@ 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

# A Lightning penalty transaction It was a cold day and I remembered that this `lightningd` node I was running on my local desktop to work on [poncho](https://github.com/fiatjaf/poncho) actually had mainnet channels in it. Two channels, both private, bought on https://lnbig.com/ a while ago when I was trying to conduct an anonymous griefing attack on big nodes of the network just to prove it was possible (the attempts proved unsuccessful after some hours and I gave up). It is always painful to close channels because paying fees hurts me psychologically, and then it hurts even more to be left with a new small UTXO that will had to be spent to somewhere but that can barely pay for itself, but it also didn't make sense to just leave the channels there and risk forgetting them and losing them forever, so I had to do something. One of the channels had 0 satoshis on my side, so that was easy. Mutually closed and I don't have to think anymore about it. The other one had 10145 satoshis on my side -- out of a total of 100000 satoshis. Why can't I take my part all over over Lightning and leave the full channel UTXO to LNBIG? I wish I could do that, I don't want a small UTXO. I was not sure about it, but if the penalty reserve was 1% maybe I could take out abou 9000 satoshis and then close it with 1000 on my side? But then what would I do with this 1000 sat UTXO that would remain? Can't I donate it to miners or something? I was in the middle of this thoughts stream when it came to me the idea of causing a penalty transaction to give those abundant 1000 sat to Mr. LNBIG as a donation for his excellent services to the network and the cause of Bitcoin, and for having supported the development of https://sbw.app/ and the hosted channels protocol. Unfortunately `lightningd` doesn't have a command `triggerpenaltytransaction` or `trytostealusingoldstate`, so what I did was: First I stopped `lightningd` then copied the database to elsewhere: ``` cp ~/.lightningd/bitcoin/lightningd.sqlite3 ~/.lightning/bitcoin/lightningd.sqlite3.bak ``` then I restarted `lightningd` and fighted against the way-too-aggressive MPP splitting algorithm the `pay` command uses to pay invoices, but finally managed to pull about 9000 satoshis to my [Z Bot](https://t.me/zebedeebot) that lives on the terrible (but still infinitely better than Twitter DMs) "webk" flavor of the Telegram web application and which is linked to my against-bitcoin-ethos-country-censoring [ZEBEDEE Wallet](https://zbd.gg/). The operation wasn't smooth but it didn't take more than 10 invoices and `pay` commands.  With the money out and safe elsewhere, I stopped the node again, moved the database back with a reckless ``` mv ~/.lightning/bitcoin/lightningd.sqlite3.bak ~/.lightningd/bitcoin/lightningd.sqlite3 ``` and restarted it, but to prevent my `lightningd` from being super naïve and telling LNBIG that it had an old state (I don't know if this would happen) which would cause LNBIG to close the channel in a boring way, I used the `--offline` flag which apparently causes the node to not do any external connections. Finally I checked my balance using `lightning-cli listfunds` and there it was, again, the 10145 satoshis I had at the start! A fantastic money creation trick, comparable to the ones central banks execute daily.  I was ready to close the channel now, but the `lightning-cli close` command had an option for specifying how many seconds I would wait for a mutual close before proceeding to a unilateral close. There is no `forceclose` command like Éclair hasor anything like that. I was afraid that even if I gave LNBIG one second it would try to do boring things, so I paused to consider how could I just broadcast the commitment transaction manually, looked inside the SQLite database and the `channels` table with its millions of columns with cryptic names in the unbearable `.schema` output, imagined that `lightningd` maybe wouldn't know how to proceed to take the money from the `to-local` output if I managed to broadcast it manually (and in the unlikely event that LNBIG wouldn't broadcast the penalty transaction), so I decided to just accept the risk and call ``` lightning-cli close 706327x1588x0 1 ``` But it went well. The `--offline` flag apparently really works, as it just considered LNBIG to be offline and 1 second later I got the desired result.  My happiness was complete when I saw the commitment transaction with my output for 10145 satoshis published on the central database of Bitcoin, [blockstream.info](https://blockstream.info/tx/e5ceedadb98f612e5f3830985ebafd1cf1cae560b03eb5876a1fa1b14cfd0384?expand).  Then I went to eat something and it seems LNBIG wasn't offline or sleeping, he was certainly looking at all the logs from his 274 nodes in a big room full of monitors, very alert and eating an apple while drinking coffee, ready to take action, for when I came back, minutes later, I could see it, again on the single source of truth for the Bitcoin blockchain, the Blockstream explorer. I've refreshed the page and there it was, a small blue link right inside the little box that showed my `to-local` output, a notice saying it had been spent -- not by my `lightningd` since that would have to wait 9000 blocks, but by the same transaction that spent the other output, from which I could be very sure it was it, the glorious, mighty, unforgiving [**penalty transaction**](https://blockstream.info/tx/80ab328c77cbd554598c3a7b322af520a77d1687b27badfa969d2c419de785d7?input:1&expand), splitting the earth, showing itself in all its power, and taking my 10145 satoshis to their rightful owner. 

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# nostr - Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays The simplest open protocol that is able to create a censorship-resistant global "social" network once and for all. It doesn't rely on any trusted central server, hence it is resilient; it is based on cryptographic keys and signatures, so it is tamperproof; it does not rely on P2P techniques, therefore it works. ## Very short summary of how it works, if you don't plan to read anything else: Everybody runs a client. It can be a native client, a web client, etc. To publish something, you write a post, sign it with your key and send it to multiple relays (servers hosted by someone else, or yourself). To get updates from other people, you ask multiple relays if they know anything about these other people. Anyone can run a relay. A relay is very simple and dumb. It does nothing besides accepting posts from some people and forwarding to others. Relays don't have to be trusted. Signatures are verified on the client side. ## This is needed because other solutions are broken: ### The problem with Twitter - Twitter has ads; - Twitter uses bizarre techniques to keep you addicted; - Twitter doesn't show an actual historical feed from people you follow; - Twitter bans people; - Twitter shadowbans people. - Twitter has a lot of spam. ### The problem with Mastodon and similar programs - User identities are attached to domain names controlled by third-parties; - Server owners can ban you, just like Twitter; Server owners can also block other servers; - Migration between servers is an afterthought and can only be accomplished if servers cooperate. It doesn't work in an adversarial environment (all followers are lost); - There are no clear incentives to run servers, therefore they tend to be run by enthusiasts and people who want to have their name attached to a cool domain. Then, users are subject to the despotism of a single person, which is often worse than that of a big company like Twitter, and they can't migrate out; - Since servers tend to be run amateurishly, they are often abandoned after a while — which is effectively the same as banning everybody; - It doesn't make sense to have a ton of servers if updates from every server will have to be painfully pushed (and saved!) to a ton of other servers. This point is exacerbated by the fact that servers tend to exist in huge numbers, therefore more data has to be passed to more places more often; - For the specific example of video sharing, ActivityPub enthusiasts realized it would be completely impossible to transmit video from server to server the way text notes are, so they decided to keep the video hosted only from the single instance where it was posted to, which is similar to the Nostr approach. ### The problem with SSB (Secure Scuttlebutt) - It doesn't have many problems. I think it's great. In fact, I was going to use it as a basis for this, but - its protocol is too complicated because it wasn't thought about being an open protocol at all. It was just written in JavaScript in probably a quick way to solve a specific problem and grew from that, therefore it has weird and unnecessary quirks like signing a JSON string which must strictly follow the rules of [_ECMA-262 6th Edition_](https://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/6.0/#sec-json.stringify); - It insists on having a chain of updates from a single user, which feels unnecessary to me and something that adds bloat and rigidity to the thing — each server/user needs to store all the chain of posts to be sure the new one is valid. Why? (Maybe they have a good reason); - It is not as simple as Nostr, as it was primarily made for P2P syncing, with "pubs" being an afterthought; - Still, it may be worth considering using SSB instead of this custom protocol and just adapting it to the client-relay server model, because reusing a standard is always better than trying to get people in a new one. ### The problem with other solutions that require everybody to run their own server - They require everybody to run their own server; - Sometimes people can still be censored in these because domain names can be censored. ## How does Nostr work? - There are two components: __clients__ and __relays__. Each user runs a client. Anyone can run a relay. - Every user is identified by a public key. Every post is signed. Every client validates these signatures. - Clients fetch data from relays of their choice and publish data to other relays of their choice. A relay doesn't talk to another relay, only directly to users. - For example, to "follow" someone a user just instructs their client to query the relays it knows for posts from that public key. - On startup, a client queries data from all relays it knows for all users it follows (for example, all updates from the last day), then displays that data to the user chronologically. - A "post" can contain any kind of structured data, but the most used ones are going to find their way into the standard so all clients and relays can handle them seamlessly. ## How does it solve the problems the networks above can't? - **Users getting banned and servers being closed** - A relay can block a user from publishing anything there, but that has no effect on them as they can still publish to other relays. Since users are identified by a public key, they don't lose their identities and their follower base when they get banned. - Instead of requiring users to manually type new relay addresses (although this should also be supported), whenever someone you're following posts a server recommendation, the client should automatically add that to the list of relays it will query. - If someone is using a relay to publish their data but wants to migrate to another one, they can publish a server recommendation to that previous relay and go; - If someone gets banned from many relays such that they can't get their server recommendations broadcasted, they may still let some close friends know through other means with which relay they are publishing now. Then, these close friends can publish server recommendations to that new server, and slowly, the old follower base of the banned user will begin finding their posts again from the new relay. - All of the above is valid too for when a relay ceases its operations. - **Censorship-resistance** - Each user can publish their updates to any number of relays. - A relay can charge a fee (the negotiation of that fee is outside of the protocol for now) from users to publish there, which ensures censorship-resistance (there will always be some Russian server willing to take your money in exchange for serving your posts). - **Spam** - If spam is a concern for a relay, it can require payment for publication or some other form of authentication, such as an email address or phone, and associate these internally with a pubkey that then gets to publish to that relay — or other anti-spam techniques, like hashcash or captchas. If a relay is being used as a spam vector, it can easily be unlisted by clients, which can continue to fetch updates from other relays. - **Data storage** - For the network to stay healthy, there is no need for hundreds of active relays. In fact, it can work just fine with just a handful, given the fact that new relays can be created and spread through the network easily in case the existing relays start misbehaving. Therefore, the amount of data storage required, in general, is relatively less than Mastodon or similar software. - Or considering a different outcome: one in which there exist hundreds of niche relays run by amateurs, each relaying updates from a small group of users. The architecture scales just as well: data is sent from users to a single server, and from that server directly to the users who will consume that. It doesn't have to be stored by anyone else. In this situation, it is not a big burden for any single server to process updates from others, and having amateur servers is not a problem. - **Video and other heavy content** - It's easy for a relay to reject large content, or to charge for accepting and hosting large content. When information and incentives are clear, it's easy for the market forces to solve the problem. - **Techniques to trick the user** - Each client can decide how to best show posts to users, so there is always the option of just consuming what you want in the manner you want — from using an AI to decide the order of the updates you'll see to just reading them in chronological order. ## FAQ - **This is very simple. Why hasn't anyone done it before?** I don't know, but I imagine it has to do with the fact that people making social networks are either companies wanting to make money or P2P activists who want to make a thing completely without servers. They both fail to see the specific mix of both worlds that Nostr uses. - **How do I find people to follow?** First, you must know them and get their public key somehow, either by asking or by seeing it referenced somewhere. Once you're inside a Nostr social network you'll be able to see them interacting with other people and then you can also start following and interacting with these others. - **How do I find relays? What happens if I'm not connected to the same relays someone else is?** You won't be able to communicate with that person. But there are hints on events that can be used so that your client software (or you, manually) knows how to connect to the other person's relay and interact with them. There are other ideas on how to solve this too in the future but we can't ever promise perfect reachability, no protocol can. - **Can I know how many people are following me?** No, but you can get some estimates if relays cooperate in an extra-protocol way. - **What incentive is there for people to run relays?** The question is misleading. It assumes that relays are free dumb pipes that exist such that people can move data around through them. In this case yes, the incentives would not exist. This in fact could be said of DHT nodes in all other p2p network stacks: what incentive is there for people to run DHT nodes? - **Nostr enables you to move between server relays or use multiple relays but if these relays are just on AWS or Azure what’s the difference?** There are literally thousands of VPS providers scattered all around the globe today, there is not only AWS or Azure. AWS or Azure are exactly the providers used by single centralized service providers that need a lot of scale, and even then not just these two. For smaller relay servers any VPS will do the job very well.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# The unit test bubble Look at the following piece of Go code: ``` func NewQuery(query []rune) *Query { q := &Query{ query: &[]rune{}, complete: &[]rune{}, } _ = q.Set(query) return q } func NewQueryWithString(query string) *Query { return NewQuery([]rune(query)) } ``` It is taken from a GitHub project with over 2000 stars. Now take a look at these unit tests for the same package: ``` func TestNewQuery(t *testing.T) { var assert = assert.New(t) v := []rune(".name") q := NewQuery(v) assert.Equal(*q.query, []rune(".name")) assert.Equal(*q.complete, []rune("")) } func TestNewQueryWithString(t *testing.T) { var assert = assert.New(t) q := NewQueryWithString(".name") assert.Equal(*q.query, []rune(".name")) assert.Equal(*q.complete, []rune("")) } ``` Now be honest: what are these for? Is this part of an attack to eat all GitHub storage and head them to bankruptcy? ## Also * [my personal approach on using `let`, `const` and `var` in javascript](nostr:naddr1qqyrxcmxvyun2vr9qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cvj9k9l)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Hosted Channels vs Fedimint For those who want a comparison, here is the comparison. I'll start by listing how they are similar and then show some advantages of one versus the other and vice-versa. ## Both are _open protocols_ - Anyone can run a hosted channel node or a hosted channel wallet and connect to any other hosted channel node or wallet. - Anyone can run a Fedimint federation or any Fedimint wallet can connect to any Fedimint federation. Of course one can also block others from connecting to them and vice-versa, but there is nothing in the protocols themselves that mandate anything. There is no central committee that must approve anything. ## Both are protocols for IOU management (or what some like to call _custodianship_) - On any hosted channel, one side of the channel (the "host") owes money to the the other (the "client"), i.e. the later must trust that the first won't exit scam. - On any Fedimint federation the federation signers (the "guardians") owe money to the holders of notes, i.e. the later must trust that the first won't exit scam. This is how both can provide scalability. ## Both provide scalability See point above. But in short they provide scalability by allowing people to transact without using the Bitcoin blockchain. ## Both address the inherent sheer lack of privacy that normal custodians have Normal custodial providers have a big privacy issue, which is that the users only tell their servers "I want to pay this invoice", so the server knows who they're paying, how much and so on. - On a hosted channel, the host doesn't know where the client is sending payments to. The client does the onion routing just like a normal Lightning node so the host only sees an amount and the next hop in the route. Since the client may be paying using MPP (i.e. splitting the payment into multiple shards that go through different channels) they can't be sure that amount is the actual amount of any payment anyway. - On Fedimint, although the Lightning gateway can see what is being paid and for how much, given the nature of Chaumian blindly-signed notes, there is no way to know which of the users is providing the money to pay that. On normal custodian providers, when receiving, the users ask the server: "make an invoice for me with this amount and description", so the server knows how much they've received and if there is a meaningful description, also for what purpose. - On a hosted channel, the invoice is generated by the client and the host only knows it must forward a payment it has received from elsewhere to a given hosted channel, it doesn't see the description and it cannot know if that is the last hop or if that amount is the exact amount being received (because of MPP). - On Fedimint, the invoice is also generated on the client and the Lightning gateway only forwards the payment. Although it is sure that that payment is the final hop and the amount is complete, given the nature of Chaumian blindly-signed notes, there is no way to know which of the users is receiving that. ## Hosted channels are much simpler While a hosted channels host can be run by just attaching a simple process to a normal Lightning node, Fedimint is made to run in a federation so there is the overhead of setting up the federation environment with other people, each running their Fedimint server and establishing connections to them. Similarly, the cryptography involved in Fedimint makes it so in practice only the reference implementation will ever be used, as a black box. Hosted channels, on the other hand, are just some message passing through the same Noise protocol Lightning uses, with an occasional ECDSA signature, so it is much easiler to implement. ## Fedimint custodianship is safer Of course one highly-trusted individual is better than 3 or 5 scammers, but still, 3 or 5 averagely-trusted people are still better than 1 of the same kind. For that reason, the federation model provides a better way to store money than just putting it in one place.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Precautionary Principle The [precautionary principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle) that people, including Nassim Nicholas Taleb, love and treat as some form of wisdom, is actually just a justification for arbitrary acts. In a given situation for which there's no sufficient knowledge, either A or B can be seen as risky or precautionary measures, there's no way to know except if you have sufficient knowledge. --- Someone could reply saying, for example, that the known risk of A is tolerable to the unknown, probably magnitudes bigger, risk of B. Unless you know better or at least have a logical explanation for the risks of B (a thing "scientists" don't have because they notoriously dislike making logical claims), in which case you do know something and is not invoking the precautionary principle anymore, just relying on your logical reasoning – and that can be discussed and questioned by others, undermining your intended usage of the label "precautionary principle" as a magic cover for your actions.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# 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

# Ryan Fugger's Ripple Before XRP, the shitcoin, bought it, "Ripple" was used by Ryan Fugger as the name for his [project to create a peer-to-peer network of trust channels for money transfer](http://ripple.ryanfugger.com/). The basic idea is that Alice trusts Bob personally, Bob trusts Carol personally and Carol trusts David personally, therefore it is possible for Alice to send a payment to David by creating debt across A--B, B--C and C--D. Later either payments in the opposite direction (not necessarily from David to Alice, as the network can have trust relationships to multiple other peers in a complex graph) would maybe clear that debt (or not), but ultimately Bob would expect Alice to pay him in kind to settle the debt, Carol would expect Bob to pay her in kind and David would expect Carol to pay him in kind. The system above works quite well inside a centralized trusted platform like Fugger's own Ripplepay website (even when it was supposed to be just proof-of-concept, it ended up being actually used to facilitate payments across small communities), but that cannot scale as participants would all rely on it and ultimately have to blindly trust that platform.[^trust-ripplepay] If a truly peer-to-peer system could be designed, it would have a chance of scaling across the entire society and the ability to enable truly open payments over the internet, an unreachable goal unless you use either a credit card provider, which is bureaucratic, unsafe, expensive, taxable, not private at all and cumbersome -- or [Bitcoin](nostr:naddr1qqrky6t5vdhkjmspz9mhxue69uhkv6tpw34xze3wvdhk6q3q80cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsxpqqqp65wp3k3fu), which is awesome and excel in all aspects except scalability for day-to-day transactions. The protocol can take many forms, but essentially it goes like this: 1. A finds a route (A--B--C--D) between her and D somehow; 2. A "prepares" a payment to B, tells B to do the same with C and so on (to prepare means to give B a conditional IOU that will be valid as long as the full payment completes); 3. When the chain of prepared messages reaches D, D somehow "commits" the payment. 4. After the commit, A now _really does_ owe B and so on, and D _really_ knows it has been effectively paid by A (in the form of debt from C) so it can ship goods to A. The step 3 is the point in which [the problem of the decentralized commit](nostr:naddr1qqyrxcmzxa3nxv34qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cjrqar6) arises. Fugger and the original Ripple community failed to solve the problem of the decentralized commit, which is required for such a system to be deployed. Not to blame them, as they've recognized the problem (unlike other people that had the same idea later[^clueless-people]) and documented many sub-optimal solutions[^decentralized-commit]. No one thinks about it in these terms, but the Bitcoin Lightning Network is itself a Ripple-like system with [an embedded solution to the problem of the decentralized commit](nostr:naddr1qqyxgenyxe3rzvf4qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c8pp8zu). [^trust-ripplepay]: You may ask why is it bad to trust a central point if all this is already based on trust relationships between peers. If the platform goes malicious peers can jump out and resolve things on their own! But that's not so simple, it's not obvious when the platform will be malicious or not, it's not clear what to do if the platform deletes data or change history. Ultimately it cannot scale because even if it was very trustworthy you wouldn't want the entire global economy resting upon Ryan Fugger's webserver, nor does he want that. [^clueless-people]: See, for example, [LedgerLoops](http://ledgerloops.com/), [Offst](https://www.offsetcredit.org/) and [Settle](http://web.archive.org/web/20180103202635/https://settle.network/). [^decentralized-commit]: The [old Ripple wiki](http://ripple.ryanfugger.com/Protocol/Index.html) lists the "registry commit method" (which requires trust in a third-party), the "bare commit method" (which is not an atomic commit) and the "blockchain commit method" (which publishes transactions to the Bitcoin blockchain and so does not scale.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Personagens de jogos e símbolos A sensação de "ser" um personagem em um jogo ou uma brincadeira talvez seja o mais próximo que eu tenha conseguido chegar do entendimento de um símbolo religioso. A hóstia consagrada é, segundo a religião, o corpo de Cristo, mas nossa mente moderna só consegue concebê-la como sendo uma representação do corpo de Cristo. Da mesma forma outras culturas e outras religiões têm símbolos parecidos, inclusive nos quais o próprio participante do ritual faz o papel de um deus ou de qualquer coisa parecida. "Faz o papel" é de novo a interpretação da mente moderna. O sujeito ali _é_ a coisa, mas ele ao mesmo tempo que é também sabe que não é, que continua sendo ele mesmo. Nos jogos de videogame e brincadeiras infantis em que se encarna um personagem o jogador _é_ o personagem. não se diz, entre os jogadores, que alguém está "encenando", mas que ele _é_ e pronto. nem há outra denominação ou outro verbo. No máximo "encarnando", mas já aí já é vocabulário jornalístico feito para facilitar a compreensão de quem está de fora do jogo.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# trustedcoin A `lightningd` plugin that replaces a bitcoind node with trusted public explorers. Great so one can run a c-lightning node on a VPS without having to bother with an expensive bitcoind. It uses multiple explorers and alternates between them, parses blocks and compares them with block hashes taken from other explorers so if someone is trying to trick you at least your node will crash instead of assuming all is fine. It is used on [@lntxbot](nostr:naddr1qqyrydpex4jnwetxqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cmkr70c) and [Etleneum](nostr:naddr1qqyrjcny8qcn2ve4qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823crwzz2w). - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/trustedcoin> ## See also - [Sparko](nostr:naddr1qqyx2vpnvs6nze3jqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c362tx2)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

bolt12 problems =============== - clients can't programatically build new offers by changing a path or query params (services like zbd.gg or lnurl-pay.me won't work) - impossible to use in a load-balanced custodian way -- since offers would have to be pregenerated and tied to a specific lightning node. - the existence of fiat currency fields makes it so wallets have to fetch exchange rates from somewhere on the internet (or offer a bad user experience), using HTTP which hurts user privacy. - the vendor field is misleading, can be phished very easily, not as safe as a domain name. - onion messages are an improvement over fake HTLC-based payments as a way of transmitting data, for sure. but we must decide if they are (i) suitable for transmitting all kinds of data over the internet, a replacement for tor; or (ii) not something that will scale well or on which we can count on for the future. if there was proper incentivization for data transmission it could end up being (i), the holy grail of p2p communication over the internet, but that is a very hard problem to solve and not guaranteed to yield the desired scalability results. since not even hints of attempting to solve that are being made, it's safer to conclude it is (ii). bolt12 limitations ------------------ - not flexible enough. there are some interesting fields defined in the spec, but who gets to add more fields later if necessary? very unclear. - services can't return any actionable data to the users who paid for something. it's unclear how business can be conducted without an extra communication channel. bolt12 illusions ---------------- - recurring payments is not really solved, it is just a spec that defines intervals. the actual implementation must still be done by each wallet and service. the recurring payment cannot be enforced, the wallet must still initiate the payment. even if the wallet is evil and is willing to initiate a payment without the user knowing it still needs to have funds, channels, be online, connected etc., so it's not as if the services could rely on the payments being delivered in time. - people seem to think it will enable pushing payments to mobile wallets, which it does not and cannot. - there is a confusion of contexts: it looks like offers are superior to lnurl-pay, for example, because they don't require domain names. domain names, though, are common and well-established among internet services and stores, because these services have websites, so this is not really an issue. it is an issue, though, for people that want to receive payments in their homes. for these, indeed, bolt12 offers a superior solution -- but at the same time bolt12 seems to be selling itself as a tool for merchants and service providers when it includes and highlights features as recurring payments and refunds. - the privacy gains for the receiver that are promoted as being part of bolt12 in fact come from a separate proposal, blinded paths, which should work for all normal lightning payments and indeed are a very nice solution. they are (or at least were, and should be) independent from the bolt12 proposal. a separate proposal, which can be (and already is being) used right now, also improves privacy for the receiver very much anway, it's called trampoline routing.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# WelcomeBot The first bot ever created for Trello. It invited to a public board automatically anyone who commented on a card he was added to. - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/welcomebot> - <https://trello.com/welcomebot>

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# The Lightning Network solves the problem of the decentralized commit Before reading this, see [Ripple and the problem of the decentralized commit](nostr:naddr1qqyrxcmzxa3nxv34qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cjrqar6). The Bitcoin Lightning Network can be thought as a system similar to Ripple: there are conditional IOUs (HTLCs) that are sent in "prepare"-like messages across a route, and a secret `p` that must travel from the final receiver backwards through the route until it reaches the initial sender and possession of that secret serves to prove the payment as well as to make the IOU hold true. The difference is that if one of the parties don't send the "acknowledge" in time, the other has a trusted third-party with its own clock (that is the clock that is valid for everybody involved) to complain immediately at the timeout: the Bitcoin blockchain. If C has `p` and B isn't acknowleding it, C tells the Bitcoin blockchain and it will force the transfer of the amount from B to C. ## Differences (or 1 upside and 3 downside) 1. The Lightning Network differs from a "pure" Ripple network in that when we send a "prepare" message on the Lightning Network, unlike on a pure Ripple network we're not just promising we will owe something -- instead we are putting the money on the table already for the other to get if we are not responsive. 2. The feature above removes the trust element from the equation. We can now have relationships with people we don't trust, as the Bitcoin blockchain will serve as an automated escrow for our conditional payments and no one will be harmed. Therefore it is much easier to build networks and route payments if you don't always require trust relationships. 3. However it introduces the cost of the capital. A ton of capital must be made available in channels and locked in HTLCs so payments can be routed. This leads to potential issues like the ones described in <https://twitter.com/joostjgr/status/1308414364911841281>. 4. Another issue that comes with the necessity of using the Bitcoin blockchain as an arbiter is that it may cost a lot in fees -- much more than the value of the payment that is being disputed -- to enforce it on the blockchain.[^closing-channels-for-nothing] ## Solutions Because the downsides listed above are so real and problematic -- and much more so when attacks from malicious peers are taken into account --, some have argued that the Lightning Network must rely on at least some trust between peers, which partly negate the benefit. The introduction of [purely trust-backend channels](https://gist.github.com/btcontract/d4122a79911eef2620f16b3dfe2850a8) is the next step in the reasoning: if we are trusting already, why not make channels that don't touch the blockchain and don't require peers to commit large amounts of capital? The reason is, again, the ambiguity that comes from [the problem of the decentralized commit](nostr:naddr1qqyrxcmzxa3nxv34qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cjrqar6). Therefore [hosted channels](https://gist.github.com/btcontract/d4122a79911eef2620f16b3dfe2850a8) can be good when trust is required only from one side, like in the final hops of payments, but they cannot work in the middle of routes without eroding trust relationships between peers (however they can be useful if employed as channels between two nodes ran by the same person). The next solution is [a revamped pure Ripple network](nostr:naddr1qqr8yatdwpkx2qg3waehxw309anxjct5dfskvtnrdaksygpm7rrrljungc6q0tuh5hj7ue863q73qlheu4vywtzwhx42a7j9n5psgqqqw4rsfyk3p9), one that solves the problem of the decentralized commit in a different way. [^closing-channels-for-nothing]: That is even true when, for reasons of the payment being so small that it doesn't even deserve an actual HTLC that can be enforced on the chain (as per the protocol), even then the channel between the two nodes will be closed, only to make it very clear that there was a disagreement. Leaving it online would be harmful as one of the peers could repeat the attack again and again. This is a proof that [ambiguity, in case of the pure Ripple network](nostr:naddr1qqyrxcmzxa3nxv34qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cjrqar6), is a very important issue.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Trelew A CLI tool for navigating Trello boards. It used **vorpal** for an "immersive" experience and was pretty good.  - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/trelew>

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# 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

# 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

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Sócrates homofóbico Trechos de episódios da _Memorabilia_, ou os _Ditos e Feitos Memoráveis de Sócrates_, contados por Xenofonte (na edição que tem um prefácio do glorioso Pessanha) que mostram Sócrates sempre aconselhando os jovens a não praticar o homossexualismo -- **nem mesmo quando encontrassem alguém que fosse belo**: — Dize-me, Xenofonte, não tinhas Critobulo na conta de jovem sábio antes que de amoroso indiscreto, homem prudente antes que insensato e temerário? — Certamente — conveio Xenofonte. — Pois bem, considera-o, doravante como o mais impulsivo e arrojado dos homens, capaz de desafiar o ferro e afrontar o fogo. — Que o viste fazer — indagou Xenofonte — para acusá-lo dessa maneira? — Pois não teve a temeridade de furtar um beijo ao filho de Alcibíades, jovem de tamanha beleza e frescor? — Ora, isso é ato de temerário! — retrucou Xenofonte. — Estou que eu próprio bem poderia cometer semelhante temeridade. — Desgraçado! — exclamou Sócrates. — Imaginas o que te sucederia se beijasses uma pessoa jovem e bela? Ignoras que de livre, num momento te tomarias escravo? Que pagarias caro prazeres perigosos? Que já não terias animo de perquirir o que é o belo e o bem? Que haverias de dar cabeçadas como um louco? — Por Hércules! — retrucou Xenofonte — que terrível poder emprestas a um beijo! — Admira-te? — perguntou Sócrates. — Não sabes que as tarântulas, que não são maiores que a moeda de meio óbolo, com o só tocar os lábios causam ao homem dores tremendas e privam-no da razão? _____ — Pois bem! — disse Critobulo — não usarei de coação com ninguém; se, pois, tens algo a dizer-me sobre como conquistar amigos, fala. — Jamais — disse Sócrates — porás boca contra boca. — Tranqüiliza-te. Não mais comprimirei os lábios a os lábios de ninguém, a menos que seja belo. — Eis-te logo de saída, Critobulo, fazendo o contrário do que se deve. Os que são belos não suportam de bom grado essas liberdades, conquanto os tolerem os feios, convencidos de que os acham belos de alma. _____ Eis como se devia julgar Sócrates. Cometeu ele próprio algum mal? Merece ser tratado como perverso. Porém, se jamais deixou de ser homem de bem, será justo acusá-lo de uma depravação que não lhe cabe? Se, embora abstêmio do mal, houvesse assistido sem desaprová-los aos atos vergonhosos dos outros, estaria no direito de censurá-lo. Mas, tendo percebido que Crítias, enamorado de Eutidemo, queria gozá-lo à maneira dos que abusam do próprio corpo para satisfazer seus desejos amorosos, forcejou por demovê-lo de semelhante intento, dizendo-lhe indigno de homem livre e indecente a amigo da virtude ir como mendicante solicitar algo do objeto amado, junto ao qual cumpre sobretudo fazer-se valer, e ainda mais solicitar coisa oprobriosa. Crítias fazia ouvidos de mercador e não dava de si. Então se pretende haver Sócrates dito ante numerosa assistência e em presença de Eutidemo que Crítias lhe parecia ter tai ou qual semelhança com um porco, pois queria esfregar-se em Eutidemo como se esfregam os porcos nas pedras. Desde então Crítias se tornou inimigo jurado de Sócrates. Nomeado um dos Trinta e monoteta com Cáricles, guardou-lhe rancor e proibiu por lei o ensino da oratória. Assim atacava Sócrates. Não tendo de que acusá-lo, carregava-o com a censura que de comum se ínsimula aos filósofos e caluniava-o junto à opinião pública.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Músicas novas e conhecidas Quando for ouvir música de fundo, escolha músicas bem conhecidas. Para ouvir músicas novas, reserve um tempo e ouça-as com total atenção. Uma coisa similar é dirigir por caminhos conhecidos versus dirigir em lugares novos. a primeira opção te permite fazer coisas enquanto dirige "de fundo", a segunda requer atenção total. Com músicas, tenho errado constantemente em achar que posso conhecer músicas novas ao mesmo tempo em que me dedico a outras tarefas. ## See also: * [Músicas que você já conhece](nostr:naddr1qqyxxvn9xquxgcn9qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c839sxv)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# ijq An interactive REPL for `jq` with smart helpers (for example, it automatically assigns each line of input to a variable so you can reference it later, it also always referenced the previous line automatically). - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/ijq> ## See also - [jiq](nostr:naddr1qqyrqvfjv33rxcenqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cd86z7d) - [jq-web](nostr:naddr1qqyrzvrzxqcx2dfsqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c90hqwz)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Método científico o método científico não pode ser aplicado senão numa meia dúzia de casos, e no entanto ei-nos aqui, pensando nele para tudo. "formule hipóteses e teste-as independentemente", "obtenha uma quantidade de dados estatisticamente significante", teste, colete dados, mensure. não é que de repente todo mundo resolveu calcular desvios-padrão, mas sim que é comum, para as pessoas mais cultas, nível Freakonomics, acharem que têm que testar e coletar dados, e nunca jamais confiar na sua "intuição" ou, pior, num raciocínio que pode parecer certo, mas na verdade é enormemente enganador. sim, é verdade que raciocínios com explicações aparentemente sensatas nos são apresentados todos os dias -- para um exemplo fácil é só imaginar um comentarista de jornal, ou até uma matéria inocente de jornal, aliás, melhor pensar num comentarista da GloboNews --, e sim, é verdade que a maioria dessas explicações é falsa. o que está errado é achar que só o que vale é testar hipóteses. você não pode testar a explicação aparentemente sensata que o taxista te fornece sobre a crise brasileira, deve então anotá-la para testar depois? mantê-la para sempre no cabedal das teorias ainda por testar? e a explicação das redinhas que economizam água quando instaladas na torneira? essa dá pra testar, então você vai comprar um relógio de água e deixar a torneira ligada lá 5 horas com a redinha, depois 5 horas sem a redinha? obviamente não vai funcionar se você abrir o mesmo tanto, você vai precisar de um critério melhor: a satisfação da pessoa que está lavando as mãos com o resultado final _versus_ a quantidade de água gasta. daí você precisaria de muitas pessoas, mas satisfação é uma coisa imensurável, nem adianta tentar fazer entrevistas antes e depois com as pessoas. o certo então, é o quê? procurar um estudo científico publicado numa revista **de qualidade** (porque tem aquelas revistas que aceitam estudos gerados por computador, então é melhor tomar cuidado) que fala sobre redinhas? como saber se a redinha é a mesma que você comprou? e agora que você já comprou, o resultado do experimento importa? (claro: pode ser que a redinha faça gastar mais água, você nunca saberá até que faça o experimento). por que não, ao invés de condenar todos os raciocínios como enganadores e mandar que as pessoas façam experimentos científicos, ensinar a fazer raciocínios certos?

@ 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

# 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

# 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

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# hyperscript-go A template rendering library similar to [hyperscript](https://github.com/dominictarr/hyperscript) for Go. Better than writing HTML and Golang templates. - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/hyperscript-go> ### See also - [tempreites](nostr:naddr1qqyrgvpjxf3kzep3qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cs7qvaw)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# sitio A static site generator that works with imperative code instead of declarative templates and directory structures. It assumes nothing and can be used to transform anything into HTML pages. It uses React so it can be used to generate single-page apps too if you want -- and normal sites that work like single-page apps. It also provides helpers for reading Markdown files, like all static site generator does. A long time after creating this and breaking it while trying to add too many features at once I realized Gatsby also had an imperative engine underlying the default declarative interface that could be used and it was pretty similar to `sitio`. That both made me happy to have arrived at the same results of such an acclaimed tool and sad for the same reason, as Gatsby is the worse static site generator ever created considering user experience. - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/sitio>

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# 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

# Xampu Depois de quatro anos e meio sem usar xampu, e com o cabelo razoavelmente grande, dá pra perceber a enorme diferença entre não passar nada e passar _L'Oréal Elsève_, ou entre passar este e _Seda Ceramidas Cocriações_. A diferença mais notável no primeiro caso é a de que o cabelo deixa de ter uma oleosidade natural que mantém os cachos juntos e passa a ser só uma massa amorfa de fios secos desgrenhados, um jamais tocando o outro. No segundo caso os cabelos não mais não se tocam, mas mantém-se embaraçados. Passar o condicionador para "hidratar" faz com que o cabelo fique pesado e mole, caindo para os lados. Além do fato de que os xampus vêm sempre com as mesmas recomendações no verso ("para melhores resultados, utilize nossa linha completa"), o mais estranho é que as pessoas fazem juízos sobre os cabelos serem "secos" ou "oleosos" sendo que elas jamais os viram em um estado "natural" ou pelo menos mais próximo do natural, pelo contrário, estão sempre aplicando sobre eles um fluido secador, o xampu, e depois um fluido molhador, o condicionador, e cada um deles podendo ter efeitos diferentes sobre cada cabelo, o que deveria invalidar total e cabalmente todo juízo sobre oleosidade. Por outro lado, embora existam, aqui e ali, discussões sobre a qualidade dos xampus e sobre qual é mais adequado a cada cabelo (embora, como deve ter ficado claro no parágrafo acima, estas discussões são totalmente desprovidas de qualquer base na realidade), não se discute a qualidade da água. A água que cada pessoa usa em seu banho deve ter um influência no mínimo igual à do xampu (ou não-xampu). No final das contas, as pessoas passam a vida inteira usando o xampu errado, sem saber o que estão fazendo, chegando a conclusões baseadas em nada sobre os próprios cabelos e o dos outros, sem considerar os dados corretos -- aliás, sem nem cogitar que pode existir algum dado além da percepção mais imediata e o _feeling_ de cabelereiro de cada um --, ou então trocando de xampu a cada vez que o cabelo fica de um jeito diferente, _fooled by randomness_.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# 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

# 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

# The problem with DIDs _Decentralized Identifiers_ are supposedly a standard that will allow anyone (or anything) to have an online identity. The DID is a URI like `did:<method>:<data>` in which `<method>` determines how to interpret the `<data>`. The data is generally a public key in some cryptographic system or shitcoin blockchain, or a naked key, or a DNS-backed web address. Some of the DID proponents argue that this is for maximum interoperability, since any new system can be supported under the same standard, i.e. supposedly an application could "support DIDs" (as some would say) and that would allow anyone to just paste their DID string there and that would refer to something. There are [a gazillion](https://w3c.github.io/did-spec-registries/#did-methods) of different DID "methods", most of them are probably barely used. What does it mean for an application to "support" DIDs, then? For the interoperability argument to make any sense that must mean that the application must understand all the "methods" -- which involves understanding all cryptographic protocols and reading and interpreting data from a gazillion different blockchains and also understanding the specifics of each method, since the data of each blockchain or website and so on must also be interpreted according to the rules of the method. It must be clear from the paragraph above that the DID goal is is unimplementable and therefore will either fail horribly by lack of adoption; or it will have to be changed to something else (for example everybody will start accepting just `did:key` and ignore others and that will _be_ the standard); or it will become a centralized thing with all supporting applications using a single set of libraries that have built-in support for all methods by calling centralized servers that return the final product of processing the DID data for each method. ## See also: - [The problem with ION](nostr:naddr1qqyrvcnrvfjkvvf3qyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823czjscmz)

@ 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

# A estrutura paradigmática da ciência N'_A estrutura das revoluções científicas_, Thomas Kuhn descreve como surge uma ciência: um monte de gente fica tentando descobrir como uma coisa funciona a partir da sua própria experiência e escreve livros descrevendo isso. Cada um fala uma coisa completamente diferente, várias escolas de pensamento surgem e se combatem, até que por algum motivo uma mudança qualitativa aparece e faz com que todos concordem com uma base comum -- exceto é claro os que não concordam e esses são sumariamente expulsos do convívio dos demais --, os vários grupos deixam de existir ou se reformulam para que suas teses específicas passem a ter como base aquele novo paradigma, e então todo mundo passa a se comunicar por artigos que pressupõem várias coisas que eles têm em comum, e não mais por livros que partem dos menores princípios e tentam explicar tudo. É um belo paradigma para compreender como a ciência funciona, e explica o estado real das coisas muito melhor do que o vômito ideológico dos cientistas mirins da internet que repetem asneiras sobre o "método científico". mas o problema que me ocorreu foi: quem garante que esse paradigma representa realmente um avanço? Será que o desejo de concordar e se sentir incluído não foi o que fez com que todos os envolvidos o aceitassem? Não digo nem que essa nova descoberta esteja errada, mas ela -- e sua aceitação como novo paradigma -- criam um recorte da realidade dentro do qual aquela nova ciência que surge estará fadada a operar dali em diante, mas quem disse que esse recorte é mesmo o melhor lugar para que todos operem? Talvez uma idéia melhor seria que as pessoas avaliassem aquele novo paradigma, mas não mergulhassem de cabeça nele. Uma hipótese alternativa do porquê esse recorte e surgimento da ciência acontece: ela é mais fácil de ser abarcada pela burocracia universitária e empregar mentes medíocres na "pesquisa" uma coisa pequena e sem importância que já está ali dada pelo próprio conceito da ciência e não será nenhuma descoberta nova. - [Método científico](nostr:naddr1qqyr2wf3vgmx2dmrqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823chtnaca) - [Thomas Kuhn sequer menciona o "método científico"](nostr:naddr1qqyryd3jv5enyd3cqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c3zmtlu)

@ 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

# Webvatar Like **Gravatar**, but using profile images from websites tagged with "microformats-2" tags, like people from the indiewebcamp movement liked. It falled back to favicon, gravatar and procedural avatar generators. No one really used this, despite people saying they liked it. Since I was desperate to getting some of my programs appreciated by someone I even bought a domain. It was sad, but an enriching experience. - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/webvatar.com> - <http://webvatar.com> ### See also - [jekmentions](nostr:naddr1qqyrvcmxxgmn2cnpqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823crzww00) - [questo.email](nostr:naddr1qqyrvvpnveskzvnrqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823ce8mca6)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# 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

# idea: Patreon, but simple, and without subscription Basically instead of a subscription and becoming member of something, you just get a forum for your inner circle and people get lnurl-pay codes they can use to donate. Some amount of donations is required to remain in the group (like x per month), but if you donate more than that on the beginning you can stay until your credits expire. Every time someone donates a notice is posted in the group page. Perhaps that could be an [@lntxbot](https://t.me/lntxbot) feature.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# A flexibilidade da doutrina socialista Os fatos da revolução russa mostram que Lênin e seus amigos bolcheviques não eram só psicopatas assassinos: eles realmente acreditavam que estavam fazendo o certo. Talvez depois de um tempo o foco deles tenha mudado mais para o lado de se preocuparem menos com a vida e o bem-estar dos outros do que com eles mesmos, mas não houve uma mudança fundamental. Ao mesmo tempo, a doutrina socialista na qual eles acreditavam era enormemente flexível, assim como a dos esquerdistas de hoje. É a mesma doutrina: uma coleção de slogans que pode ser adaptada para apoiar ou ir contra qualquer outra tese ou ação. Me parece que a justificativa que eles encontraram para fazer tantas coisas claramente ruins vem dessas mesma flexibilidade. Os atos cruéis estavam todos justificados pela mesma coleção de slogans socialistas de sempre, apenas adaptados às circunstâncias. Será que uma doutrina mais sólida se prestaria a essas atrocidades? Se concluirmos que a flexibilidade vem da mente e não da doutrina em si, sim, mas não acho que venha daí, porque é sempre o socialismo que é flexível, nunca nenhuma outra doutrina. Ou, na verdade, o socialismo é tão flexível que ele envolve e integra qualquer outra doutrina que seja minimamente compatível. Talvez a flexibilidade esteja mesmo na mente, mas existe alguma relação entre a mente que desconhece a coerência e a lógica e a mente que se deixa atrair pelos slogans socialistas.

@ 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

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# 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

# 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

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# IPFS problems: General confusion Most IPFS open-source projects, libraries and apps (excluding [Ethereum](nostr:naddr1qqyxxdpev5cnsvpkqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cta4a2e) stuff) are things that rely heavily on dynamic data and temporary links. The most common projects you'll see when following the IPFS communities are chat rooms and similar things. I've seen dozens of these chat-rooms. There's also a famous IPFS-powered database. How can you do these things with content-addressing is a mistery. Of course they probably rely on IPNS or other external address system. There's also a bunch of "file-sharing" on IPFS. The kind of thing people use for temporary making a file available for a third-party. There's image sharing on IPFS, pastebins on IPFS and so on. People don't seem to share the preoccupation with broken links here.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# As estrelas As estrelas são buracos nas esferas celestiais, buracos através dos quais nos é permitido ver a brilhante luz dos céus. (_Rome_, a série.)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# 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

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# The monolithic approach to CouchDB views Imagine you have an app that created one document for each day. The docs ids are easily "2015-02-05", "2015-02-06" and so on. Nothing could be more simple. Let's say each day you record "sales", "expenses" and "events", so this a document for a typical day for the retail management Couchapp for an orchid shop: ``` { "_id": "2015-02-04", "sales": [{ "what": "A blue orchid", "price": 50000 }, { "what": "A red orchid", "price": 3500 }, { "what": "A yellow orchid", "price": 11500 }], "expenses": [{ "what": "A new bucket", "how much": 300 },{ "what": "The afternoon snack", "how much": "1200" }], "events": [ "Bob opened the store", "Lisa arrived", "Bob went home", "Lisa closed the store" ] } ``` Now when you want to know what happened in a specific day, you know where to look at. But you don't want only that, you want profit reports, cash flows, day profitability, a complete log of the events et cetera. Then you create one view to turn this mess into something more useful: ``` function (doc) { var spldate = doc._id.split("-") var year = parseInt(spldate[0]) var month = parseInt(spldate[1]) var day = parseInt(spldate[2]) doc.sales.forEach(function (sale, i) { emit(["sale", sale.what], sale.price) emit(["cashflow", year, month, day, i], sale.price) }) doc.expenses.forEach(function (exp, i) { emit(["expense", exp.what], exp.price) emit(["cashflow", year, month, day, i], -exp.price) }) doc.events.forEach(function (ev, i) { emit(["log", year, month, day, i], ev) }) } ``` Then you add a reduce function with the value of `_sum` and you get a bunch of useful query endpoints. For example, you can request ``` /_design/orchids/_view/main?startkey=["cashflow", "2014", "12"]&endkey=["cashflow", "2014", "12", {}] ```

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# questo.email This was a thing done in a brief period I liked the idea of "indiewebcamp", a stupid movement of people saying everybody should have their site and post their lives in it. From the GitHub postmortem: > questo.email was a service that integrated email addresses into the indieweb ecosystem by providing email-to-note and email-to-webmention triggers, which could be used for people to comment through webmention using their email addresses, and be replied, and also for people to send messages from their sites directly to the email addresses of people they knew; Questo also worked as an **IndieAuth** provider that used people's email addresses and **Mozilla Persona**. > > It was live from December 2014 through December 2015. Here's how the home page looked:  - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/questo.email> ### See also - [jekmentions](nostr:naddr1qqyrvcmxxgmn2cnpqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823crzww00), another thing related to "indieweb"

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Washer A CLI tool for generating fulltext indexes and using them to query files later based on a library called `whoosh`[^whoosh]. I made this to help me search my [git-annex](https://git-annex.branchable.com/) files, but never really used it.  - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/washer> [^whoosh]: <https://pypi.org/project/Whoosh/>

@ 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

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Setting up a handler for `nostr:` links on your Desktop, even if you don't use a native client This is the most barebones possible, it will just open a web browser at `https://nostr.guru/` with the contents of the `nostr:` link. Create this file at `~/.local/share/applications/nostr-opener.desktop`: ``` [Desktop Entry] Exec=/home/youruser/nostr-opener %u Name=Nostr Browser Type=Application StartupNotify=false MimeType=x-scheme-handler/nostr; ``` (Replace "youruser" with your username above.) This will create a default handler for `nostr:` links. It will be called with the link as its first argument. Now you can create the actual program at `~/nostr-opener`. For example: ```python #!/usr/bin/env python import sys import webbrowser nip19 = sys.argv[1][len('nostr:'):] webbrowser.open(f'https://nostr.guru/{nip19}') ``` Remember to make it executable with `chmod +x ~/nostr-opener`.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# O voto negativo É simples: Você pode escolher entre votar em um candidato qualquer, como todos fazemos normalmente, ou tirar um voto de um político que não quer que seja eleito de jeito nenhum. A possibilidade de votarmos negativamente duas vezes é muito interessante também. Outro motivo para implementar essa inovação na democracia: é muito mais divertido que o voto nulo.

@ 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

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# jekmentions This was a service that took [webmentions][webmentions], an "indiewebcamp" thing and turned them into notes on a special directory of a GitHub repo so they would be turned into rendered comments on a GitHub website rendered by the default Jekyll generator. I ran a server for some time and there were some 2 or 3 people using it besides me. - <https://github.com/fiatjaf/jekmentions> [webmentions]: <https://indieweb.org/Webmention>

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Viva o mata-mata outro dia o comentarista Falcão, da Globo, disse, sobre o título do São Paulo: [i]"um jogo se ganha com um bom ataque, um campeonato se ganha com uma boa defesa"[/i], e foi deveras assustador pensar no que se transformou o futebol com o sistema de disputa do campeonato brasileiro por pontos corridos. um esporte em que vencia quem fazia mais gols está se transformando num esporte em que vence quem leva menos gols. é o sistema de pontos corridos - que premia a constância, o time que perde menos, mesmo que isso signifique empatar todos os jogos fora de casa em 0x0 e vencer todos em casa por 1x0. o sistema de pontos corridos premia o futebol feio, covarde, ou - como também é conhecido o futebol retranqueiro - o "equilíbrio". eis que o futebol brasileiro, resolvendo seguir a linha européia, institui a disputa por pontos corridos e se transforma numa cópia malfeita e pobre do chato futebol europeu. e perde-se tudo que tínhamos de aqui que eles não tinham lá (é claro, os europeus têm mais estrutura, mais dinheiro, mais tudo), a ousadia, os brios, a coragem, a categoria e o escambau. daí falam que o sistema de pontos corridos é mais justo. é mais justo porque dá o título aos times que jogaram melhor durante o campeonato, os mais regulares. mas ninguém disse por que não é justo premiar os times que conseguem vencer na semifinal e na final, o time que consegue ser pior o campeonato inteiro e no final tirar forças não sei de onde pra vencer aquele que era (ou parecia ser) bem melhor do que ele, o time que dá a volta por cima, o time que - mesmo não sendo regular - sabe jogar em decisões, sabe se segurar em um estádio com 80 mil torcendo contra e sabe aproveitar quando há 80 mil torcendo a favor e matar o adversário. o melhor time é o que vai ganhando pontinhos em jogos bobos e no final junta tudo e a soma dá mais do que os pontinhos do adversário ou é o time que consegue entrar num estádio numa final e derrotar, cara a cara, o adversário? e quem disse que futebol é regularidade? repare que não se ouve mais a expressão desde o início dos pontos corridos, mas futebol é uma caixinha de surpresas. dos esportes que eu conheço, futebol é o único em que o último colocado pode vencer o primeiro e ninguém considerar isso um absurdo. com os pontos corridos, morrem metade dos componentes do futebol: o amor pelo ataque - conforme explicitado na supracitada afirmação de Falcão - a coragem, os brios e a emoção. ao premiar a regularidade no futebol, pode-se estar chamando de “campeão” um time que facilmente tremeria numa final. e não é justo que um time covarde seja campeão. duvido que o São Paulo de 2007 jogaria bem numa final contra o Flamengo. e dificilmente o Corinthians de 2005 venceria uma final contra o Internacional (aliás, perdeu, moralmente, aquele jogo que foi quase uma final entre os dois). mas se todo mundo gosta tanto assim desse campeonato de pseudo-futebol, vem aí a Copa do Mundo por pontos corridos.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

# Bitcoin Hivemind This page is a work in progress. For now, please head on to https://bitcoinhivemind.com/.

@ 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

# 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

# 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.