*Die Partei ist ein Labor*”. Diese Grundbestimmungen sind die Meßlatte, an denen sich die Politik zu orientieren hat, sie sind der Wertekanon der Partei, sie sind im Schiedsgericht einklagbar. Kein Vorsitzender kann mit einer kleinen Mehrheit einen Parteikurs gestalten, der den Grundbestimmungen zuwider läuft, nicht ohne aus dem Amt geklagt zu werden. Es wird nicht die Ankündigung geben, Kinderrechte in das Grundgesetz zu schreiben [38], um dann, eine Legislatur Periode später, 100 Milliarden für den Krieg bereit zu stellen [39], Grundgesetztlich verankert, anstelle der Kinderrechte. Hier sehen wir wie wichtig diese Formalitäten sind. Wie genau es eine Satzung zu konstruieren gilt, dass sie nicht hackbar ist, ist nur ganz bedingt Gegenstand unserer Überlegungen. Ein Beispiel ist im Bastelabschnitt niedergelegt. [40] Bei den Grundbestimmungen dürfen wir nicht sparen, sie müssen **radikal trivial**, also eingängig, herausfordernd und umfassend sein, sie bilden den Kern des *abwegigen Sektierertums* dem wir uns verschrieben haben. Der zentrale Kern, der alle Grundbestimmungen ausmacht, ist die **Sorge für unsere Kinder**, es ist die Frage aus dem Prolog: **Wie kann unsere Gesellschaft aufgebaut und strukturiert sein, sodass sie unseren Kindern eine gute Gesellschaft und Gemeinschaft bietet?** Das ist der Grund für unser Handeln. Es ist eine universelle Frage, sie ist uns Menschen gegeben, unabhängig von Kultur und Glaube, unabhängig vom Ort, ja sogar der Zeit, denn wir haben gesehen wie sehr **wir Alle**, also **jeder von uns**, abhängig von der Zukunft ist. Aber nicht nur diese Zukunftsabhänigkeit ist eine universelle, wichtiger ist diese einfache Wahrheit: Das **jeder von uns** ein Kind war. Wir Erwachsene waren Kinder, die in dieser Gesellschaft und Gemeinschaft aufgewachsen sind. Universell ist der Erfahrungszugang eines jeden von uns. Nicht *Was* aber *Das* wir eine Erfahrung vom Kindsein haben, ist uns Allen gemeinsam. Diese individuelle Erfahrung ist zugleich eine Kollektive und Universelle. Wir Menschen werden geboren und (be/um)sorgt, unserer Hilflosigkeit wird entsprochen. Wir alle tragen das Mal, an dem wir uns erkennen können. [41] Dieses Mal markiert die von Camus gesuchte “*Natur des Menschen*”. Es ist die Hilflosigkeit, das Angewiesen sein, um Leben zu können. > *„Die Analyse der Revolte führt mindestens zum Verdacht, dass es, wie > die Griechen dachten, im Gegensatz zu den Postulaten des heutigen > Denkens eine menschliche Natur gibt.“* [42] Und gleichzeitig ist diese Natur das Annehmen, die andere Seite unserer Hilflosigkeit, die Entsprechung dieser. Wenn wir leben, dann nur weil wir angenommen wurden. Weil es jemanden gab, einen Menschen, der für uns Verantwortung getragen hat. Diese Grundbestimmungen sollen Antworten sein auf genau diese Frage der Verantwortung. Zusammen ergeben sie den Entwurf einer *verstiegenen Utopie* einer Gesellschaft, die das Wohle der lebenden Kinder und damit der lebenden Menschen im Auge hat. Die Verantwortung für **unsere** Kinder unterscheidet diesen Entwurf von vermeintlich ähnlichen Entwürfen wie ‘Longtermism’ [43], die eine abstrakte Menschheit vor Augen haben. Dies ist eine utopische Vorstellung, die nicht die **Gegenwart von uns Allen** in den Blick nimmt, sondern abschweift in ein diffuses Morgen, immer bereit das Heute für die versprochenen Zukunft zu opfern, wie all die anderen der utopistischen Entwürfe. Dabei vollzieht sich doch der Wechsel kontinuierlich, im Hier und Jetzt, stetig. Ohne Lücke und Sprung. Diese Zukunft wird durch die Gegenwart gestaltet, deswegen ist sie kein Ziel, unsere Zukunft ist nicht fixiert, sie entsteht mit unserem Handeln. Die Verantwortung im Hier und Jetzt bringt uns die Gegenwartsbezogenheit, aber auch eine Unabgeschlossenheit, was die Zukunft und unsere Vorstellung von ihr angeht. In der Fragestellung verbirgt sich eine elementare Grundaussage: **Das Leben hat für uns Lebenden einen Wert** [44], dieser einfachen Feststellung folgenden ergibt sich die Verantwortung gegenüber den Kindern. > *„Verantwortung im ursprünglichsten und massivsten Sinn folgt aus der > Urheberschaft des Seins, an der über die aktuellen Erzeuger hinaus > alle beteiligt sind, die der Fortpflanzung durch Nichtwiderruf ihres > Fiat im eigen Fall beipflichten, also alle, die sich selber das Leben > erlauben“*[45] Wir, die wir das Leben als einen Wert erklären, verpflichten uns, diesem Leben gegenüber, dieses Leben ist nicht nur unser eigenes, es ist das Leben Aller dem wir so verpflichtet sind. > *„\[..\] das Neugeborene , dessen bloßes Athmen unwiedersprechlich ein > Soll an die Umwelt richtet, nämlich sich seiner anzunehemen. \[..\] Da > hier das Sein eines einfachen otischen Daseinden ein Soll für andere > immanent und ersichtlich beinhaltet, \[…\]“*[46] Wir waren diese Neugeborenen, ein Soll für die anderen, wir wurden angenommen. Nur durch diese Annahme leben wir heute. In dem, was wir hier als Leben bezeichnen, steckt noch ein wenig mehr, wir haben eine Empfindung für das Leben, nur von Empfindung kommt Bedeutung, und ein konkretes Beispiel: Unser eigenes Leben. Die Fähigkeit zur Empfindung, hier versteckt sich die alte Frage nach dem Bewusstsein, und sie ist wichtig für uns. [47] Definiert Harari das Bewustsein über die Fähigkeit zum Leiden, was für sich völlig richtig ist, schlagen wir eine positive Begriffsbestimmung vor, die wenigstens für das Erste reicht. Wahr ist aber auch, das wir nicht nur staunen und lieben können, auch frustriert wie der Frosch [48] können wir uns fühlen, verraten und verkauft … einsam. Uvm. Die daraus folgende Ethik kann nur sein, das man empfindsamen Lebewesen keine schlechten Gefühle zufügt. Und da sind wir doch beim Leid das wir fähig sind zu empfinden, von dem Harari gesprochen hat. Wenn wir einen Hauch einer Vorstellung von Bewusstsein entwickeln wollen, an dieser Stelle, dann scheint eine “non computable”, in der Quantenmechanik verankerte Vorstellung, wie die “Orchestrated objective reduction” [49] eine geeignete Wahl. Das Bewustsein ist es, was uns miteinander interagieren läßt, so Roy Baumeister [50]. Einfacher auf den Punkt gebracht liest es sich: <figure> <img src="resources/klarmachen/klamachen-Polis.png" style="width:50.0%" alt="Der Mensch ist ein Wesen der Gemeinschaft …" /> <figcaption aria-hidden="true">Der Mensch ist ein Wesen der Gemeinschaft …</figcaption> </figure> Für uns Menschen ist unser Bewustsein nicht von der Gemeinschaft trennbar, die Gemeinschaft formt das Bewustsein, das Bewustsein stiftet die Gemeinschaft. Und so antworten wir der neoliberalen Marget Thatcher auf ihre Aussage, “there is no such thing as society” [51] “there is no such thing as a single person, this person could not even call them self a person” Das Bewustsein läßt sich, für uns, nicht von der Gemeinschaft trennen. Nachdem wir uns mit der Natur des Bewusstseins auseinandergesetzt haben und die Bedeutung des Lebens sowie der verantwortungsvollen Verbindung zwischen den Generationen betrachtet haben, kehren wir zurück zu den Grundbestimmungen. Das Bewusstsein, als treibende Kraft für Interaktion und Gemeinschaft, wirft Licht auf die fundamentalen Werte, die den Kern unserer politischen Ausrichtung bilden. Unsere Grundbestimmungen sind nicht nur ein Kompass, sondern auch eine Reflexion darüber, wie wir unser Bewusstsein in konkrete Handlungen umsetzen können. In einer Welt, die oft von Unsicherheit und Wettbewerb geprägt ist, dienen diese Bestimmungen als Leuchtturm für Solidarität, Gerechtigkeit und den Schutz unserer natürlichen Lebensgrundlagen. Der Übergang vom individuellen Bewusstsein zu kollektiven Werten verdeutlicht, dass unsere Verantwortung nicht nur auf persönlicher Ebene liegt, sondern sich auch in der Gestaltung unserer Gesellschaft und der Sicherung einer nachhaltigen Zukunft für kommende Generationen manifestiert. - Pazifismus - Säkularismus - Gegenwartsbezogenheit - Strukturelle Unabgeschlossenheit - Erhalt der natürlichen Lebensgrundlagen - Solidarität - Gerechtigkeit - Lebenszeit als Schatz - Kooperation statt Wettbewerb - Bekenntnis zu den universellen Menschenrechten ## Grundbestimmungen Die Grundbestimmungen werden in einem eigenen Abschnitt in der Parteisatzung erklärt[52]. Sie drücken die Zentralen Werte der Partei aus. Sie sind konkret, deswegen braucht es einige, aber auch derartig allgemein, dass sie gemeinsam das ganze Feld der Werte abdecken können. Das für jeden etwas dabei ist. ### Pazifismus Pazifismus ist die konsequente Folge aus der Verantwortung für unsere Kinder. Er muss in dem Sinne radikal sein, als wir verstehen müssen, dass Krieg nur mit Kriegsgerät stattfinden kann und wir damit aufhören müssen, es zu produzieren und zu nutzen. Auf den Punkt gebracht ist der Anspruch: **Frieden ist eine Verantwortung gegenüber unseren Kindern**, denn Kinder können keine Feinde sein, sie sind immer Kinder der Gesellschaft und bedürfen unser aller Verantwortung. > *If the russian love their children too …* [53] Und wenn sie es tun, die Russen, wenn sie ihre Kinder lieben, wenn sie Teil der selben Verantwortung sind wie wir, wie können wir mit ihnen kriegführen? Wie überhaupt, wenn das Leben einen Zweck darstellt für uns Lebenden, können wir Kriegführen? Doch nur, weil wir uns dieser Verantwortung nicht stellen. Das ist die nihilistische Alternative, die Camus skizziert: > *„Aber wenn wir allein sind unter einem leeren Himmel, wenn wir für > immer sterben müssen, wie können wir da wirklich sein? Die > metaphysische Revolte versuchte dann, das Sein abzuleiten aus dem > Erscheinen. Worauf das rein geschichtliche Denken sagte: Sein ist Tun. > Wir waren nicht, aber wir mussten mit allen Mitteln sein. Unsere > Revolution ist ein Versuch, ein neues Sein zu erobern, durch das Tun, > außerhalb jedes Moralgesetzes. Aus diesem Grund verurteilt sie sich > dazu, nur für die Geschichte und im Terror zu leben.“* [54] Das Ausmaß, das wir hier ansprechen ist gewaltig, die Welt ist voller nutzloser Rüstungsgüter. Nutzlos bezogen auf die Verantwortung die wir inne haben, und wir Alle müssen deshalb abrüsten. Abrüstungsvertrag um Abrüstungsvertrag. Ewiger Friede, eine *verstiegene Utopie* und gleichzeitig eine Aufforderung zur Verantwortung, an der wir uns zu ,messen haben. Bild von “Das ist <s>nicht</s> unser Krieg” [55] beschreibt sowohl diese Aufforderung als auch die Verantwortung genau. Es ist unser Krieg, er ist unser aller Verantwortung, und wir könnten ihn beenden. Und deshalb ist es nicht unser Krieg, wir sollten ihn beenden. Wir führen keine Kriege, wenn wir die Verantwortung gegenüber unseren Kindern annehmen. Und wenn wir wissen das wir keine Kriege führen, wozu würden wir Kriegsgüter brauchen? ### Säkularismus Auch der Säkularismus ist eine Folge dieser Verantwortung. Wenn wir ein höheres Wesen, einen Gott, annehmen, dann trägt dieses höhere Wesen am Ende die Verantwortung, die Verantwortung für den Zustand der Welt. Die Verantwortung, insbesondere der menschlichen Gesellschaft und unseren Kinder gegenüber, selbst zu übernehmen, erscheint hingegen natürlich. Der zentrale Punkt ist also die Selbstbestimmung, die zentral für die Mündigkeit ist. Durch die Verortung des Bewustseins in dieser Welt, sind wir nicht angewiesen auf metaphysishe Stiftung. Wir heißen keinen Pabst eine Stellvertreter Gottes. Der Liberalismus hat den Glauben in die Privatsphäre verlegt, aber wenn wir sagen das Private ist Politisch, dann ist auch die Religion Politisch. Deswegen ist der Glaube durchaus eine Politische Sache, die es zu diskutieren gilt. Es gibt hier auch einen Bezug zu der ersten Grundbestimmung, dem Frieden, es scheint eingänig das die Vorstellung eines Jenseits und damit eine abkehr vom Wirklichen Leben den Jungen Männern erst den Krieg schackhaft machen kann, wenn der Tot nicht als eine absoluter Verlust erlebt wird, wenn er ein Tor zu eine anderen viel besseren Welt ist, dann erscheint er nicht als schrecklich, als vermeidenswert. So ist die Bereitschaft aller Glaubensrichtungen ihrer Krieger zu Segnen, die jungen Männer in den Krieg und ihrem Tod zu schicken, verbrieft und darf getrost als offenes Bekennis verstanden werden. ### Gegenwartsbezogenheit Wir müssen in der Verantwortung bei den existierenden Menschen bleiben, die Gegenwart ist der Raum, in der die Zukunft gestaltbar ist, nicht die Zukunft. Konkrete Menschen können Ziel unserer Verantwortung sein, nicht mögliche Menschen. Das ist die Aufforderung des Zarathustras, uns unsere Sterblichkeit zu klar zu machen, und ein Teil der wirklichen Welt zu sein, nicht einer Möglichen und Vorgestellten. > *„Ich beschwöre euch, meine Brüder, bleibt der Erde treu und glaubt > Denen nicht, welche euch von überirdischen Hoffnungen reden! > Giftmischer sind es, ob sie es wissen oder nicht.“*[56] Das ist ein zentraler Kern, das wir Kinder haben führt uns auch unsere Sterblichkeit vor Augen. Sie zeigen auf den Übergang den wir darstellen, der über uns hinaus, und hinweg führt und gleichzeitig ein sprudelnden Quell der Erneuerung darstellt. Wir werden sterben, auch unsere Kinder werden sterben, aber auch sie werden Kinder haben, das ist der Strudel, der schaudernde Abgrund in den wir schauen können, aber in der Vertikalen da entfaltet er sich als Spirale. Der Wasser durchflossene Strudel ist ein einfaches Bild für das Dasein als offenes System die Materie die er ist, verschwindet, sie ist nur im Moment ein Teil, im nächsten Moment verschwindet sie im Abfluss, sie wird ersetzt durch nachströmende Materie, die Struktur des Strudel selbst ist nie die Materie selbst diese ist nur tempörärer Gast. Eine Abker vom Jenseitigem ist ebnfalls eine abker vom Krieg und der Relligion, die Vorstellung des Jenseits, eines anderen Lebens, nach dem Leben, läßt den jungen Mann sorglos sein Leben wegwerfen, für eine höheres Ziel, bzw. einer Belohnung im Jenseits. Wir wissen um unsere Sterblichkeit und um den Schatz den unser Lebenzeit darstellt. Denn dieser kann erst im richtigen Licht und im richtigen Blickwinkel funkeln und scheinen, und das Herz mit Glück erfüllen. Erst mit der einmaligkeit des Momentes, mit seiner Unwiederbringlichkeit, wird er schön und bedeutsam. Die Ewigkeit ist schaal dagegen, sie ist Alles und das immer wieder. Die Fülle wird so zur Leere. Hier wird der Utopische Entwurf ausgeschlossen der uns bei den Linken begenet aber auch wie James Grey gezeigt hat[57] bei den Markradikalen. > Yet the utopian faith in a condition of future harmony is a Christian > inheritance, and so is the modern idea of progress. Aber auch bei den Liberalen, den Gärtnern[58], ist dieses Utopische Denken verborgen. ### Strukturelle Unabgeschlossenheit Wir, als lebende Menschen, sind strukturell unabgeschlossen. Darin genau besteht unsere Möglichkeit zur Entwicklung. Jedes unserer sozialen Produkte gleicht uns darin: Die Partei ist strukturell unabgeschlossen, unablässig müssen wir die Strukturen der Partei verändern, so auch die der Gesellschaft. Es kann nicht unser Ziel sein, eine perfekte Gesellschaft zu bauen, eine solche kann es unter diesen Voraussetzungen nicht geben. Unser Ziel kann nur die positive und nachhaltige Entwicklung der Gesellschaft sein. Wenn wir selbst ein Übergang sind, dann ist jedes Ziel das wir haben können auch nur ein Übergang, ohne die endgültige Bestimmung bleiben wir immer unabgechlossen und unfertig, damit sind wir offen für die Entwicklung, für Neues, für unser Kinder und die Welt. Hier ist kein Leitfaden, der klein um klein genau beschreibt wie die Welt ist, kein fertiges Ergebnis an dem nicht zu rütteln ist. Wir sind bescheidene kritsche Rationalisten die wissen das sie wenig von der Welt wissen können, das wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse nur wiederlegt werden können, das ein Anspruch auf Wahrheit das Gegenteil von ihr darstellt. Auch die Unabgeschlossenheit stellt eine klare Absage an den trivialen Fortschitts Gendanken dem wir gerade bei den Utopisten aller collouer begenen durften. Denn der Uptopist ist auch ein Ideologie, denn die Beschreibung der Zielwirklichkeit wirkt gerade zuürck und fordert eine spezifische Ausrichtung. Hier ist das Provisorische, das immer alles Handeln des Menschen bestimmt hat. Keine usere Sachen hat dauerhaften Bestand, alles ist entweder im Wandel, wie Theseus Schiff[59], oder vergeht, wie der Name der in den Strand geritzt, weggespühlt und in der allegemeinen Verteilung der Sandkörner des Strandes verschwindet, wie das Echo das verhallt. ### Erhalt der natürlichen Lebensgrundlagen Ein konservierender Umgang mit - bzw. die Wiederherstellung - einer gesunden und reichhaltigen Umwelt leitet sich zwangsläufig aus der Verantwortung für unsere Kinder und alle künftigen Generationen ab und hängt eng mit dem Begriff der [Nachhaltigkeit](/wiki/Nachhaltigkeit.md) zusammen. Die natürlichen Lebensgrundlagen sind unsere Ressource, die das menschliche Leben auf dem Planeten Erde erst ermöglicht. Hieran, aus kurzfristigem Profitstreben heraus, Raubbau zu betreiben, ist Raub an den nachkommenden Generationen, erschwert diesen sogar das Überleben und muss daher als verantwortungsloses Handeln gegen unsere Kinder und Kindeskinder gewertet werden. Wir bekennen uns zum Antropozän und der daraus resultierenden Verantwortung. Die Wirkung von uns Menschen auf die Erde ist inzwischen so groß, dass wir Hans Jonas Erweiterung des Kategorischen Imperativs berücksichtigen müssen, “Handle so, daß die Wirkungen deiner Handlungen verträglich sind mit der Permanenz echten menschlichen Lebens auf Erden.”[60] Es geht nicht um eine romantsiche Vorstellung der Natur, es geht um unsere Lebensgrundlage, nur diese können wir zerstören, nur die *Permanenz echten menschlichen Lebens auf Erden* können wir gefährden. Die Welt und die Natur können wir nicht gefährden [61], sie würde über uns hinweggehen wie über die Dinosaurier oder die Trilobiten. ### Solidarität Der Mensch ist ein Wesen der Gemeinschaft. Deshalb gilt unsere Sorge der Gemeinschaft, wie sie dem Individuum gelten muss. In der Solidarität drückt sich u.a. der verbindende Generationenvertrag aus. > *„Es gibt nur Identifikation mit dem Schicksal und Parteiergreifung. > Das Individuum stellt demnach nicht an sich den Wert dar, den es > verteidigen will. Um ihn zu bilden, bedarf es mindestens aller > Menschen. In der Revolte übersteigert sich der Mensch im andern, von > diesem Gesichtspunkt aus ist die menschliche Solidarität eine > metaphysische.“* [62] Die Solitarität und die Gerechtigkeit hängen zusammen. Die Indifferenz der Welt gegenüber unseren Wünschen und Vorstellungen läßt sich sich nur durch die Anteilnahme der anderen Menschen ausgleichen oder wenigstens durch Trost ertragen. Wir alle teilen das Schicksal [63], unser Schicksal, denn die Erde ist eine Kugel und alle Wirkungen betreffen uns Alle. So bedauerlich der Eine oder Andere das finden mag, so einfach und wahr ist dieser Zusammenhang. Wir alle Teilen ein Schicksal hier auf der Erde. Hier geht die Solidarität in die Gerechtigkeit über. ### Gerechtigkeit Nur in einer Gesellschaft, die strukturbedingte Benachteiligungen in den Möglichkeiten der individuellen Teilhabe ausgleicht, und so jedem Menschen die gesellschaftliche Teilhabe ermöglicht, können Kinder kulturangemessen aufwachsen und zu mündigen und gesellschaftskundigen Menschen heranreifen. Die Gerechtigkeit zusammen mit der “Lebenszeit als Schatz” sind die Basis des Leistungsprinzips und damit auch die Basis jeder Vertragstheorie. ### Lebenszeit als Schatz Dass die Lebenszeit ein entscheidender Wert ist, folgt aus der Feststellung Hans Jonas, wonach das Leben einen Zweck für das Leben darstellt [64], wie aus der Gegenwartsbezogenheit. Die Zeit unseres Lebens ist unwiederbringlich und vergeht, darum ist sie ein Schatz. Ein Schatz den es zu teilen gilt, mit den Kindern, mit den Menschen, den Lieben. Als Primaten [65] sind wir Wesen der Gemeinschaft und Lebenszeit, verbracht mit anderen Menschen, ist ein Geschenk. Also müssen wir weniger Geld ausgeben, weniger Produkte verbrauchen - nicht nur aus Nachhaltigkeitsgründen. Wenn wir weniger Geld ausgeben, müssen wir weniger Geld verdienen und haben mehr freie Zeit. Die Schwäbische Hausfrau spart am Anfang und nicht am Ende. ### Kooperation statt Wettbewerb Der Wettbewerb ist ein Feind der Gemeinschaft. Er fördert die Vereinzelung des Menschen und stört die natürliche Offenheit und die kooperativen Fähigkeiten der Menschen. Damit macht er alle Menschen unglücklich, denn Menschen sind Wesen der Gemeinschaft. Der Wettbewerb den der Pastor Gauck so lobpreist[66] ist der kleine Bruder des Neides und Neid ist keine schönes Gefühl, keine produktive Kraft, er ist zersetzend für Gemeinschaften, schon der Gott der Christen wussten das und hat ihn verboten. Aus der Scham geboren erzeugt der Neid noch mehr Scham, und in dieser Scham wenden wir uns ab von den Menschen. Wir können uns nicht länger in die Augenschauen und sehen “das dieses absurde Leben auch anderen etwas bedeutet”, nicht länger diesen Trost erfahren. Die Kooperation ist die Hinwenung zu den anderen, wie die Solidarität. ### Bekenntnis zu den universellen Menschenrechten Die universellen Menschenrechte[67] bilden die basale Grundlage für den Umgang der Menschen miteinander. Jedem Menschen diese Rechte zuzugestehen und ein dementsprechendes gesellschaftliches, juristisches und politisches Umfeld zu schaffen, bildet wiederum das wesentliche Fundament, auf dem sich mündige, aufgeklärte und selbstständige Persönlichkeiten verantwortlich entwickeln können. Die Erziehung unserer Nachkommen zielt seit Generationen auf ebendiese Attribute ab. Die universellen Menschenrechte schützen das Individuum, wie die Gesamtheit der Bürgerinnen und Bürger, vor unverhältnismäßigen Eingriffen in ihre ureigenen Angelegenheiten sowie vor staatlicher Willkür. Daher ist ein Bekenntnis zu den universellen Menschenrechten ebenso ein Bekenntnis zu Rechtsstaatlichkeit und Mitbestimmung.  # Formale Überlegungen Da die Grundbestimmungen in die Satzung direkt einfließen, in ihrem eigen Abschnitt, [68] müssen sich die Prinzipien dieser Bestimmungen auch in der formalen Struktur der Partei wiederfinden lassen. Mit der ‘Strukturelle Unabgeschlossenheit’ haben wir eine Grundbestimmung, die direkt zurückwirkt auf die Art und Weise wie wir eine Partei organisieren. ## Die Partei als Labor Durch unsere strukturelle Unabgeschlossenheit ist es uns möglich, neuartige Verfahren in government and management auszuprobieren und zu evaluieren. So kann die sich den aktuellen Gegebenheiten anzupassende Parteistruktur als Blaupause für gesellschaftliche Veränderung angesehen werden und es lassen sich aus unseren Partei Erfahrungen, konkrete Handlungsvorgaben und Empfehlungen ableiten. Dinge dürfen und müssen ausprobiert werden. Beginnen wir mit den Personenwahlen, die in Parteien statt zu finden haben, um die verschiedenen Ämter und Funktionen zu bestimmen. Die Grundbestimmungen der *Kooperation statt Wettbewerb* der *Gerechtigkeit* und der *Lebenszeit als Schatz* fordern uns auf diese Personenwahlen genauer zu betrachten: Wer einmal Personenwahlen in einer Partei erlebt hat der weiß: Ein zermürbender, zeitraubender Prozess mit fast ausschließlich Verlieren. Wir schlagen statt der Personenenwahl ein einfaches verfahren vor, dass all diese negativen Eigenschaften nicht aufweist. Ein freiwilliges Losvervahren[69] soll die gemeine Personenwahl ersetzen. Ein freiwilliges Losverfahren gewährleistet, dass verschiedene Gruppen innerhalb der Partei angemessen repräsentiert sind, beispielsweise in Bezug auf Geschlecht, Alter, sozialen Hintergrund oder ethnische Zugehörigkeit. Die Gerechtigkeit des Losverfahrens liegt darin, dass alle Mitglieder, die sich zur Verfügung stellen, die gleiche Chance haben, ausgewählt zu werden, unabhängig von ihren persönlichen Netzwerken oder ihrer Popularität. Die Schnelligkeit des Losverfahrens trägt zur Effizienz bei, da zeitaufwändige Wahlkämpfe vermieden werden. Dadurch lassen sich diese Entscheidungen auch leicht wieder korrigieren, denn es geht schnell. Konkret kann das bedeuten, dass die Bestimmten Menschen in kurzen Zeiträumen bestätigt werden, zb. über eine ständige Mitglieder Konferenz, oder auch nicht. Das Losverfahren wirkt auch auf eine andere weise im Sinne der “Kooperations statt Wettbewerb” Grundbestimmung. Es nimmt die Schärfe aus der Konkurrenz, der Ambitionierte wie der Machthungrige beide können sicher sein auch einmal dran zu sein, damit muss die Auseinandersetzung um die Macht, die im Hinterzimmer, oder Füsselnd unter dem Tisch, ausgefochten wird nicht in aller Schärfe, um jeden Preis geführt werden. Die Gewissheit das jeden das Los treffen kann macht die Siegstrategie einfach. Komplizierte Konstruktionen sozialer Beziehungen, Abhängigkeiten und Belohnungen braucht es nicht. Kein Gespinst aus Lügen, Versprechungen, Drohungen. Das macht das Leben in der Partei freundlicher. Sind wir freundlicher, wird die Politik die wir machen auch Freundlich sein. Wir übernehmen die Idee einer elektronischen ‘ständigen Mitglieder Konferenz’ von den Piraten, denn der Kern der Partei kann nur basis Demokatisch sein[70]. Um auf die Gegenwart bezogen zu sein, muß die Partei mit den örtlichen Bürgerinitativen in Kommunikation sein. Mit einem “Koordinationsrat” auf der entsprechenden Ebene, “Bund,Land,Kreis” werden die Vorschläge der Bürgerinitativen in den Parteiinternen politischen Prozess eingearbeitet. Die Partei kann auch direkt organisatorisch unterstützend wirken. Ein andere Aspekt ist die tiefe Verwurzelung Deutschland in die Christiche Tradition, aus dieser erklären wir das verklemmte Verhältnis der Menschen zur Schuld. Schuld ist uns unangenehm und wir unternehemen viel nicht schuld zu sein. Wir halten es mit Camus [71] und habe daher die Schuld formalisiert, eine Formale Schuld ist interessanter Weise viel einfacher anzunehmen als eine Zuweisung durch Menschen. Deswegen ist der erste Vorsitzende per Satzung Schuldig und seine Stellvertreter teilschuldig. Damit erübrigt sich jede Überlegung nach der Schuld, denn diese ist festgestellt, und es stellt sich die wirklich relevante Frage der Verantwortung. Wer übernimmt die Verantwortung, wie korrigieren wir die Situation und was wird daraus gelernt? ## Wer wird wie und warum Politiker in Deutschland > When it rain’s > the dirt don’t go away [72] Wir frage hier nach dem Selektionsprozess mit dem wir die Menschen bestimmen die Politik betreiben. Diese Frage ist in so fern eine wichtige, da hier der erste echte Filter ist: Nur die die zur Auswahl stehen können überhaupt gewählt werden. Wenn wir dem Deutschen Politkpersonal keine gute Note ausstellen, dann liegt es aber nicht am Personal, es liegt an den Verfahren die wir einsetzen um dieses Personal zu bestimmen. In der Deutschen Standard Partei ist es in etwa wie folgt, die untersten Ebenen, meist die Kreis Gruppen, bestimmten die nächste Ebene in dem sie aus ihrer Mitte Delegierte auswählen die dann als neues Gremium den selben Mechanismus anwenden um ihrerseits die nächste Ebene zu bestimmen. In Jeder dieser Ebene wird der selbe Filter angewendet, wie in der Homeopatie, durch die expotentielle Verdünnung, ist am Ende nichts mehr da, kein Einziger Fähiger, kein Molekül. Ob sich der Geist, die Schwingung, bzw. die Wirkung des nicht vorhandenen in dem Trägermaterial noch zeitigt muss an dieser stelle offen bleiben. Wir haben es mit einem Klassischen Rahmenfehler [73] zu tun. Jede Ebene der Delegation ist ein Rahmenfehler der als Filter wirkt, er selektiert genau jene nicht die am geeigneten wären, eine Verantwortungsvolle Position anzunehmen und umzusetzen. Delegierte werden aus anderen Motiven heraus bestimmt. Scheinbar ist diese Auswahl sehr einfach, so scheinen kleine Kinder, aufgefordert den Kaptain zu bestimmen, ein gutes Händchen zu haben den Kandidaten zu bestimmen, der am Ende auch das Rennen gemacht hat.[74] Da, zurecht, vorausgesetzt werden kann das die kleinen Kinder in keiner weise Inhaltlich bezug nehmen können kann man schließen das die Kinder das selbe Kriterium verwenden wie die erwachsenen Menschen. Es sagt also wenig über unsere Kinder, es sagt viel über uns Erwachsene. [1] https://github.com/KuekenPartei/test-wiki-export [2] Bündnis Sarah Wagenknecht, es betreibt aktive Einlass Kontrolle [3] https://github.com/KuekenPartei/media-stuff/tree/master/plakate-derKUEKeN [4] https://www.berlin.de/kultur-und-tickets/tipps/maifeiertag/2971249-2970764-myfest-berlin.html [5] vom wir zum mir [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roko%27s\_basilisk [7] Max (1895-1973) Horkheimer, Theodor W. (1903-1969) Adorno: Dialektik der Aufklärung: philosophische Fragmente, Ungekürzte Ausg., 21. Aufl., Frankfurt am Main 2013 (Fischer ; 7404. , Teil), S. 214, [http://digitale-objekte.hbz-nrw.de/storage2/2015/04/21/file\\128/6138298.pdf](http://digitale-objekte.hbz-nrw.de/storage2/2015/04/21/file\_128/6138298.pdf). [8] R. B. Fuller, J. Krausse, Bedienungsanleitung für das Raumschiff Erde und andere Schriften, 2010 (Fundus-Bücher), <https://books.google.de/books?id=cUIKOAAACAAJ>. [9] Diese Bild ist nicht so weit hergeholt wie es im ersten Moment scheint, diese Welt ist voller Wasser und die Kontinente sind Inseln, oder Schiffe in diesen Ozeanen, und diese Schiffe sinken. [10] Wir werden später sehen das uns die Utopie nicht zugänglich ist und warum wir auf sie verzichten müssen. [11] Karl Popper, All Life is Problem Solving, 2001. Seite 39 “Einstein said somewhere: ‘My pencil is more intelligent than I.’ What is expressed, or even better what is written down, has become an object we can criticize and investigate for mistakes.” [12] K Popper [13] vgl. diggingdeeper/Kaderschule/Denken ist Glücksache [14] das Meme [15] Hans Verfasser Jonas: Das Prinzip Verantwortung. Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation, 1. Aufl., Frankfurt am Main 2003 (Suhrkamp Taschenbuch, Teil 3492), S. 85, <https://d-nb.info/966483308/04>. [16] Ebd., S. 241. [17] Bernard (1952-2020) Stiegler: Verlust der Aufklärung durch Technik und Medien, Orig.-Ausg., 1. Aufl., Frankfurt am Main 2008 (Spiegel online; Die Logik der Sorge / Bernard Stiegler; Edition Unseld, Teil 1,1, Teil 6), S. 21, [http://digitale-objekte.hbz-nrw.de/storage/2009/03/05/file\\84/2875206.pdf](http://digitale-objekte.hbz-nrw.de/storage/2009/03/05/file\_84/2875206.pdf). [18] Ebd., S. 30. [19] Horkheimer, Adorno \[Anm. 7\], S. 215. [20] Jonas \[Anm. 15\], S. 235. [21] Phyllis Dorothy James, P. D. James, Phyllis D. James, u. a.: Im Land der leeren Häuser: Roman, 1. Aufl., München 1993. [22] Alfonso Cuarón: Children of Men, 2006, <https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0206634/>. [23] Samuel Scheffler, Björn Brodowski: Der Tod und das Leben danach, 1. Auflage, Berlin 2015, [http://www.content-select.com/index.php?id=bib\_view&ean=9783518741092; https://content-select.com/portal/media/view/55119d96-67dc-45dc-b10c-6090b0dd2d03; https://content-select.com/portal/media/cover\_image/55119d96-67dc-45dc-b10c-6090b0dd2d03/500](http://www.content-select.com/index.php?id=bib_view&ean=9783518741092; https://content-select.com/portal/media/view/55119d96-67dc-45dc-b10c-6090b0dd2d03; https://content-select.com/portal/media/cover_image/55119d96-67dc-45dc-b10c-6090b0dd2d03/500). [24] Ebd., S. 16 frei Zitiert. [25] so möchten wir hier den Tot verstehen [26] Klarmachen ändert … [27] Scheffler, Brodowski \[Anm. 23\], S. 104. [28] Ebd., S. 105. [29] Ebd., S. 24–25. [30] “Déjà vu” Spliff, Album 85555, CBS 1982 [31] Pyong-ch’ol Han: Transparenzgesellschaft, 1. Aufl., Berlin 2012, S. 52. [32] https://www.hdg.de/lemo/bestand/medien/video-samstags-gehoert-vati-mir.html IGMetal 1956 [33] Skorpions, Crazy World 1990 [34] https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/lindner-asylbewerber-leistungen-100.html [35] https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/scholz-abschiebungen-100.html [36] https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Die-Piraten-und-der-Krieg-3399579.html?seite=all [37] vgl. Satzung … 3/4 Mehrheit [38] Koalitionsvertrag cdu spd 2017 2021 [39] GG änderung Grüne/spd 2021 [40] Abschnitt 2 Basterl… [41] vgl. das Kartesische Subjekt und sein Bauchnabel [42] Albert Camus, Justus Streller, Georges Schlocker, Der Mensch in der Revolte: Essays, 30. Aufl., Reinbek bei Hamburg 2013 (Rororo ; 22193). Seite 30 [43] https://globalprioritiesinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/Greaves\_MacAskill\_strong\_longtermism.pdf [44] vgl. vom Konsens der lebenden [45] Jonas \[Anm. 15\], S. 241. [46] Ebd., S. 235. [47] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rtS2OEV6bM The Politics of Consciousness | video lecture with Yuval Noah Harari [48] Verhaltenbiologie 7 Klasse Abbruch des Appetenzverhalten [49] Roger Penrose, Consciousness and the universe: quantum physics, evolution, brain & mind, Cambridge, MA 2017 “1. Consciousness in the Universe: Neuroscience, Quantum Space-Time Geometry and Orch OR Theory” [50] Roy Baumeister - Why Did Consciousness Emerge? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpRVvRpySkk [51] Thatcher, Margaret. 1987. ’Interview for “Woman’s Own” (“No Such Thing as Society”). https://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-4/neoliberalism-more-recent-times/margaret-thatcher-theres-no-such-thing-as-society [52] vgl. Satzung/Abschnitt B Grundbestimmungen [53] “Russians”, The Dream of the Blue Turtles, A&M Records, Sting, Pete Smith , 1985 [54] Camus, Streller, Schlocker, \[Anm. 42\]. Seite 325 [55] Russland Urkaine Krieg 2022 [56] Friedrich Nietzsche: Also sprach Zarathustra: ein Buch für Alle und Keinen, Chemnitz 1883, S. 15, <https://www.deutschestextarchiv.de/book/view/nietzsche_zarathustra01_1883>. [57] J. Gray, Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia, 2007, <https://books.google.de/books?id=qNAnAAAAYAAJ>. [58] https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/politik-gesellschaft/eu-aussenbeauftragter-josep-borrell-schockiert-mit-kolonialistischer-rede-vor-studenten-europa-ist-ein-garten-li.277450 [59] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiff\_des\_Theseus [60] Jonas, \[Anm. 15\]. Seite 85 [61] vorausgesetzt wir können keine sog. runnaway Greenhouse effect erzeugen [62] Camus, Streller, Schlocker, \[Anm. 42\]. Seite 325 [63] “shared faith” [64] Jonas, \[Anm. 15\]. Seite 142 [65] vgl. Kaderschule/der Mensch als Primat [66] https://www.bundespraesident.de/SharedDocs/Reden/DE/Joachim-Gauck/Reden/2014/01/140116-Walter-Eucken\_Institut.html [67] http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR\_Translations/ger.pdf [68] vgl. Satzung/Abschnitt B: Grundbestimmungen [69] Satzung \_Die\_Bundesgesamtkonferenz &10 Absatz (1) und (2). [70] vgl. faq/Wieso ist “ohne Ausnahme” so zentral? [71] “Wo es Verantwortung gibt, gibt es keine Schuld.” [72] Chris Korda, “When it Rains” International Deejay Gigolo Records – Gigolo 86, 2002 [73] Personen haben per se keine Möglichkeit in Stichprobe zu gelangen, https://www.studydrive.net/de/flashcards/population-stichprobe-selektionsfehler-stichprobenauswahl-deduktion-induktion-studiendesigns/47855 [74] John Antonakis, Olaf Dalgas, Predicting Elections: Child’s Play!, in: Science (New York, N.Y.), 323, 2009, S. 1183. Die Entscheidungen der Kinder sagten in 71 % der Fälle die tatsächlichen Wahlergebnisse richtig voraus. --------------------------------------------

@ 5e5fc143:393d5a2c

We are now given a choice of digital freedom #nostr . Creativity for every nostrich is now unleashed from the cage of bigtech censorship , rules and algo. But freedom comes with responsibility so pick right one(s). I will try share here some learning experience both technical and also from fundamental point of view. Just wanted kick start this article n fill as we go like living reference document. Nostr itself is an application layer protocol that can used beyond just social media mirco or long blogging. Each nostr client heavily dependent on back-end servers call nostr "Relay servers" or in short "rs" or "relays" Relays can hosted anywhere in clearnet internet, onion net , vpn , i2p , nym Relays are controlled by their respective admins based NIP specs that they select to implement according to own decisions. Relays can have certain ToS (Terms of Service) Rules to adhered too. New users can choose and pick client or app (ios / android/ windows) with preset of relays in the simplest form , but other advanced users need to do a regular manual relay management. Relay management is an active regular task based on where when n how you are using. Relay list are saved within you npub profile backup file which can edited and broadcast anytime. Relay management is an active regular task based on where when and how you are using. Relay list always need to be updated time to time as and when needed. 2 Users MUST a common RELAY between them even if one only need to follow another. Occasionally you may notice certain npub accounts you are following already but cannot see frequent notes publish by them – one of cause maybe you not sharing a common relay Most nostr client applications has SETTINGS where user choose add/remove relays Also user choose which function to enable - READ or WRITE Relay list for your account is always saved within you npub profile backup file which can edited and broadcast anytime. Hence any app or browser when u login with you npub the same relay list will be enforced. There could valid reasons why u need have list for if you trying to save bandwidth and traveling. Functions in app.getcurrent.io and primal.net app for mobile apple or android are ideal for user traveling abroad and wanted to save bandwidth since relay management is done the providers in backend and saves hassle for basic usage. Remember if someone is selecting relay on your behalf then you may not be necessarily able to pull and get some specific and special content that you may need. Such providers like coracle and nostrid also give option to override the default relays they selected. Relay types: They can be categorized by various features or policy or technologies. FREE PUBLIC Relays vs PAID PUBLIC Relays PAID relays provide unrestricted access / write / filtering options than FREE relays but both are public clearnet relays. Just subscribing to PAID relays will not solve all problems unless you choose the relays properly and enable settings correctly. Private Replay or Tor Relays – normally not easily visible until unless someone tell you. You can also host own private relay not opened to internet of archive and back of your own notes. The technical landscape in nostr can be fast changing as more NIPs get proposed or updated. Relays admin can choose implement certain NIPs or not based on policy or technical limitations. Example NIP33 defines “long notes” aka blogs as you now reading this in habla site which #1 UI and site for "Editable" long notes – some relays donot implement or allow this. NIP07 is used for client authentication like nos2x and is implemented by all relays in fact. Nostr is so fasting changing-hence many links many broken Pushing long note again. To be continued again ... reference pics will added later also Hope this help you understand "why when what" to tune and maintain active set of proper relays. Relay Proxy, Relay aggregator or Relay multiplexer – Paid, Public, Free, Private, Event, Relays That’s all for now n more later ... Thank you 🙏 ! ⚡️ https://getalby.com/p/captjack ⚡️ PV 💜 🤙 References: https://habla.news/relays https://relay.exchange/ https://relays.vercel.app/ https://nostr.info/relays/ https://nostrudel.ninja/#/relays Related Articles: https://thebitcoinmanual.com/articles/types-nostr-relays/ nostr:naddr1qqd5c6t8dp6xu6twvukkvctnwss92jfqvehhygzwdaehguszyrtp7w79k045gq80mtnpdxjuzl9t7vjxk52rv80f888y5xsd5mh55qcyqqq823cf39s98 https://habla.news/u/current@getcurrent.io/1694434022411

@ 460c25e6:ef85065c

In the early days of Nostr, developers often competed to see who could implement the most NIPs. Although all were optional (except NIP-01), it became a point of pride and vital for the ecosystem's growth. Back then, there were only a few dozen relatively simple NIPs to implement. Fast forward to today, with nearly 100 NIPs, maintaining and implementing everything has become nearly impossible. Yet, the drive among developers to "code all things Nostr" remains as strong as ever. nostr:nprofile1qqsrhuxx8l9ex335q7he0f09aej04zpazpl0ne2cgukyawd24mayt8gprfmhxue69uhhq7tjv9kkjepwve5kzar2v9nzucm0d5hszxmhwden5te0wfjkccte9emk2um5v4exucn5vvhxxmmd9uq3xamnwvaz7tmhda6zuat50phjummwv5hsx7c9z9 raised the point that everyone, even I, agrees: nostr:nevent1qqsqqqp2zrs7836tyjlsfe7aj9c4d97zrxxqyayagkdwlcur96t4laspzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0wd68ytnsw43z7q3q80cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsxpqqqqqqzgcrrrp But how big is too big? How can we better understand the range of options available for devs out there? I went out for a hunt in my own brain to figure out how to clarify the situation. I came up with the following 4 categories for Nostr Clients: - **Super Clients**: These apps merge vastly different domains into a single application, offering basic support for reading, writing, configuration, and data management for each use case within each domains. An example would be an app that combines a Marketplace and Live Streams under one roof. - **Clients**: These apps provide comprehensive support for a single domain, handling all its use cases in a single home. They manage the complete set of reading, writing, configuration, and long-term data management within that domain. An example is a marketplace app that helps users manage product catalogs, process orders, collect payments, and handle fulfillment and reports. - **Mini Clients**: These apps focus on read and write functionality for a single use case, including configuration management and any actions related to that specific task. For example, a fulfillment app that helps users view orders placed from another client to then pack and ship them. - **Micro Clients**: These apps have a single interface and perform one specific action. Viewing and creating a record is handled by separate micro apps. An example is an app that simply scans an order's QR code and marks it as shipped. Based on my made-up categories described at the end, this is how I would split our most known apps. **Super Clients** - [amethyst](https://amethyst.social) - [nostrudel](https://nostrudel.ninja) - [coracle](https://coracle.social) **Clients** - [damus](https://damus.io) - twitter - [primal](https://primal.net) - twitter - [snort](https://snort.social) - twitter - [gossip](https://github.com/mikedilger/gossip) - twitter - [lume](https://lume.nu) - twitter - [ditto](https://soapbox.pub/ditto/) - twitter - [rabbit](https://rabbit.syusui.net) - twitter - [freefrom](https://freefrom.space) - twitter - [nos](https://nos.social) - twitter - [flycat](https://flycat.club) - twitter - [straylight](https://straylight.cafe) - twitter - [nostter](https://nostter.app) - twitter - [iris](https://iris.to) - twitter - [nostur](https://nostur.com) - twitter - [nostrmo](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/nostrmo/id6447441761) - twitter - [yana](https://yana.do) - twitter - [openvibe](https://openvibe.social) - twitter - [freerse](https://freerse.com) - twitter - [0xchat](https://0xchat.com) - chats - [cornychat](https://cornychat.com) - chats - [coop](https://github.com/lumehq/coop) - chats - [nostrchat](https://nostrchat.io) - chats - [blowater](https://blowater.deno.dev) - chats - [habla](https://habla.news) - blogs - [yakihonne](https://yakihonne.com) - blogs - [highlighter](https://highlighter.com) - blogs - [blogstack](https://blogstack.io) - blogs - [stemstr](https://stemstr.app) - music - [wavlake](https://wavlake.com) - music - [fountain](https://fountain.fm) - podcasts - [zap.stream](https://zap.stream) - live streaming - [shopstr](https://shopstr.store) - marketplace - [plebeian.market](https://plebeian.market) - marketplace - [flotilla](https://flotilla.coracle.social) - communities - [satellite](https://satellite.earth) - communities - [zapddit](https://zapddit.com) - communities - [nostr.kiwi](https://nostr.kiwi) - communities - [hivetalk](https://hivetalk.org) - video calls - [flare](https://flare.pub) - long-form videos - [nostrnests](https://nostrnests.com) - audio spaces - [wherostr](https://wherostr.social) - location - [yondar](https://go.yondar.me) - location - [stacker.news](https://stacker.news) - news - [flockstr](https://flockstr.com) - events - [nostrocket](https://nostrocket.org) - issue tracker - [docstr](https://docstr.app) - docs - [satshoot](https://satshoot.com) - freelance - [wikifreedia](https://wikifreedia.xyz) - wiki - [formstr](https://formstr.app) - forms - [chesstr](https://chesstr.pages.dev) - chess - [memestr](https://memestr.app) - meme feed - [npub.cash](https://npub.cash) - wallet - [npub.pro](https://npub.pro) - websites - [gitworkshop](https://gitworkshop.dev) - dev tools - [onosendai](https://onosendai.tech) - metaverse - [degmods](https://degmods.com) - games - [turdsoup](https://turdsoup.com) - prompts **Mini Clients** - [amber](https://github.com/greenart7c3/Amber) - signer - [alby](https://getalby.com) - signer - [nos2x](https://github.com/fiatjaf/nos2x) - signer - [nsec.app](https://nsec.app) - signer - [keys.band](https://keys.band) - signer - [nostrame](https://github.com/Anderson-Juhasc/nostrame) - signer - [nokakoi](https://nokakoi.com) - anon - [zap.cooking](https://zap.cooking) - recipes - [anonostr](https://anonostr.com) - anon - [getwired](https://getwired.app) - anon - [lowent](https://lowent.xyz) - anon - [creatr](https://creatr.nostr.wine) - exclusive content - [lightning.video](https://lightning.video) - exclusive content - [zaplinks](https://zaplinks.lol/slides) - slides - [listr](https://listr.lol) - lists - [zap.store](https://zap.store) - app store - [badges.page](https://badges.page) - badges - [oddbean](https://oddbean.com) - news - [dtan](https://dtan.xyz) - torrents - [nosta](https://nosta.me) - user pages - [pinstr](https://pinstr.app) - pinterest - [pollerama](https://pollerama.fun) - polls - [swarmstr](https://swarmstr.com) - trending - [nostrapp](https://nostrapp.link) - apps manager - [noogle](https://noogle.lol) - search - [ostrich.work](https://ostrich.work) - job postings - [emojito](https://emojito.meme) - emoji manager - [nostree](https://nostree.me) - links - [citrine](https://github.com/greenart7c3/citrine) - local relay - [joinstr](https://joinstr.xyz) - coinjoins - [heya](https://heya.fund) - crowdfunding - [zapplepay](https://zapplepay.com) - zaps - [nosbin](https://nosbin.com) - clipboard - [shipyard](https://shipyard.pub) - scheduler - [tunestr](https://tunestr.io) - live streams - [filestr](https://filestr.vercel.app) - files - [nostrcheck.me](https://nostrcheck.me/) - media hosting - [sheetstr](https://sheetstr.amethyst.social) - spreadsheets - [crafters](https://crafters.amethyst.social) - curriculum vitae **Micro Clients** - [w3](https://w3.do) - url shortener - [nosdrive](https://nosdrive.app) - backups - [zaplife](https://zaplife.lol) - zaps dashboard - [zapper.fun](https://zapper.fun) - payments - [nostrends](https://nostrends.vercel.app) - trends - [zephyr](https://zephyr.coracle.social) - trends - [wavman](https://wavman.app) - music player - [nostrrr](https://nostrrr.com) - relay info - [nosdump](https://github.com/jiftechnify/nosdump) - relay info - [notestack](https://notestack.com) - blogs - [nostr.build](https://nostr.build) - media hosting - [nostr.watch](https://nostr.watch) - relay info - [nostr hours](https://snowcait.github.io/nostr-hours/) - use reports - [lazereyes](https://lazereyes.nosfabrica.com) - vision prescriptions - [snakestr](https://satoshipuzzles.github.io/Snakestr) - games - [deletestr](https://zaplinks.lol/deletestr) - deletion requests - [2048str](https://zaplinks.lol/2048str) - games - [nostrqr](https://zaplinks.lol/nostrqr) - qr generator - [notanostrclient](https://zaplinks.lol/notanostrclient) - anon Super apps will try to do everything, but can't really do most things super well. Regular-sized Clients will try to manage most of a given domain but are likely to centralize users on themselves, an unwanted effect inside of Nostr. If we want Nostr to grow in a decentralized fashion, we have to start betting on and using more **Mini** and **Micro** clients.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# How to do curation and businesses on Nostr Suppose you want to start a Nostr business. You might be tempted to make a closed platform that reuses Nostr identities and grabs (some) content from the external Nostr network, only to imprison it inside your thing -- and then you're going to run an amazing AI-powered algorithm on that content and "surface" only the best stuff and people will flock to your app. This will be specially good if you're going after one of the many unexplored niches of Nostr in which reading immediately from people you know doesn't work as you generally want to discover new things from the outer world, such as: - food recipe sharing; - sharing of long articles about varying topics; - markets for used goods; - freelancer work and job offers; - specific in-game lobbies and matchmaking; - directories of accredited professionals; - sharing of original music, drawings and other artistic creations; - restaurant recommendations - and so on. But that is not the correct approach and damages the freedom and interoperability of Nostr, posing a centralization threat to the protocol. Even if it "works" and your business is incredibly successful it will just enshrine you as the head of a _platform_ that controls users and thus is prone to all the bad things that happen to all these platforms. Your company will start to display ads and shape the public discourse, you'll need a big legal team, the FBI will talk to you, advertisers will play a big role and so on. If you are interested in Nostr today that must be because you appreciate the fact that it is not owned by any companies, so it's safe to assume you don't want to be that company that owns it. **So what should you do instead?** Here's an idea in two steps: 1. **Write a Nostr client tailored to the niche you want to cover** If it's a music sharing thing, then the client will have a way to play the audio and so on; if it's a restaurant sharing it will have maps with the locations of the restaurants or whatever, you get the idea. Hopefully there will be a NIP or a NUD specifying how to create and interact with events relating to this niche, or you will write or contribute with the creation of one, because without interoperability this can't be Nostr. The client should work independently of any special backend requirements and ideally be open-source. It should have a way for users to configure to which relays they want to connect to see "global" content -- i.e., they might want to connect to `wss://nostr.chrysalisrecords.com/` to see only the latest music releases accredited by that label or to `wss://nostr.indiemusic.com/` to get music from independent producers from that community. 2. **Run a relay that does all the magic** This is where your value-adding capabilities come into play: if you have that magic sauce you should be able to apply it here. Your service -- let's call it `wss://magicsaucemusic.com/` -- will charge people or do some KYM (know your music) validation or use some very advanced AI sorcery to filter out the spam and the garbage and display the best content to your users who will request the global feed from it (`["REQ", "_", {}]`), and this will cause people to want to publish to your relay while others will want to read from it. You set your relay as the default option in the client and let things happen. Your relay is like your "website" and people are free to connect to it or not. You don't own the network, you're just competing against other websites on a leveled playing field, so you're not responsible for it. Users get seamless browsing across multiple websites, unified identities, a unified interface (that could be different in a different client) and social interaction capabilities that work in the same way for all, and **they do not depend on you, therefore they're more likely to trust you**. --- Does this centralize the network still? But this a simple and easy way to go about the matter and scales well in all aspects. Besides allowing users to connect to specific relays for getting a feed of curated content, such clients should also do all kinds of "social" (i.e. following, commenting etc) activities (if they choose to do that) using the outbox model -- i.e. if I find a musician I like under `wss://magicsaucemusic.com` and I decide to follow them I should keep getting updates from them even if they get banned from that relay and start publishing on `wss://nos.lol` or `wss://relay.damus.io` or whatever relay that doesn't even know anything about music. The hardcoded defaults and manual typing of relay URLs can be annoying. But I think it works well at the current stage of Nostr development. Soon, though, we can create events that recommend other relays or share relay lists specific to each kind of activity so users can get in-app suggestions of relays their friends are using to get their music from and so on. That kind of stuff can go a long way.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Nostr: a quick introduction, attempt #2 Nostr doesn't subscribe to any ideals of "free speech" as these belong to the realm of politics and assume a big powerful government that enforces a common ruleupon everybody else. Nostr instead is much simpler, it simply says that servers are private property and establishes a generalized framework for people to connect to all these servers, creating a true free market in the process. In other words, Nostr is the public road that each market participant can use to build their own store or visit others and use their services. (Of course a road is never truly public, in normal cases it's ran by the government, in this case it relies upon the previous existence of the internet with all its quirks and chaos plus a hand of government control, but none of that matters for this explanation). More concretely speaking, Nostr is just a set of definitions of the formats of the data that can be passed between participants and their expected order, i.e. messages between _clients_ (i.e. the program that runs on a user computer) and _relays_ (i.e. the program that runs on a publicly accessible computer, a "server", generally with a domain-name associated) over a type of TCP connection (WebSocket) with cryptographic signatures. This is what is called a "protocol" in this context, and upon that simple base multiple kinds of sub-protocols can be added, like a protocol for "public-square style microblogging", "semi-closed group chat" or, I don't know, "recipe sharing and feedback".

@ 0176967e:1e6f471e

Objavte, ako avatari a pseudonymné identity ovplyvňujú riadenie kryptokomunít a decentralizovaných organizácií (DAOs). V tejto prednáške sa zameriame na praktické fungovanie decentralizovaného rozhodovania, vytváranie a správu avatarových profilov, a ich rolu v online reputačných systémoch. Naučíte sa, ako si vytvoriť efektívny pseudonymný profil, zapojiť sa do rôznych krypto projektov a využiť svoje aktivity na zarábanie kryptomien. Preskúmame aj príklady úspešných projektov a stratégie, ktoré vám pomôžu zorientovať sa a uspieť v dynamickom svete decentralizovaných komunít.

@ 0176967e:1e6f471e

Jan Kolčák pochádza zo stredného Slovenska a vystupuje pod umeleckým menom Deepologic. Hudbe sa venuje už viac než 10 rokov. Začínal ako DJ, ktorý s obľubou mixoval klubovú hudbu v štýloch deep-tech a afrohouse. Stále ho ťahalo tvoriť vlastnú hudbu, a preto sa začal vzdelávať v oblasti tvorby elektronickej hudby. Nakoniec vydal svoje prvé EP s názvom "Rezonancie". Učenie je pre neho celoživotný proces, a preto sa neustále zdokonaľuje v oblasti zvuku a kompozície, aby jeho skladby boli kvalitné na posluch aj v klube. V roku 2023 si založil vlastnú značku EarsDeep Records, kde dáva príležitosť začínajúcim producentom. Jeho značku podporujú aj etablované mená slovenskej alternatívnej elektronickej scény. Jeho prioritou je sloboda a neškatulkovanie. Ako sa hovorí v jednej klasickej deephouseovej skladbe: "We are all equal in the house of deep." So slobodou ide ruka v ruke aj láska k novým technológiám, Bitcoinu a schopnosť udržať si v digitálnom svete prehľad, odstup a anonymitu. V súčasnosti ďalej produkuje vlastnú hudbu, venuje sa DJingu a vedie podcast, kde zverejňuje svoje mixované sety. Na Lunarpunk festivale bude hrať DJ set tvorený vlastnou produkciou, ale aj skladby, ktoré sú blízke jeho srdcu. [Podcast](https://fountain.fm/show/eYFu6V2SUlN4vC5qBKFk) [Bandcamp](https://earsdeep.bandcamp.com/) [Punk Nostr website](https://earsdeep-records.npub.pro/) alebo nprofile1qythwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnwdaehgu3wvfskuep0qy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uq3xamnwvaz7tmsw4e8qmr9wpskwtn9wvhsz9thwden5te0wfjkccte9ejxzmt4wvhxjme0qyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnddakj7qghwaehxw309aex2mrp0yh8qunfd4skctnwv46z7qpqguvns4ld8k2f3sugel055w7eq8zeewq7mp6w2stpnt6j75z60z3swy7h05

@ 0176967e:1e6f471e

Workshop je zameraný pre všetkých, ktorí sa potýkajú s vysvetľovaním Bitcoinu svojej rodine, kamarátom, partnerom alebo kolegom. Pri námietkach z druhej strany väčšinou ideme do protiútoku a snažíme sa vytiahnuť tie najlepšie argumenty. Na tomto workshope vás naučím nový prístup k zvládaniu námietok a vyskúšate si ho aj v praxi. Know-how je aplikovateľné nie len na komunikáciu Bitcoinu ale aj pre zlepšenie vzťahov, pri výchove detí a celkovo pre lepší osobný život.

@ 0176967e:1e6f471e

Ak ste v Bitcoine už nejaký ten rok, možno máte pocit, že už všetkému rozumiete a že vás nič neprekvapí. Viete čo je to peňaženka, čo je to seed a čo adresa, možno dokonca aj čo je to sha256. Ste si istí? Táto prednáška sa vám to pokúsi vyvrátiť. 🙂

@ 0176967e:1e6f471e

Bojovať s rakovinou metabolickou metódou znamená použiť metabolizmus tela proti rakovine. Riadenie cukru a ketónov v krvi stravou a pohybom, časovanie rôznych typov cvičení, včasná kombinácia klasickej onko-liečby a hladovania. Ktoré vitamíny a suplementy prijímam a ktorým sa napríklad vyhýbam dajúc na rady mojej dietologičky z USA Miriam (ktorá sa špecializuje na rakovinu). Hovori sa, že čo nemeriame, neriadime ... Ja som meral, veľa a dlho ... aj grafy budú ... aj sranda bude, hádam ... 😉

@ 0176967e:1e6f471e

Predikčné trhy predstavujú praktický spôsob, ako môžeme nahliadnuť do budúcnosti bez nutnosti spoliehať sa na tradičné, často nepresné metódy, ako je veštenie z kávových zrniek. V prezentácii sa ponoríme do histórie a vývoja predikčných trhov, a popíšeme aký vplyv mali a majú na dostupnosť a kvalitu informácií pre širokú verejnosť, a ako menia trh s týmito informáciami. Pozrieme sa aj na to, ako tieto trhy umožňujú obyčajným ľuďom prístup k spoľahlivým predpovediam a ako môžu prispieť k lepšiemu rozhodovaniu v rôznych oblastiach života.

@ 0176967e:1e6f471e

AI hype vnímame asi všetci okolo nás — už takmer každá appka ponúka nejakú “AI fíčuru”, AI startupy raisujú stovky miliónov a Európa ako obvykle pracuje na regulovaní a našej ochrane pred nebezpečím umelej inteligencie. Pomaly sa ale ukazuje “ovocie” spojenia umelej inteligencie a človeka, kedy mnohí ľudia reportujú signifikantné zvýšenie produktivity v práci ako aj kreatívnych aktivitách (aj napriek tomu, že mnohí hardcore kreatívci by každého pri spomenutí skratky “AI” najradšej upálili). V prvej polovici prednášky sa pozrieme na to, akými rôznymi spôsobmi nám vie byť AI nápomocná, či už v práci alebo osobnom živote. Umelé neuróny nám už vyskakujú pomaly aj z ovsených vločiek, no to ako sa k nám dostávajú sa veľmi líši. Hlavne v tom, či ich poskytujú firmy v zatvorených alebo open-source modeloch. V druhej polovici prednášky sa pozrieme na boom okolo otvorených AI modelov a ako ich vieme využiť.

@ 0176967e:1e6f471e

Čo vznikne keď spojíš hru SNAKE zo starej Nokie 3310 a Bitcoin? - hra [Chain Duel](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hCI2MzxOzE)! Jedna z najlepších implementácií funkcionality Lightning Networku a gamingu vo svete Bitcoinu. Vyskúšať si ju môžete s kamošmi [na tomto odkaze](https://game.chainduel.net/). Na stránke nájdeš aj základné pravidlá hry avšak odporúčame pravidlá pochopiť [aj priamo hraním](https://game.chainduel.net/gamemenu) Chain Duel si získava hromady fanúšikov po bitcoinových konferenciách po celom svete a práve na Lunarpunk festival ho prinesieme tiež. Multiplayer 1v1 hra, kde nejde o náhodu, ale skill, vás dostane. Poďte si zmerať sily s ďalšími bitcoinermi a vyhrať okrem samotných satoshi rôzne iné ceny. Príďte sa zúčastniť prvého oficiálneho Chain Duel turnaja na Slovensku! Pre účasť na turnaji je [potrebná registrácia dopredu](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScq96a-zM2i9FCkd3W3haNVcdKFTbPkXObNDh4vJwbmADsb0w/viewform).

@ 0176967e:1e6f471e

Co se nomádská rodina již 3 roky utíkající před kontrolou naučila o kontrole samotné? Co je to vlastně svoboda? Může koexistovat se strachem? S konfliktem? Zkusme na chvíli zapomenout na daně, policii a stát a pohlédnout na svobodu i mimo hranice společenských ideologií. Zkusme namísto hledání dalších odpovědí zjistit, zda se ještě někde neukrývají nové otázky. Možná to bude trochu ezo. Karel provozuje již přes 3 roky se svou ženou, dvěmi dětmi a jedním psem minimalistický život v obytné dodávce. Na cestách spolu začali tvořit youtubový kanál "[Karel od Martiny](https://www.youtube.com/@KarelodMartiny)" o svobodě, nomádství, anarchii, rodičovství, drogách a dalších normálních věcech. Nájdete ho aj [na nostr](nostr:npub1y2se87uxc7fa0aenfqfx5hl9t2u2fjt4sp0tctlcr0efpauqtalqxfvr89).

@ 0176967e:1e6f471e

Lístky na festival Lunarpunku sú už v predaji [na našom crowdfunding portáli](https://pay.cypherpunk.today/apps/maY3hxKArQxMpdyh5yCtT6UWMJm/crowdfund). V predaji sú dva typy lístkov - štandardný vstup a špeciálny vstup spolu s workshopom oranžového leta. Neváhajte a zabezpečte si lístok, čím skôr to urobíte, tým bude festival lepší. Platiť môžete Bitcoinom - Lightningom aj on-chain. Vaša vstupenka je e-mail adresa (neposielame potvrdzujúce e-maily, ak platba prešla, ste in). [Kúpte si lístok](https://pay.cypherpunk.today/apps/maY3hxKArQxMpdyh5yCtT6UWMJm/crowdfund)

@ 0176967e:1e6f471e

Čo nám prinášajú exotické protokoly ako Nostr, Cashu alebo Reticulum? Šifrovanie, podpisovanie, peer to peer komunikáciu, nové spôsoby šírenia a odmeňovania obsahu. Ukážeme si kúl appky, ako sa dajú jednotlivé siete prepájať a ako spolu súvisia.

@ 0176967e:1e6f471e

Podnikanie je jazyk s "crystal clear" pravidlami. Inštrumentalisti vidia podnikanie staticky, a toto videnie prenášajú na spoločnosť. Preto nás spoločnosť vníma často negatívne. Skutoční podnikatelia sú však "komunikátori". Jozef Martiniak je zakladateľ AUSEKON - Institute of Austrian School of Economics

@ 0176967e:1e6f471e

Ako sa snažím praktizovať LunarPunk bez budovania opcionality "odchodom" do zahraničia. Nie každý je ochotný alebo schopný meniť "miesto", ako však v takom prípade minimalizovať interakciu so štátom? Nie návod, skôr postrehy z bežného života.

@ 0176967e:1e6f471e

Tento rok vás čaká workshop na tému "oranžové leto" s Jurajom Bednárom a Mariannou Sádeckou. Dozviete sa ako mení naše vnímanie skúsenosť s Bitcoinom, ako sa navigovať v dnešnom svete a odstrániť mentálnu hmlu spôsobenú fiat životom. Na workshop je potrebný [extra lístok](https://pay.cypherpunk.today/apps/maY3hxKArQxMpdyh5yCtT6UWMJm/crowdfund) (môžete si ho dokúpiť aj na mieste). Pre viac informácií o oranžovom lete odporúčame pred workshopom vypočuťi si [podcast na túto tému](https://juraj.bednar.io/podcast/2024/04/13/oranzove-leto-stanme-sa-tvorcami-svojho-zivota-s-mariannou-sadeckou/).

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Why relay hints are important Recently [Coracle has removed support](nostr:nevent1qqsfmgthccjuz7quucel20wjanh80sp8nxf5ujgpj5hwdzk8japavzgpzemhxue69uhky6t5vdhkjmn9wgh8xmmrd9skcq3qjlrs53pkdfjnts29kveljul2sm0actt6n8dxrrzqcersttvcuv3qca68ht) for following relay hints in Nostr event references. Supposedly Coracle is now relying only on public key hints and `kind:10002` events to determine where to fetch events from a user. That is a catastrophic idea that destroys much of Nostr's flexibility for no gain at all. * Someone makes a post inside a community (either a NIP-29 community or a NIP-87 community) and others want to refer to that post in discussions in the external Nostr world of `kind:1`s -- now that cannot work because the person who created the post doesn't have the relays specific to those communities in their outbox list; * There is a discussion happening in a niche relay, for example, a relay that can only be accessed by the participants of a conference for the duration of that conference -- since that relay is not in anyone's public outbox list, it's impossible for anyone outside of the conference to ever refer to these events; * Some big public relays, say, _relay.damus.io_, decide to nuke their databases or periodically delete old events, a user keeps using that big relay as their outbox because it is fast and reliable, but chooses to archive their old events in a dedicated archival relay, say, _cellar.nostr.wine_, while prudently not including that in their outbox list because that would make no sense -- now it is impossible for anyone to refer to old notes from this user even though they are publicly accessible in _cellar.nostr.wine_; * There are [topical relays](nostr:naddr1qqyrze35vscrzvfcqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c0z85e2) that curate content relating to niche (non-microblogging) topics, say, cooking recipes, and users choose to publish their recipes to these relays only -- but now they can't refer to these relays in the external Nostr world of `kind:1`s because these topical relays are not in their outbox lists. * Suppose a user wants to maintain two different identities under the same keypair, say, one identity only talks about soccer in English, while the other only talks about art history in French, and the user very prudently keeps two different `kind:10002` events in two different sets of "indexer" relays (or does it in some better way of announcing different relay sets) -- now one of this user's audiences cannot ever see notes created by him with their other persona, one half of the content of this user will be inacessible to the other half and vice-versa. * If for any reason a relay does not want to accept events of a certain kind a user may publish to other relays, and it would all work fine if the user referenced that externally-published event from a normal event, but now that externally-published event is not reachable because the external relay is not in the user's outbox list. * If someone, say, Alex Jones, is hard-banned everywhere and cannot event broadcast `kind:10002` events to any of the commonly used index relays, that person will now appear as banned in most clients: in an ideal world in which clients followed `nprofile` and other relay hints Alex Jones could still live a normal Nostr life: he would print business cards with his `nprofile` instead of an `npub` and clients would immediately know from what relay to fetch his posts. When other users shared his posts or replied to it, they would include a relay hint to his personal relay and others would be able to see and then start following him on that relay directly -- now Alex Jones's events cannot be read by anyone that doesn't already know his relay.

@ 6871d8df:4a9396c1

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

@ 266815e0:6cd408a5

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Censorship-resistant relay discovery in Nostr In [Nostr is not decentralized nor censorship-resistant](nostr:naddr1qqyrsdmpxgcrsepeqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c4n8rw6) I said Nostr is centralized. Peter Todd thinks it is centralized by design, but I disagree. Nostr wasn't designed to be centralized. The idea was always that clients would follow people in the relays they decided to publish to, even if it was a single-user relay hosted in an island in the middle of the Pacific ocean. But the Nostr explanations never had any guidance about how to do this, and the protocol itself never had any enforcement mechanisms for any of this (because it would be impossible). My original idea was that clients would use some undefined combination of relay hints in reply tags and the (now defunct) `kind:2` relay-recommendation events plus some form of manual action ("it looks like Bob is publishing on relay X, do you want to follow him there?") to accomplish this. With the expectation that we would have a better idea of how to properly implement all this with more experience, Branle, my first working client didn't have any of that implemented, instead it used a stupid static list of relays with read/write toggle -- although it did publish relay hints and kept track of those internally and supported `kind:2` events, these things were not really useful. [Gossip](https://github.com/mikedilger/gossip) was the first client to implement a [truly censorship-resistant relay discovery mechanism](https://mikedilger.com/gossip-relay-model.mp4) that used NIP-05 hints (originally proposed by [Mike Dilger](nprofile1qqswuyd9ml6qcxd92h6pleptfrcqucvvjy39vg4wx7mv9wm8kakyujgua442w)) relay hints and `kind:3` relay lists, and then with the simple insight of [NIP-65](https://nips.nostr.com/65) that got much better. After seeing it in more concrete terms, it became simpler to reason about it and the approach got popularized as the "gossip model", then implemented in clients like [Coracle](https://coracle.social) and [Snort](https://snort.social). Today when people mention the "gossip model" (or "outbox model") they simply think about NIP-65 though. Which I think is ok, but too restrictive. I still think there is a place for the NIP-05 hints, `nprofile` and `nevent` relay hints and specially relay hints in event tags. All these mechanisms are used together in [ZBD Social](nostr:naddr1qqyxgvek8qmryc3eqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823chekfst), for example, but I believe also in the clients listed above. I don't think we should stop here, though. I think there are other ways, perhaps drastically different ways, to approach content propagation and relay discovery. I think manual action by users is underrated and could go a long way if presented in a nice UX (not conceived by people that think users are dumb animals), and who knows what. Reliance on third-parties, hardcoded values, social graph, and specially a mix of multiple approaches, is what Nostr needs to be censorship-resistant and what I hope to see in the future.

@ 6871d8df:4a9396c1

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Drivechain Understanding Drivechain requires a shift from the paradigm most bitcoiners are used to. It is not about "trustlessness" or "mathematical certainty", but game theory and incentives. (Well, Bitcoin in general is also that, but people prefer to ignore it and focus on some illusion of trustlessness provided by mathematics.) Here we will describe the basic mechanism (simple) and incentives (complex) of ["hashrate escrow"](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0300.mediawiki) and how it enables a 2-way peg between the mainchain (Bitcoin) and various sidechains. The full concept of "Drivechain" also involves blind merged mining (i.e., the sidechains mine themselves by publishing their block hashes to the mainchain without the miners having to run the sidechain software), but this is much easier to understand and can be accomplished either by [the BIP-301 mechanism](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0301.mediawiki) or by [the Spacechains mechanism](https://gist.github.com/RubenSomsen/5e4be6d18e5fa526b17d8b34906b16a5). ## How does hashrate escrow work from the point of view of Bitcoin? A new address type is created. Anything that goes in that is locked and can only be spent if all miners agree on the _Withdrawal Transaction_ (`WT^`) that will spend it for 6 months. There is one of these special addresses for each sidechain. To gather miners' agreement `bitcoind` keeps track of the "score" of all transactions that could possibly spend from that address. On every block mined, for each sidechain, the miner can use a portion of their coinbase to either increase the score of one `WT^` by 1 while decreasing the score of all others by 1; or they can decrease the score of all `WT^`s by 1; or they can do nothing. Once a transaction has gotten a score high enough, it is published and funds are effectively transferred from the sidechain to the withdrawing users. If a timeout of 6 months passes and the score doesn't meet the threshold, that `WT^` is discarded. ## What does the above procedure _mean_? It means that people can transfer coins from the mainchain to a sidechain by depositing to the special address. Then they can withdraw from the sidechain by making a special withdraw transaction in the sidechain. The special transaction somehow freezes funds in the sidechain while a transaction that aggregates all withdrawals into a single mainchain `WT^`, which is then submitted to the mainchain miners so they can start voting on it and finally after some months it is published. Now the crucial part: _the validity of the `WT^` is not verified by the Bitcoin mainchain rules_, i.e., if Bob has requested a withdraw from the sidechain to his mainchain address, but someone publishes a wrong `WT^` that instead takes Bob's funds and sends them to Alice's main address there is no way the mainchain will know that. What determines the "validity" of the `WT^` is the miner vote score and only that. It is the job of miners to vote correctly -- and for that they may want to run the sidechain node in SPV mode so they can attest for the existence of a reference to the `WT^` transaction in the sidechain blockchain (which then ensures it is ok) or do these checks by some other means. ## What? 6 months to get my money back? Yes. But no, in practice anyone who wants their money back will be able to use an atomic swap, submarine swap or other similar service to transfer funds from the sidechain to the mainchain and vice-versa. The long delayed withdraw costs would be incurred by few liquidity providers that would gain some small profit from it. ## Why bother with this at all? Drivechains solve many different problems: ### It enables experimentation and new use cases for Bitcoin Issued assets, fully private transactions, stateful blockchain contracts, turing-completeness, decentralized games, some "DeFi" aspects, prediction markets, futarchy, decentralized and yet meaningful human-readable names, big blocks with a ton of normal transactions on them, a chain optimized only for Lighting-style networks to be built on top of it. These are some ideas that may have merit to them, but were never _actually_ tried because they couldn't be tried with real Bitcoin or inferfacing with real bitcoins. They were either relegated to the shitcoin territory or to custodial solutions like Liquid or RSK that may have failed to gain network effect because of that. ### It solves conflicts and infighting Some people want fully private transactions in a UTXO model, others want "accounts" they can tie to their name and build reputation on top; some people want simple multisig solutions, others want complex code that reads a ton of variables; some people want to put all the transactions on a global chain in batches every 10 minutes, others want off-chain instant transactions backed by funds previously locked in channels; some want to spend, others want to just hold; some want to use blockchain technology to solve all the problems in the world, others just want to solve money. With Drivechain-based sidechains all these groups can be happy simultaneously and don't fight. Meanwhile they will all be using the same money and contributing to each other's ecosystem even unwillingly, it's also easy and free for them to change their group affiliation later, which reduces cognitive dissonance. ### It solves "scaling" Multiple chains like the ones described above would certainly do a lot to accomodate many more transactions that the current Bitcoin chain can. One could have special Lightning Network chains, but even just big block chains or big-block-mimblewimble chains or whatnot could probably do a good job. Or even something less cool like 200 independent chains just like Bitcoin is today, no extra features (and you can call it "sharding"), just that would already multiply the current total capacity by 200. Use your imagination. ### It solves the blockchain security budget issue The calculation is simple: you imagine what security budget is reasonable for each block in a world without block subsidy and divide that for the amount of bytes you can fit in a single block: that is the price to be paid in _satoshis per byte_. In reasonable estimative, the price necessary for every Bitcoin transaction goes to very large amounts, such that not only any day-to-day transaction has insanely prohibitive costs, but also Lightning channel opens and closes are impracticable. So without a solution like Drivechain you'll be left with only one alternative: pushing Bitcoin usage to trusted services like Liquid and RSK or custodial Lightning wallets. With Drivechain, though, there could be thousands of transactions happening in sidechains and being all aggregated into a sidechain block that would then pay a very large fee to be published (via blind merged mining) to the mainchain. Bitcoin security guaranteed. ### It keeps Bitcoin decentralized Once we have sidechains to accomodate the normal transactions, the mainchain functionality can be reduced to be only a "hub" for the sidechains' comings and goings, and then the maximum block size for the mainchain can be reduced to, say, 100kb, which would make running a full node very very easy. ## Can miners steal? Yes. If a group of coordinated miners are able to secure the majority of the hashpower and keep their coordination for 6 months, they can publish a `WT^` that takes the money from the sidechains and pays to themselves. ## Will miners steal? No, because the incentives are such that they won't. Although it may look at first that stealing is an obvious strategy for miners as it is free money, there are many costs involved: 1. The cost of **ceasing blind-merged mining returns** -- as stealing will kill a sidechain, all the fees from it that miners would be expected to earn for the next years are gone; 2. The cost of **Bitcoin price going down**: If a steal is successful that will mean Drivechains are not safe, therefore Bitcoin is less useful, and miner credibility will also be hurt, which are likely to cause the Bitcoin price to go down, which in turn may kill the miners' businesses and savings; 3. The cost of **coordination** -- assuming miners are just normal businesses, they just want to do their work and get paid, but stealing from a Drivechain will require coordination with other miners to conduct an immoral act in a way that has many pitfalls and is likely to be broken over the months; 4. The cost of **miners leaving your mining pool**: when we talked about "miners" above we were actually talking about mining pools operators, so they must also consider the risk of miners migrating from their mining pool to others as they begin the process of stealing; 5. The cost of **community goodwill** -- when participating in a steal operation, a miner will suffer a ton of backlash from the community. Even if the attempt fails at the end, the fact that it was attempted will contribute to growing concerns over exaggerated miners power over the Bitcoin ecosystem, which may end up causing the community to agree on a hard-fork to change the mining algorithm in the future, or to do something to increase participation of more entities in the mining process (such as development or cheapment of new ASICs), which have a chance of decreasing the profits of current miners. Another point to take in consideration is that one may be inclined to think a newly-created sidechain or a sidechain with relatively low usage may be more easily stolen from, since the blind merged mining returns from it (point 1 above) are going to be small -- but the fact is also that a sidechain with small usage will also have less money to be stolen from, and since the other costs besides 1 are less elastic at the end it will not be worth stealing from these too. All of the above consideration are valid only if miners are stealing from _good sidechains_. If there is a sidechain that is doing things wrong, scamming people, not being used at all, or is full of bugs, for example, that will be perceived as a bad sidechain, and then miners can and will safely steal from it and kill it, which will be perceived as a good thing by everybody. ## What do we do if miners steal? Paul Sztorc has suggested in the past that a user-activated soft-fork could prevent miners from stealing, i.e., most Bitcoin users and nodes issue a rule [similar to this one](https://twitter.com/LukeDashjr/status/1126221228182843398) to invalidate the inclusion of a faulty `WT^` and thus cause any miner that includes it in a block to be relegated to their own Bitcoin fork that other nodes won't accept. This suggestion has made people think Drivechain is a sidechain solution _backed by user-actived soft-forks for safety_, which is very far from the truth. Drivechains must not and will not rely on this kind of soft-fork, although they are possible, as the coordination costs are too high and no one should ever expect these things to happen. If even with all the incentives against them (see above) miners do still steal from a _good sidechain_ that will mean _the failure of the Drivechain experiment_. It will very likely also mean _the failure of the Bitcoin experiment_ too, as it will be proven that miners can coordinate to act maliciously over a prolonged period of time regardless of economic and social incentives, meaning they are probably in it just for attacking Bitcoin, backed by nation-states or something else, and therefore no Bitcoin transaction in the mainchain is to be expected to be safe ever again. ## Why use this and not a full-blown trustless and open sidechain technology? Because it is impossible. If you ever heard someone saying "just use a sidechain", "do this in a sidechain" or anything like that, be aware that these people are either talking about "federated" sidechains (i.e., funds are kept in custody by a group of entities) or they are talking about Drivechain, or they are disillusioned and think it is possible to do sidechains in any other manner. ### No, I mean a trustless 2-way peg with correctness of the withdrawals verified by the Bitcoin protocol! That is not possible unless Bitcoin verifies all transactions that happen in all the sidechains, which would be akin to drastically increasing the blocksize and expanding the Bitcoin rules in tons of ways, i.e., a terrible idea that no one wants. ### What about the Blockstream sidechains whitepaper? Yes, that was a way to do it. The Drivechain hashrate escrow is a conceptually simpler way to achieve the same thing with improved incentives, less junk in the chain, more safety. ## Isn't the hashrate escrow a very complex soft-fork? Yes, but it is much simpler than SegWit. And, unlike SegWit, it doesn't force anything on users, i.e., it isn't a mandatory blocksize increase. ## Why should we expect miners to care enough to participate in the voting mechanism? Because it's in their own self-interest to do it, and it costs very little. Today over half of the miners mine RSK. It's not blind merged mining, it's a [very convoluted process that requires them to run a RSK full node](https://developers.rsk.co/rsk/architecture/mining/implementation-guide/). For the Drivechain sidechains, an SPV node would be enough, or maybe just getting data from a block explorer API, so much much simpler. ## What if I still don't like Drivechain even after reading this? That is the entire point! You don't have to like it or use it as long as you're fine with other people using it. The hashrate escrow special addresses will not impact you at all, validation cost is minimal, and you get the benefit of people who want to use Drivechain migrating to their own sidechains and freeing up space for you in the mainchain. See also the point above about infighting. ## See also * [Podcast episode with Ruben Somsen and Aaron van Wirdum explaining Drivechain](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhU6nsB5Z-0) * [Alternatives to Drivechain](nostr:naddr1qqyrqenzvvukvcfkqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823csjg2t6) * [Drivechain comparison with Ethereum](nostr:naddr1qqyx2dp58qcx2wpjqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cane7px)

@ 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

# Não tem solução O melhor presidente dos últimos 50 anos, o melhor congresso, o melhor governador, os melhores ministros, um resultado eleitoral muito melhor do que o melhor dos meus sonhos e nada acontece. A única solução que nos resta é o Bitcoin. Vale talvez a pena dar a vida pra tentar popularizar esse negócio.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Firefox in comparison with Chrome as of 2018 Better - Faster page loads - Displays `<table>`s better by default - Using the same browser on multiple places actually makes your experience better, because you can list and send tabs from one device to another - Firefox for Android is vastly superior: - It is much faster - It allows you to install browser extensions, which means you get to use uBlock Origin on Android - It allows you to send and receive tabs from the desktop - It has a built-in QR code scanner - Telegram notifications actually work - I'm not forced to see the neverending super-animated left-inclined special Google Doodles on my new tab page Basically the same thing - JavaScript speed - Overall stability - JavaScript new features support - All major browser extensions seem to be available for both platforms (although I'm not a huge extensions user so I don't know) Worse - Chrome has that nice OpenSearch support that allows you to type the beggining of a site's URL, hit tab and then perform a search query on that site if it supports OpenSearch (Firefox has OpenSearch support, but it works differently, in I way that feels odd to me) - Developer tools are much slower, so I use Chromium for debugging JavaScript apps and nothing more - CodeMirror doesn't allow me to paste using the middle-click on Linux, while in Chrome it does, who knows why? There's an issue open on GitHub, but no solution for the near future (I'm forced to call `xsel -p -o | xsel -b` before pasting stuff from the terminal)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# 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

# 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

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Timeu Os quatro elementos, a esfera como a forma mais perfeita, os cinco sentidos, a dor como perturbação e o prazer como retorno, o demiurgo que cria da melhor maneira possível com a matéria que tem, o conceito de duro e mole, todas essas coisas que ensinam nas escolas e nos desenhos animados ou sei lá como entram na nossa consciência como se fossem uma verdade, mas sempre uma verdade provisória, infantil -- como os nomes infantis dos dedos (mata-piolho, fura-bolo etc.) --, que mesmo as crianças sabem que não é verdade mesmo. Parece que todas essas coisas estão nesse livro. Talvez até mesmo a classificação dos cinco dedos como mata-piolho e tal, mas talvez eu tenha dormido nessa parte. Me pergunto se essas coisas não eram ensinadas tradicionalmente na idade média como sendo verdade absoluta (pois afinal estava lá o Platão dizendo, em sua única obra) e persistiram até hoje numa tradição que se mantém aos trancos e barrancos, contra tudo e contra todos, sem ninguém saber como, um conhecimento em que ninguém acredita mas acha bonito mesmo assim, harmonioso, e vem despida de suas origens e fontes primárias e de todo o seu contexto perturbar o entendimento do mundo pelas crianças.

@ 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

# Conjecture and criticism I heard about this epistemological method _conjecture and criticism_ in [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPP_sYY2RPg). Oddly, it was portrayed as something that goes against the Austrian method by Paul Sztorc, while the other guy, JW Weatherman, was championing the "praxeological" method of pure logical deduction from first principles as the basis of all economic knowledge. It has always seemed to me that this pure logical reasoning was somewhat weird, specially in light of Carl Menger's _empiricism_ (which is not the same empiricism from modern sciences). Conjecture and criticism seems to fit better with Menger's method and whatever Austrians actually do. No one really reasons with pure logical deduction. What people do is spot something in the real world and try to come up with a reasonable explanation that is logically consistent. The entire logical impenetrability of every Austrian theory comes after the theory is conceived (conjected?) by a human mind, not -- like some praxeological claims would imply -- deducted as if by a computer. - [A Causa](nostr:naddr1qqyryvtrv5enyc3eqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c2jlyzx)

@ 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

# 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

# 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

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Como conversar com esquerdistas (notas de uma conversa com P.S., 12/3/17) Escutar o que ele está falando. E se o discurso dele é só uma coleção de lugares-comuns da esquerda (como deve ser, provavelmente), não tem problema. Fazer perguntas que tentam esclarecer o sentimento por trás do discurso (por exemplo, perguntar se o esquerdista tem medo de que Michel Temer vá empobrecer o Estado), e se a resposta for, de novo, um discurso pronto, repetir o processo (por exemplo, perguntar se o esquerdista tem medo de que o Estado pobre não poderá prover educação para a população), até chegar às raízes íntimas da inquietação que aquele esquerdista sente que tem alguma relação com aquele ponto. Quando chega-se a esse ponto, o serviço já está feito. O serviço de neutralizar a neurose para deixar a pessoa lidar com suas causas que se escondiam por baixo de um mar de racionalizações e discursos políticos. Um exemplo é o de que a pessoa foi assaltada. Nos momentos que se seguiram ao assalto, o sentimento de impotência e desorientação que ela experimentou era grande demais para ser tolerado ("por que eu? por que agora?") e então ela usou discursos que tinha ouvido para criar uma explicação para tudo aquilo, e a explicação acabou sendo a de que a falta de educação básica é que cria assaltantes, e essa educação precisa ser fornecida pelo Estado etc. Também não precisa ser tão traumático assim. Pode ser um fato que não envolveu nenhuma violência física, como a dor que ela sentiu ao ouvir um tio, que era professor infantil, numa roda de conversa, narrar, com alguma tristeza que ele tentava esconder, o fato de que fora demitido. Talvez este seja o processo que Olavo tentou fazer, sempre sem sucesso (já que, imagino, sem muito empenho), ao perguntar às pessoas "de onde elas tiraram essa idéia". É bastante importante, talvez a parte mais importante, a cada momento deste processo (e de todos, mas estamos falando deste), notar em nós mesmos que o que o que estamos fazendo, essas perguntas todas, é de certa forma também um discurso (perceba que tem até um manual ensinando, que é este texto mesmo), e que ele também deve ter suas origens neuróticas.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# idea: Hosted-channels Lightning wallet that runs in the browser Communicates over HTTP with a server that is actually connected to the Lightning Network, but generates preimages and onions locally, doing everything like the [Hosted Channels protocol](https://github.com/btcontract/hosted-channels-rfc) says. Just the communication method changes. Could use this library: <https://www.npmjs.com/package/bolt04>

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# A Canção do Cavaleiro Bolsonaro > em meio ao caos, às trevas e à imundície > da esquerda atroz, que a pó a nação reduz > surge um guerreiro cavalgando as planícies > pra libertar a Terra de Santa Cruz > > tendo sua liberdade ameaçada > o povo prostra-se em pia oração > deus lhes envia com armadura prateada > o herói Jair, dos justos o bastião > > Bolsonaro mito > Bolsonaro mito > defende a liberdade neste conflito > > à serpente vermelha quem resiste? > são China e ONU seus braços de terror > mas Bolsomito com sua espada em riste > rasga o inimigo com a audácia de um condor > > por sua honra não se acovarda ou falha > imbuído está de intrepidez viril > vá Bolsonaro, vença essa batalha! > destrua o mal, salve o povo do Brasil > > Bolsonaro mito > Bolsonaro mito > defende a liberdade neste conflito Letra de Paulo Kogos, cantada por ele em <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1BBY9e-__s>

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# IPFS problems: Pinning "Pin" is a nice word the IPFS team has come up with to designate the act of telling your node to store some content permanently and don't garbage-collect it. The idea is that you'll store everything you fetch and reroute this to others automatically, but every once in a while all content you have on your node that is not explicitly "pinned" will be erased, so you shouldn't worry about storing too much of other people's things, but also can contribute to keep alive content you like. Pinning has a big problem, however: you can't know what you've pinned. Every pin you add is going to be saved on your computer, you won't be able to unpin stuff because you don't know what is what, in the end you'll be left with a disk full of pinned stuff and probably lose that disk or delete everything to open up space for other things after getting frustrated with the entire IPFS experiment. Examine the incentives in this model: we're relying on sharing being made by people that do that unwillingly and unknowngly. Users spend electricity on nodes that are supposed to be always running and serving content to others. Links are only kept unbroken if someone decides to pin them, but since there's no order, the pins are doomed to be erased everywhere.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Maybe a new approach to the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, some disorganized thoughts This approach is loosely based on the guido-hulsmann concept of "cluster of errors" and on general ideas about capital heterogeneity taken from Lachmann. * Interest is just another price. Let's consider just flow of money and changes in relative prices instead. * Monetary policy is just one possible cause of relative prices misalignment. * The base interest rate is not very important, if there's a big flow of money to one specific sector that's what matters. There will be an unsustainable boom there. * Of course if there's a general reduction in interest rates that means there's a general flow of money to multiple sectors (those with lengthier production processes) or even disequilibria inside sectors towards more roundaboutness in an unsustainable manner (to talk about sectors is an oversimplification, these things don't exist in fact). * The standard ABCT formulation gives too much importance to the banking sector, as if it had a role in the economy much more important than anything else. That may not be the case. And even without banks at all still boom-bust cycles would happen if a new flow of printed money is directed somewhere (anywhere). This new approach solves: * Critiques of the theory like "oh, entrepreneurs are rational, they will know the monetary policy and don't overinvest" because now we can make it clear that they will follow relative prices. * The problem with talking about one single interest rate, as in the real world there multiple interest rates -- or in fact multiple interest rates for each agent at each point on time. * The problem with hayekian triangles. We can ignore these now because the concept of a general lengthening of a general production process is not the characteristic of the cycle anymore. That is just one possible example of cycle -- one that's probably very rare. * Garrison's powerpoint fundamental problem: it ignores the fundamental insight from Solow's growth model according to which economic growth can't be explained by considering just aggregate savings/investments. ### Networks of circles of production Instead of thinking in triangles[^hayekiantriangles] we can think in networks of circles of variable sizes. If we imagine there's a circle which represents one kind of good produced and for some reason there's an stimulus for the production of that good (for example, a governmental program that uses newly-printed money to subsidize loans for that specifically) that circle will get bigger. In the process of getting bigger it will also make bigger the circles that were already around it, and the biggerness will gradually spread. That means new investment is being made on each of these industries, malinvestiment. People and resources are migrating from other, more distant circles, to these circles nearer the epicenter of malinvestment. Representing the cycle that way we're free to oversimplify as you can just say: the real world is like this, but with many more circles and more complex relationships between them. You can also alternate between considering the circles sectors, industries or individual companies. ### No sequential "steps" of production, just plans Instead of imagining production princesses with discrete sequential steps we should also consider actually just plans. Entrepreneurs predict there will be demand and predict there well be suppliers with reasonable prices for them to complete a plan. The plan can be arbitrarily divided into production and sale of a good, but actually often these parts are not so simply detached from each other. In the network of circles the plan can be visualized as one circle looking around and seeing the other circles and estimating their future behavior. The boom stops and the bust happens when the predictions fail. They fail because the unsustainable stimulus that was causing some of the circles to increase continuously stops. [^hayekiantriangles]: Hayekian triangles: <https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Hayekian_triangle>

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Temperos "Templates as a service", or "temperaas", changed to "temperos" later because it was a nice pun in Portuguese. The ideas was that it would take an URL with any file and some querystring parameters, then replace `{{paramName}}` with the parameters from the querystring and serve it, all stateless. Created to make it easy for people to embed scripts on [Websites For Trello](nostr:naddr1qqyrydpkvverwvehqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c9d4yku) (but of course it was too hard for most people). - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/temperos> - <https://temperos.alhur.es/>

@ 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

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Bitcoin, not you Bitcoin is not here to delight you. Bitcoin doesn't exist so you can receive money and trustlessly verify that you received money in your own node, which you _use_. Bitcoin is not about your desire of being "self-sovereign" and "your own bank". Bitcoin is a gift from God that will bring the end of all inflation, all its other characteristics are secondary. Bitcoin is not money if not for the others.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# idea: clarity.fm on Lightning Getting money from clients very easily, dispatching that money to "world class experts" (what a silly way to market things, but I guess it works) very easily are the job for Bitcoin and the Lightning Network. ### EDIT 2020-09-04 My idea was that people would advertise themselves, so you would book an hour with people you know already, but it seems that clarify.fm has gone through the route of offering a "catalog of experts" to potential clients, all full of verification processes probably and marketing. So I guess this is not a thing I can do. Actually I did <https://s4a.etleneum.com/> (on [Etleneum](nostr:naddr1qqyrjcny8qcn2ve4qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823crwzz2w)) that is somewhat similar, but of course doesn't have the glamour and network effect and marketing -- also it's just text, when in Clarity is fancy calls. Thinking about it, this is just a simple and obvious idea: just copy things from the fiat world and make them on Lightning, but maybe it is still worth pointing these out as there are hundreds of developers out there trying to make yet another lottery game with Lightning. It may also be a good idea to not just copy fiat-businesses models, but also change them experimenting with new paradigms, like [idea: Patreon, but simple, and without subscription](nostr:naddr1qqyrgcnrvcmxxc3hqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c3cfczc).

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Formula for making games with satoshis I think the only way to do in-game sats and make the game more interesting instead of breaking the mechanics is by doing something like 1. Asking everybody to pay the same amount to join; 2. They get that same amount inside the game as balances; 3. They must use these balances to buy items to win the game; 4. The money they used becomes available as in-game rewards for other players; 5. They must spend some money otherwise they just lose all the time; 6. They can't use too much because if they run out of money they are eliminated. If you think about it, that's how poker mostly works, and it's one of the few games in which paying money to play makes the game more interesting and not less. In _Poker_: 1. Everybody pays the same amount to join. 2. Everybody gets that amount in tokens or whatever, I don't know, this varies; 3. Everybody must pay money to bet on each hand; 4. The money used on each round is taken by the round winner; 5. If you don't bet you can't play the rounds, you're just eliminated; 6. If you go all-in all the time like a mad person you'll lose. In a game like _Worms_, for example, this could be something like: 1. Idem; 2. Idem; 3. You must use money to buy guns and ammunitions; 4. Whatever you spent goes to a pot for the winners or each round -- or maybe it goes to the people that contributed in killing you; 5. If you don't buy any guns you're useless; 6. If you spend everything on a single gun that's probably unwise. You can also apply this to games like _Counter-Strike_ or _Dota_ or even _Starcraft_ or [Bolo](nostr:naddr1qqzxymmvduq3zamnwvaz7tmxd9shg6npvchxxmmdqgsrhuxx8l9ex335q7he0f09aej04zpazpl0ne2cgukyawd24mayt8grqsqqqa28xcgpk4) and probably to most games as long as they have a fixed duration with a fixed set of players. The formula is not static nor a panacea. There is room for creativity on what each player can spend their money in and how the spent money is distributed during the game. Some hard task of balancing and incentivizing is still necessary so the player that starts winning doesn't automatically win for having more money as the game goes on.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Programming quibbles * [About CouchDB](nostr:naddr1qqyrwepevf3n2wf5qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c0jq39e) * [my personal approach on using `let`, `const` and `var` in javascript](nostr:naddr1qqyrxcmxvyun2vr9qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cvj9k9l) * [A crappy course on torrents](nostr:naddr1qqyrwdfevfjnxefcqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cuskhxf) * [Multi-service Graph Reputation protocol](nostr:naddr1qqyxxefex9nryvf3qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cpwsxjw) * [The monolithic approach to CouchDB views](nostr:naddr1qqyrswrpvdsnsc3nqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823car67ph) * [My stupid introduction to Haskell](nostr:naddr1qqyrxveevscrqcmrqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cxd5qyk) * [The unit test bubble](nostr:naddr1qqyrjerxxyukgvm9qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cqu7c5h) * [There's a problem with using Git concepts for everything](nostr:naddr1qqyxyd3nx3sngepcqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cpp5kem) * [On the state of programs and browsers](nostr:naddr1qqyxgdfe8qexvd34qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cd7nk4m) * [Rust's `.into()` is a strictly bad thing](nostr:naddr1qqyrzd3kx9snzdesqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cvlm2vc)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Donations on the internet (This was written in the context of donations to people who do free stuff on the internet, open-source software and so on.) Donations are broken not because "few people care", but because it's an unsolvable information problem: no one knows how much they should be donating and to whom, and it would be impossible to even think about the perfect donation strategy, much more impossible to execute it. I use a ton of free services and consume tons of different contents from multiple sources, but it only occurred me to donate to some. And I'm probably donating too much to these, while zero to all others, or maybe too few even to the few ones I donate to. I cannot know. In the world of ideals there is a correct amount that each donor should be giving to each contributor in every single item in the full production structure of something the donors care about, but this is not a mathematical problem, it's the statement of an impossibility. Maybe <https://mises.org/library/superman-needs-agent> is related.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Blockchains are not decentralized data storage People are used to saying and thinking that blockchains provide immutable data storage. Then many times they add a caveat that says blockchains are very expensive, so we can't really store too much data on them, but we can still store some data if we really want and are ok with paying for it. But the fact is that blockchains cannot ever be used to store anything. The purpose of blockchains is to keep track of some state that everybody must agree upon at all times, and arbitrary data that anyone may have wanted to backup there is not relevant to anyone else[^relevant] and thus there are no incentives for anyone else to keep track of that. In other words: if you backup your personal pictures as `OP_RETURN` outputs on Bitcoin, people may delete that and your backup will be void[^op-return-invalid-outputs]. Another thing blockchains supposedly do is to "broadcast" something. For example, nodes may delete the `OP_RETURN` outputs, but at least they have to verify these first, and spread they over the network, so you can broadcast your data and be sure everybody will get it. About this we can say two things: 1, if this happens, it's not a property of blockchains, but of the Bitcoin transaction sharing network that operates outside of the blockchain. 2, if you try to use that network for purposes that are irrelevant for the functioning of the Bitcoin protocol there is no incentive for other nodes to cooperate and they may ignore you. The above points may sound weird and you may be prompted to answer: but you can do all that today and there is no actual mechanism to stop anyone from broadcasting irrelevant crap!, and that is true. My point here is only that if you're thinking about blockchains as being this data-broadcast-storage mechanism you're thinking about them wrong, that is not an essential part of any blockchain. In other words: the incentives are not aligned for blockchains to be used like that (unless you come up with a scheme that makes data from everyone else to be relevant to everybody), in the long term such things are not expected to work and insisting on doing them will result in either your application or protocol that stores data on the blockchain to crash or in the death of the given blockchain (I hope Bitcoin haters don't read this). (This is a counterpoint to myself on [idea: Rumple](nostr:naddr1qqr8yatdwpkx2qg3waehxw309anxjct5dfskvtnrdaksygpm7rrrljungc6q0tuh5hj7ue863q73qlheu4vywtzwhx42a7j9n5psgqqqw4rsfyk3p9), which was a protocol idea that relied on a blockchain storing irrelevant data.) [^relevant]: For example, all Bitcoin transactions are relevant to all Bitcoin users because as a user the total supply and the ausence of double-spends are relevant, and also the fact that any of these transactions may end up being ancestors of transactions that you might receive in the future. [^op-return-invalid-outputs]: Of course you can still backup your pictures as invalid `P2PKH` outputs or something like that, then it will be harder for people to spot your data as irrelevant, but this is not a feature, it's a bug of Bitcoin that enables someone to spam other nodes in a way they can't detect it. If people started doing this a lot it would break Bitcoin.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Gŕecia Antiga e homosexualismo cultural Se na Grécia Antiga o homosexualismo era tão comum, não seria isso um argumento definitivo contra o pessoal que hoje afirma que o homosexualismo é natural e que 0.1%/1%/10%/25% das pessoas são homosexuais por natureza? Se na Gŕecia Antiga havia muito mais de 25% de homosexuais e aqui até ontem eram menos de 1% (e agora subiu?) isso tudo não é evidência fortíssima de que o homosexualismo é mesmo cultural?

@ 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

# Revista Educativa Uma revista que traz resumos de grandes descobertas ciêntíficas e explica sua utilidade e relevância, explica os problemas e os "desafios" da sociedade moderna, faz propaganda de reciclagem e outras coisas supostamente boas ao meio-ambiente, e uma seção: "Quero ser cientista para... ajudar o mundo? Descobrir uma coisa muito boa? Escrever uma revista como esta?". Que grande bobagem.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# 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

# Processos Antifrágeis Há esse conceito, criado pelo genial [Nassim Nicholas Taleb](http://www.edge.org/memberbio/nassim_nicholas_taleb), que diz respeito a processos nos quais a curva de retorno em relação a uma variável aleatória é convexa, ou seja, o retorno tende a ser maior quanto mais aleatoriedade for adicionada ao processo.  Disso aí, o próprio [Taleb tira uma conclusão](http://wayback.archive.org/web/20130407070713/http://www.edge.org/conversation/understanding-is-a-poor-substitute-for-convexity-antifragility) que resolve a questão da pesquisa científica propositada contra a sorte, sobre quais levam a melhores resultados práticos e invenções. Escreve ele: > A história da sorte versus conhecimento é a seguinte: Ironicamente, temos imensamente mais evidência de resultados (descobertas úteis) ligados à sorte do que de resultados vindos da prática teleológica (de _telos_, “objetivo”), exceto na física — mesmo depois de descontarmos o sensacionalismo. Em alguns campos opacos e não-lineares, como a medicina ou a engenharia, as exceções teleológicas são a minoria, assim como são um pequeno número de remédios projetados. Isto nos deixa numa contradição de que chegamos até aqui graças ao puro acaso não-direcionado, mas ao mesmo tempo criamos programas de pesquisa que miram num progresso com direção definida, baseado em narrativas sobre o passado. E, o que é pior, estamos totalmente conscientes desta inconsistência. Por outro lado, pura sorte não poderia produzir melhorias _sempre_. Processos de tentativa e erro (que são os que produzem as descobertas “por sorte”) têm um elemento _erro_, e erros, diz Taleb, causam explosões de avião, quedas de edifícios e perda de conhecimento. A resposta, portanto, está na _antifragilidade_: as áreas onde a sorte vence a teleologia são as áreas onde estão em jogo sistemas complexos, onde os nexos causais são desconhecidos ou obscuros — e são as áreas onde a curva de retornos é convexa. > Vejamos a mais sombria de todas, a culinária, que depende inteiramente da heurística da tentativa e erro, já que ainda não nos foi possível projetar um prato direto de equações químicas ou descobrir, por engenharia reversa, gostos a partir de tabelas nutricionais. Pega-se o hummus, adiciona-se um ingrediente, digamos, uma pimenta, prova-se para ver se há uma melhora no gosto e guarda-se a receita, se o gosto for bom, ou descarta-se-á. Imprescindivelmente temos a opção, e não a obrigação, de guardar o resultado, o que nos deixa reter a parte superior da curva e nos impede de sermos lesados pelos retornos adversos. A conclusão geral é que, para obter os melhores resultados na invenção de tecnologias, deve-se usar a experimentação sem exageros e cálculos quando se identificar uma área antifrágil, e usar a pesquisa rígida e cheia de provas matemáticas (ou o equivalente) quando a área for frágil. ## A inovação capitalista Um processo antifrágil importantíssimo deste mundo é a **inovação capitalista** (dói-me usar este termo já tão mal-gasto e mal-definido por aí). Não falo, como alguns, da invenção de _novas tecnologias_, mas, como outros, da invenção de novas formas de usar as coisas (qualquer coisa) para melhorar a vida de alguém, de alguma forma — e aqui incluem-se pequenas adaptações de tecnologias antigas que dão origem a novas tecnologias não muito diferentes das antigas, e incluem-se também o oferecimento de algum serviço, trabalho ou produto já existente, mas de uma nova forma, possivelmente melhor para seu provável consumidor. Este tipo de inovação é, segundo me parece, o poder mais subestimado dos mercados livres, é irreplicável em laboratórios de pesquisa tecnológica (só pode surgir mesmo na vida real, da cabeça de quem está envolvido com o problema real que a inovação soluciona), e é o que gerou idéias como o restaurante self-service, a terceirização dos serviços de construção civil ou o Google. Esse tipo de inovação (ao contrário do sentido de inovação ligado a pesquisas caríssimas em universidades ou megaempresas, identificada pela famigerada sigla P&amp;D) é antifrágil porque não custa muito ao indivíduo, não requer investimentos gigantescos ou qualquer coisa assim, porque é normalmente apenas uma adaptação do que ele próprio já faz. Para a sociedade, não representa custo algum: o serviço novo é oferecido paralelamente ao serviço antigo, seus consumidores potenciais podem escolher o que mais lhes agrada, e rejeitar o outro. Se a nova solução não for satisfatória os mecanismos automáticos do mercado (o prejuízo simples) encarregam-se automaticamente de remover aquela novidade — e, automaticamente, o indivíduo que a criou pode se voltar ao seu processo antigo, ou a uma nova invenção. Ao mesmo tempo em que cometer um erro numa tentativa de inovação é barato e não atrapalha ninguém, um acerto pode ter conseqüências que melhoram enormemente a vida de muita gente. O restaurante self-service, por exemplo, provavelmente teve sua implementação tentada por restaurantes de serviço à la carte várias vezes, em vários formatos diferentes, sem muito prejuízo para o restaurante, que podia continuar com seu serviço à la carte (no Brasil, senão o inventor dessa modalidade de restaurante ao menos um dos seus grandes expoentes, estas tentativas ocorreram durante a década de 80). Mas, quando enfim deu certo, promoveu melhoras enormes na qualidade de vida de milhares de pessoas — que podem pagar mais barato e comer apenas o que querem e quanto querem, dentro de uma gama maior de opções, o que permite que trabalhadores de todos os tipos comam melhor todos os dias, fiquem mais felizes e gastem menos.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# About CouchDB In [this][1] talk from 2009, Michael Miller highlights some of the core features of CouchDB, those that would make it appeal to the developer public: * Bi-directional incremental replication * Custom views built with Javascript functions and saved to disk * Filtered replication, so users can get part of the data * Couchapps: lightweight web apps served directly from the database ## What is the state of these awesome features today, 2016? The **replication protocol**, which supports multi-master, has changed little, and has received criticism, but, as it is, it is the only open replication protocol out there, the only one that stands the fight, and the only one people were able to implement in the browser. PouchDB is probably the main reason people adopt CouchDB today. There are other things that talk that same replication protocol, so that's a thing. **Continuous replication**, however, is too heavy, uses too much memory, and I don't think the idea of keeping two or more CouchDB databases in continuous replication today is good as it sounded back then. **Custom views** always seemed to me as a gift from heavens, the solution to the dilemma between normalization and data duplication, they should be fast and flexible and support any use-case. That's how it sounds in that Miller presentation. However, today most CouchDB seem to be approaching views as just a confusing complicated hard way to do simple queries, like getting a list of items by the name of the category they're in, and other boring queries you can imagine. This whole problem gave rise to the [Cloudant Query Language][2] and [pouchdb-find][3]. The second advertises itself as _"inspired by MongoDB, it provides a simple API with operators like `$gt` (greater-than) and `$eq` (equals), so you can write less code to achieve the same performance as the map/reduce API"_. In other words: everybody seem to be looking at CouchDB as just a very poor and limited MongoDB. To be fair, that is in fact the only sane way to approach CouchDB views, as other approaches, like the [monolithic][4], cannot be used with a lot of data, and you must be sure your blocks of data will not get too big if you're willing to put them in massive documents. **Filtered replication** was implemented, but it is slow to the point that no one recommends that you use them. I imagine the original idea was to mix filtered replication with Couchapps to make full-featured applications that the users would run on their own CouchDB instances, syncing back and forth from centralized CouchDB instances. This idea would have been even more powerful if done with PouchDB on the user side -- since, I guess, no one has ever succeeded in distributing a CouchDB application to end users that ran their own CouchDB --, however the inefficiency of filtered replication made all these dreams come apart. From the ruins of filtered replication emerged the db-per-user idea, which is the same filtered replication, but in such a way that a user owns the entire database and controls a PouchDB instance that replicates to and from that centralized database. The server may do things with the data stored in the CouchDB under its control, but the user at the same time has a copy of the entire data and it supposedly can work with it offline. This is a great idea, but if we look closely, it is much more limited than the original vision. About **Couchapps**, the special database features that powered them in the first place were left aside as offline-first database-per-user PouchDB apps started to gain hearts and minds, and on the other side apps that would rely on a single server started to require features, like sophisticated authorization and per-document access control, that could only be provided by putting a normal server in front of CouchDB. Like what happened to views, this is a sad thing. By trying to do things in the "regular" way, CouchDB users ignored CouchDB innovative ideas and made it look like a limited weird piece of software that lacks so many features that you must write [a ton of middleware][5] (that, of course, cannot be run inside CouchDB, what a limited server it is) to make it do simple stuff. I must say, before it is too late, that I'm not in the big enterprise game, so I don't know how (if any) enormous software companies are using CouchDB and how it is working for them, this is just my impression from the low end of things. [1]: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=engrF-7z8Q4> [2]: <https://docs.cloudant.com/cloudant_query.html> [3]: <https://nolanlawson.github.io/pouchdb-find/> [4]: <https://trello.com/c/qlL3HS5u/111-the-monolithic-approach-to-couchdb-views> [5]: <https://www.npmjs.com/browse/keyword/couchdb>

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# lnchannels A browser for public Lightning Network channels that updates daily, shows some unexpected charts and tries to use some chain analysis and other heuristics to determine who opened the channels, who closed, what was the state of the closure, what node software each entity is using and other things. It consists of a Python script that fetches and does things with data before saving it to a Postgres database, a [Postgrest](https://postgrest.org/en/v7.0.0/) server and a static site that gets data from Postgrest. - <https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fiatjaf/lnchannels/master/lnchannels-home.png> - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/lnchannels> - <https://ln.bigsun.xyz/>

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Rust's `.into()` is a strictly bad thing It just makes the code unreadable for no gain. Instead of defining methods with readable and meaningful names for transforming objects into other objects and calling those, the `.into()` bad practice just teaches everybody to write `.into()` everywhere, making the code impossible to read without a superpowered editor -- and sometimes [even with it](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/issues/15315).

@ 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

# The P2SH Wars [This article on the history of P2SH implementation on Bitcoin][battle-for-p2sh] has two valuable lessons and illustrates the benefits of [`bitcoind` decentralization](nostr:naddr1qqyxzcfevscxzvnrqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823chus9ym): 1. The benefits of multiple codebases: Russell O’Connor found the bug in `OP_EVAL` while working on it in his alternative Bitcoin software implementation. 2. The dangers of a single master repository with a restricted set of owners: Gavin Andresen committed code for a broken `OP_EVAL` first, then pushed an evil miner activation signaling mechanism that defaulted to his personal preferred P2SH version (to signal the opposite miners would have to edit the code and recompile) and won the battle against a much [better and saner][lukes-tweet] approach (Luke Jr's [`OP_CHECKHASHVERIFY`][bip-17]) by the sole power of inertia: things were already merged and working [so no one bothered to fight][p2sh-votes] for what seemed to be a minor and maybe irrelevant improvement but that later was proven to be substantially better. The second lesson can actually be split in 4 different lessons: a. Maintainer committing a bug and no one noticing it; b. Maintainer committing evil signaling mechanism; c. Everybody going along with everything because it's hard to take a public stand about a central thing everybody loves and the _status quo_ bias exists and is strong; d. Things that look good now may look bad later and vice-versa, no amount of expert "eyes on code" can fix that. [battle-for-p2sh]: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/the-battle-for-p2sh-the-untold-story-of-the-first-bitcoin-war [bip-17]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0017.mediawiki [lukes-tweet]: https://twitter.com/LukeDashjr/status/1138196760290111488 [p2sh-votes]: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2SH_Votes

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Família e propriedade A idéia tradicional de família está associada a propriedades imobiliárias fixas, passadas de geração a geração. Com propriedades sendo partidas, desfeitas, vendidas e divididas entre os filhos a idéia de família -- um nome associado a um lugar -- torna-se vaga e perde-se no ar. Acho que isso não vale apenas para a nobreza medieval, mas mesmo para as famílias plebéias, e não valeu quase nunca para as sociedades do novo mundo. Acho que até seria compatível com a compra e venda de terras, que seriam compreendidas como uma família mudando de lugar, mas não com a divisão igualitária das propriedades da família entre vários filhos e assim sucessivamente. Nunca antes tinha-me ocorrido este excelente e quase-óbvio insight que está escrito em "A Democracia na América", de Alexis de Tocqueville.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# idea: Graph subjective reputation as a service The idea more-or-less coded in <https://github.com/fiatjaf/multi-service-reputation-rfc>, but if it is as good as I think it is, it could be sold for websites without any need for information sharing and without it being an open protocol. It could be used by websites just to show subjective reputations inside their own site (as that isn't so trivial to build, but it is still desirable).

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# idea: a website for feedback exchange I thought a community of people sharing feedback on mutual interests would be a good thing, so as always I broadened and generalized the idea and mixed with my old criticue-inspired idea-feedback project and turned it into a "token". You give feedback on other people's things, they give you a "point". You can then use that point to request feedback from others. This could be made as an [Etleneum](nostr:naddr1qqyrjcny8qcn2ve4qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823crwzz2w) contract so these points were exchanged for satoshis using the shitswap contract (yet to be written). In this case all the Bitcoin/Lightning side of the website must be hidden until the user has properly gone through the usage flow and earned points. If it was to be built on Etleneum then it needs to emphasize the login/password login method instead of the lnurl-auth method. And then maybe it could be used to push lnurl-auth to normal people, but with a different name.

@ 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

# 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

# Etleneum A programmable escrow for satoshis with self-contained stateful micro-apps defined with Lua anyone can create and call to deposit money while simultaneously changing their state. Also known as "the centralized smart contract platform", in opposition to the supposedly "decentralized" Ethereum platform. The "smart contracting" features of Etleneum are very similar to the ones on Ethereum. - <https://etleneum.com/> - <https://www.coindesk.com/why-this-dev-built-a-centralized-ethereum-on-top-of-bitcoins-lightning-network>

@ 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 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

# 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

# The place of Drivechain in Bitcoin's future James O'Beirne wrote this [nice little article](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/thoughts-on-scaling-and-consensus-changes-2023/32) that contains a bunch of statements that should have been obvious to anyone who thought a little about Bitcoin's future, as they were obvious for Hal Finney in 2009 already. Basically the article says that the Bitcoin blockchain won't scale for the entire world population to use it. It will so much not scale that even "offchain" solutions like Lightning and Ark will not scale and they basically lose usefulness as more adoption happens and fees rise. Given that, Bitcoin has only two paths (and now this is not James speaking anymore): either it will die or it will have to scale using custodians. ## Can Bitcoin die? Yes, Bitcoin can die, and if Bitcoin fails to get some level of mass adoption soon enough I believe it will die. Governments all around the world gave us 14 years of advantage to try to get Bitcoin to become this money medium-of-exchange store-of-value thing, or at least an investment vehicle or savings-technology that is super valuable and with widespread ownership, but now it is starting to move. CBDCs have been talked about for a while, but now they are really starting to happen. Regulated and compliant fiat proprietary services like Venmo have grown under capture by governments, in some places the government itself has launched their own cool app-like totally regulated spyware fiat money transmission things, like the ridiculous PIX in Brazil, which is now widely adopted, and -- I believe surprisingly for all the UX designers out there -- people have learned to use QR codes. The point is that, given a little bit of more time, governments can start to encroach on Bitcoin's space, making it more and more regulated until it either dies or becomes a very useless thing. Some Bitcoiners think Bitcoin has already won, this can't be further from the truth. Others think Bitcoin must not be mass adopted, it must stay as this niche and mostly useless currency digital asset thing or I don't really understand what they think. These people are wrong. There are also people who think Bitcoin should not be used by normal people as money, it should keep being adopted, but only as a store-of-value: this is also completely wrong, since Bitcoin's value tends to decrease as soon as owners realize Bitcoin is losing its chances of becoming actual money. ## Scaling To not die, Bitcoin must become more used. The current thesis accepted by most "maximalists" is that Bitcoin will continue to be thought of as an investment and its price will keep increasing, the price movements will bring more attention to it in a virtuous cycle. Eventually enough people will _want_ to hold it so they will start accepting it as a payment for goods and services and then it can start to be used as money. Assuming that will happen, we'll be faced with a problem: as people try to use it as money they will necessarily, by lack of other options, have to use some custodial solution or some proto-custodial solution, maybe using Lightning as a settlement layer between big custodians[^1]? I don't know. No one is happy with that solution, and rightfully so, since it is very dangerous. A small set of custodians can easily be captured by governments and they can slowly turn Bitcoin into fiat money like they did with gold. In other words: without Drivechain, Bitcoin will be a fragile success in the best case and dead in the worst case scenario. ## Enter Drivechain [Drivechain](nostr:naddr1qq9xgunfwejkx6rpd9hqzythwden5te0ve5kzar2v9nzucm0d5pzqwlsccluhy6xxsr6l9a9uhhxf75g85g8a709tprjcn4e42h053vaqvzqqqr4gumtjfnp) basically brings two things to the table: In the best case scenario of the non-Drivechain world, we would be in a fragile position with easily-capturable custodians. With Drivechain, we can create a bunch of decentralized sidechains, backed by the same mining process that is assumed to be decentralized already for Bitcoin to even work, and we gain orders of magnitude of more room to make censorship-resistant open transactions that don't require tax IDs or selfies and can't be stopped or regulated by governments. Bitcoin can scale as it normally would, but it's much more resilient. The other thing we get are improvements for the "dying" part. If Drivechain is successful, it may end up bringing much more people to Bitcoin. [Hivemind](https://bitcoinhivemind.com/) by itself may attract lots of users and capital that has been prevented from betting on predictions anywhere in the fiat world since always; Zcash or Monero sidechains can easily bring all the "cryptocurrency" enthusiasts that care about privacy and have long ago decided that Bitcoin isn't for them, these people are interested in some immediate feature, that now Bitcoin can provide them with; other sidechains, like Ethereum-like chains, can also contribute to [slowly bring in some of the users](nostr:naddr1qqyrjdtz8yerxvfjqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cnm0fdz) of these chains[^2]. Why would we want these people to come to Bitcoin? Because they will increase Bitcoin's network-effect, increase the satoshi price, and these changes would contribute for more people to start looking at Bitcoin and using Bitcoin and so on and so forth. More users, more network-effect, bigger price, will contribute for Bitcoin not being easily regulated and killed by governments. In other words: with Drivechain will be a resilient success in the worst case and a complete and total world dominator money in the best case. [^1]: I actually think Bitcoiners should put more thought on how to create a custodian network that scales easily without having to be centralized in a small set of providers like [Lightning](nostr:naddr1qqyrqdr989jnsvf5qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cjxzu6c) is, and this is kind of the point of James's article too. [^2]: Yes, I do think the entirety of the Ethereum ecosystem is a waste of time and money, but clearly there are dozens of people and money that disagree with me. And if they can't harm me with their stupidity then they will definitely make our money stronger. Besides that, it's not as if there aren't already many stupid people or even evil, horrible criminals using Bitcoin.

@ 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

# 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

# Obra aqui do lado Tem quase um ano que estão fazendo uma obra aqui do lado e eu não ganhei nenhuma indenização. Numa sociedade sem Estado isso jamais teria acontecido.

@ 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

# 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

# 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

# Channels without HTLCs HTLCs below the dust limit are not possible, because they're uneconomical. So currently whenever a payment below the dust limit is to be made Lightning peers adjust their commitment transactions to pay that amount as fees in case the channel is closed. That's a form of reserving that amount and incentivizing peers to resolve the payment, either successfully (in case it goes to the receiving node's balance) or not (it then goes back to the sender's balance). SOLUTION I didn't think too much about if it is possible to do what I think can be done in the current implementation on Lightning channels, but in the context of Eltoo it seems possible. Eltoo channels have UPDATE transactions that can be published to the blockchain and SETTLEMENT transactions that spend them (after a relative time) to each peer. The barebones script for UPDATE transactions is something like (copied from the paper, because I don't understand these things): ``` OP_IF # to spend from a settlement transaction (presigned) 10 OP_CSV 2 As,i Bs,i 2 OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY OP_ELSE # to spend from a future update transaction <Si+1> OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY 2 Au Bu 2 OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY OP_ENDIF ``` During a payment of 1 satoshi it could be updated to something like (I'll probably get this thing completely wrong): ``` OP_HASH256 <payment_hash> OP_EQUAL OP_IF # for B to spend from settlement transaction 1 in case the payment went through # and they have a preimage 10 OP_CSV 2 As,i1 Bs,i1 2 OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY OP_ELSE OP_IF # for A to spend from settlement transaction 2 in case the payment didn't went through # and the other peer is uncooperative <now + 1day> OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY 2 As,i2 Bs,i2 2 OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY OP_ELSE # to spend from a future update transaction <Si+1> OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY 2 Au Bu 2 OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY OP_ENDIF OP_ENDIF ``` Then peers would have two presigned SETTLEMENT transactions, 1 and 2 (with different signature pairs, as badly shown in the script). On SETTLEMENT 1, funds are, say, 999sat for A and 1001sat for B, while on SETTLEMENT 2 funds are 1000sat for A and 1000sat for B. As soon as B gets the preimage from the next peer in the route it can give it to A and them can sign a new UPDATE transaction that replaces the above gimmick with something simpler without hashes involved. If the preimage doesn't come in viable time, peers can agree to make a new UPDATE transaction anyway. Otherwise A will have to close the channel, which may be bad, but B wasn't a good peer anyway.