Nostr notes by

So true!

2026-09-03T09:17:16Z

In reply to nevent1q…xsmd
_________________________

So true!

#naddr1qq…9ckz

2026-08-19T05:22:36Z

quoting
naddr1qq…9ckz

Stell dir digitales Geld vor, das sich wie ein Geldschein anfühlt: Du gibst es weiter, und wer es hat, dem gehört es. Es gibt kein Konto, keinen Namen und keine Buchung, die festhielte, wer an wen gezahlt hat. Das ist Ecash. Die Idee ist über 40 Jahre alt, stammt vom Cypherpunk-Urgestein David Chaum und erlebt auf Bitcoin gerade ihre Renaissance unter dem Namen Cashu.

Eine alte Cypherpunk-Idee kehrt zurück

1982 beschrieb David Chaum mit den blinden Signaturen ein Verfahren für digitales Bargeld, bei dem die ausgebende Bank zwar die Echtheit einer Münze bestätigt, aber nicht sieht, welche Münze zu wem gehört. Sein Unternehmen DigiCash scheiterte in den 90ern: Die Technik war ihrer Zeit voraus, es fehlte die Grundlage für digitale Knappheit. Diese Grundlage heißt heute Bitcoin. Wenn dich diese Wurzeln interessieren, lies Bitcoin und der Aufstieg der Cypherpunks.

Cashu ist ein freies, offenes Protokoll, das Chaums Idee auf Bitcoin und das Lightning Network aufsetzt. Fedimint verfolgt denselben Kern mit einem anderen Vertrauensmodell. Beide erzeugen etwas, das es bei Bitcoin sonst nicht gibt: echtes digitales Bargeld mit der Privatsphäre von Scheinen.

Wie Cashu funktioniert

Im Zentrum steht eine Mint, ein Server, der Bitcoin gegen Ecash-Token tauscht. Der Ablauf ist einfacher, als er klingt:

1. Einzahlen per Lightning

Du schickst der Mint zum Beispiel 10.000 Sats über eine Lightning-Zahlung. Im Gegenzug stellt sie dir Ecash-Token im selben Wert aus – kleine Datenschnipsel, die lokal auf deinem Gerät liegen.

2. Blind signiert: Die Mint sieht deine Token nie

Dank blinder Signatur bestätigt die Mint den Wert deiner Token, ohne sie zu Gesicht zu bekommen. Sie kann später nicht erkennen, welcher Token zu deiner Einzahlung gehörte. Hier entsteht die Privatsphäre.

3. Weitergeben wie Bargeld

Du kannst Token als reinen Text verschicken: per Messenger, als Nostr-Zap, QR-Code, wie du willst. Wer den Token bekommt, hält den Wert. Sofort, gebührenfrei und ohne dass ein Kanal offen sein muss.

4. Zurück zu Lightning

Der Empfänger kann den Token bei der Mint wieder gegen eine Lightning-Zahlung einlösen oder ihn einfach weitergeben. So wandert derselbe Wert durch viele Hände, ohne die Chain zu berühren.

Das Ergebnis verhält sich weitgehend wie echtes Bargeld: übertragbar, sofort und selbst für die Mint nicht nachverfolgbar.

Der Haken: Ecash ist verwahrt

Deine Sats liegen bei der Mint:

Solange deine Sats als Ecash-Token existieren, liegt das echte Bitcoin bei der Mint. Du hältst nur einen Anspruch darauf. Verschwindet die Mint, wird sie gehackt oder betrügt sie dich, ist dein Geld weg, und weil das System so privat ist, gibt es niemanden, bei dem du es einklagen könntest. Ecash ist custodial. Nutze es nur für kleine Beträge, nur bei Mints, denen du vertraust oder die du selbst betreibst.

Das ist die bewusste Grenze der Technik, kein Versehen: Ecash tauscht Selbstverwahrung gegen Privatsphäre und Bequemlichkeit. Wie du größere Beträge richtig sicherst, steht in Bitcoin langfristig halten und sicher aufbewahren und Was ist eine Hardware-Wallet?.

Fedimint: Vertrauen auf viele Schultern

Fedimint greift dieses Vertrauensproblem an. Statt einer einzelnen Mint verwahrt eine Föderation von Guardians die Bitcoin gemeinsam über ein Multisig, typischerweise 4 von 7 Betreibern. Kein einzelner Guardian kann das Geld allein bewegen oder verschwinden lassen. Nach innen nutzt Fedimint ebenfalls Chaumian Ecash, du bekommst also dieselbe Zahlungs-Privatsphäre, aber mit deutlich robusterer Verwahrung.

Gedacht ist das für Gemeinschaften: der Bitcoin-Meetup, die Familie, die Community-Kasse. Menschen, die einander ohnehin ein Stück weit vertrauen, bündeln ihre Verwahrung und senken so das Risiko gegenüber einer Solo-Mint, ohne dass jeder einzelne eine eigene Node und Seed-Phrase managen muss.

Cashu – Eine einzelne Mint. Maximal einfach und flexibel, aber du vertraust einem einzigen Betreiber. Ideal für Kleinstbeträge und schnelles Ausprobieren.

Fedimint – Eine Föderation aus mehreren Guardians per Multisig. Aufwändiger, aber das Verwahrungsrisiko verteilt sich. Ideal für Communities und Familien.

Wofür Ecash tatsächlich gut ist

Ecash füllt trotz dieser Grenzen eine echte Lücke:

Kleinstzahlungen und Trinkgeld: Zaps, Paywalls, ein Kaffee. Beträge, für die eine On-Chain-Transaktion absurd wäre und selbst ein Lightning-Kanal Overhead ist.

Privatsphäre im Alltag: Beim täglichen Bezahlen ist es ein Vorteil, dass niemand mitschreibt, was du kaufst.

Einstieg ohne Hürden: Neulinge können Bitcoin ausgeben, bevor sie Seed-Phrasen, Kanäle und Selbstverwahrung verstanden haben – ein sanfter Weg ins Bezahlen mit Bitcoin.

Zum Ausprobieren gibt es offene Wallets wie eNuts, Minibits oder Nutstash; für Fedimint die Fedi-App. Fang mit einem Betrag an, dessen Verlust dir nicht wehtäte. So lernst du das System kennen, ohne die custodial-Grenze schmerzhaft zu testen.

Die Faustregel:

Ecash ist privates, sofortiges Bitcoin-Bargeld für die Hosentasche, kein Tresor. Ersparnisse gehören in Selbstverwahrung, Taschengeld darf in die Mint.

Bitcoin verstehen, statt nur zu besitzen Wir zeigen dir, wie Layer 2, Privacy und Selbstverwahrung zusammenspielen – verständlich erklärt, persönlich in München oder online.

👉 Mehr zu Lightning 👉 Newsletter abonnieren

Dieser Artikel erschien zuerst auf bitcoinlighthouse.de – dort findest du auch unsere Bitcoin-Workshops in München.

Für 2,2 Millionen Schuldenerlass verkauft er sein Gewissen und ...

2026-08-17T19:43:18Z

Für 2,2 Millionen Schuldenerlass verkauft er sein Gewissen und seine Reputation. In seinem Alter irreversibel, die Schande nimmt er mit ins Grab.

quoting
nevent1q…0cg7

Schädlingsbekämpfung?
Ratten sind doch solche Schädlinge. Da könnte er sich mal mit Herbert Grönemeyer kurzschließen, der kennt sich ja mit Ratten aus.

Das ist mindestens unterirdisch, wenn nicht gar noch schlimmer. Mir fällt da ein ähnliches Wort zu Schädlingsbekämpfung ein, nur Schädling(e) hinten und Volks vorne. Damit sind nicht die beiden gemeint, sondern die, die damals als Ratten bezeichnet wurden. Wo sind wir eigentlich gelandet? Wer tritt da unsere Kultur und einen angemessenen Umgangston in die Tonne?

#naddr1qq…c5qe

2026-08-17T06:21:55Z

quoting
naddr1qq…c5qe

Welcome to the 13th edition of HRF’s AI for Individual Rights newsletter.

Across this week’s news, authoritarian regimes continue deploying AI-powered surveillance to better identify and track critics. In China, an unsecured police database revealed how facial recognition and personal data can be combined to monitor foreigners. Meanwhile, police in Pakistan’s capital are discussing ways to expand technology-powered policing and surveillance.

This week also brought an encouraging shift toward user-controlled AI. Meta committed to developing AI that empowers individuals and released a new open-weight model. Just one day later, NVIDIA unveiled an open-weight model of its own. These are models that individuals anywhere, in any country, under any government, can download, modify, and run privately. For dissidents, that means having access to intelligence without exposing their activity to state-controlled companies or authoritarian regimes. These developments suggest that major AI companies in democracies may be starting to invest more seriously in open models, giving users more alternatives to the Chinese models that currently dominate much of the open-weight landscape.

We end with a practical tutorial from freedom tech educator, Sovereign Sessions, that shows beginners how to use LM Studio, an application that lets users run AI models locally (and, therefore, privately) on their own computers. If you have a few minutes today, this is worth your time.

SUBSCRIBE TO THE NEWSLETTER HERE

THE LATEST IN AI FOR REPRESSION

China Uses AI and Big Data to Track Foreigners

A New York Times article uncovered an unsecured Chinese police dashboard, apparently built for officials in Zhangjiakou, that aggregated personal data and facial recognition on foreigners. The platform held nearly 12,000 entries, including foreign journalists (some of whom had not been to the city), people labeled as fugitives, and people from Hong Kong and Taiwan. It combined passport details, phone numbers, addresses, relationship networks, financial data, and camera footage from China’s expansive AI-powered facial recognition network. While it remains unclear how the police have used these databases, it shows how facial recognition feeds and data collection put foreign dissidents, journalists, and critics under an increasingly watchful eye.

Why this matters: AI could turn massive surveillance databases like this into ones that are far easier to search and analyze. What was once an array of personal data could become a system that Chinese officials use to quickly identify, connect, and track dissidents.

Police in Pakistan Meet to Discuss Strengthening Surveillance and Smart Cities

Police met in Pakistan’s capital city, Islamabad, to discuss accelerating the city’s use of technology and Safe City technologies for policing and surveillance. While officials did not specify which technologies would be expanded, Islamabad’s existing Safe City network already uses AI-powered facial recognition cameras, vehicle tracking, and other surveillance tools. Expansion of such systems makes it easier for police to identify people in crowds, track dissidents’ movements, and investigate them after they attend protests.

In context: This surveillant expansion comes amid a deadly crackdown on protests and independent reporting. In Pakistan-administered Kashmir, demonstrators protested election rules, while dozens of protesters have reportedly been killed and officials have imposed restrictions on journalists. This already repressive and violent hybrid authoritarian regime could use AI-powered surveillance to further crush its critics.

Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Sanctions HRF Grantee Human Rights in China

Amid an escalating trade dispute with the United States, the Chinese regime barred HRF’s AI for Individual Rights Fund grantee, Human Rights in China (HRIC), from engaging in trade or other activities with Chinese entities. The sanctions came in retaliation for the US government's recent restrictions on drone imports and Chinese companies linked to Uyghur forced labor. China’s sanctions were intended to pressure Washington to reverse those measures. But HRIC is not a commercial company or an economic competitor. HRIC is a New York-based human rights organization, founded by Chinese activists in exile, that documents CCP abuses and supports Chinese activists. Beijing framed the sanctions as part of the broader trade dispute, but it appears to provide a convenient excuse to target those working to expose its abuses.

Why this matters: The sanctions on HRIC are widely viewed as Beijing using economic pressure as a tool of transnational repression to target critics abroad.

Nigerian Lecturer Urges Regime to Adopt AI-Powered Surveillance System

Adetoro Banwo, head of the Chinese Unit at the University of Lagos, urged Nigeria to adopt China’s AI-powered surveillance model to combat terrorism and insecurity. He argues that AI could “spot early signs of unrest and identify people of interest through big data, computer modelling and machine learning.” But such tools could be turned against peaceful dissent. Authoritarian regimes like Nigeria often invoke security threats to target opposition figures, protesters, and critics. An AI-powered surveillance system could make it easier to identify and track them at scale.

Hong Kong Looking to Add AI Facial Recognition to Drones Enforcing a Construction-Site Smoking Ban

Officials in Hong Kong are reportedly looking to integrate AI-powered facial recognition into drones being tested to detect illegal activity. Currently, these drones use infrared cameras to identify people violating smoking laws — a minor offense. But adding facial recognition could allow the authoritarian regime to better identify and track protesters, journalists, and critics remotely and from the air.

In context: Hong Kong has increasingly treated peaceful political activity as a crime since the imposition of a national security law in 2020. Officials have arrested opposition candidates for organizing an unofficial primary, imprisoned journalists over their reporting, and sentenced a man to 14 months in prison for wearing a T-shirt bearing a protest slogan.

RECOMMENDED CONTENT

A Roadmap for Confronting the Chilling Effects of Censorship, Surveillance, and New Technology

A recent episode of the Tech Policy Press Podcast features an interview with Jonathon W. Penney, author of Chilling Effects: Repression, Conformity, and Power in the Digital Age. Penney explores how digital surveillance can encourage people to self-censor, conform, or disengage from political life even when they are not directly threatened or punished. He also warns that increasingly powerful data analytics and AI systems could make these chilling effects more targeted and easier to scale.

THE LATEST IN AI FOR FREEDOM

Meta Says It Commits to AI that Empowers Individuals, Releases Open-Weight Model

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg posted a 6,500-word essay explaining that the company’s approach to AI will center around empowering individuals. He argues that concentrating powerful AI in the hands of a few companies could leave individuals with less control and privacy. To prevent Meta’s own technology from contributing to those risks, he writes, the company plans to build private personal AI agents and continue releasing open-weight AI models. An open-weight model is one whose trained parameters (weights) are publicly available. Anyone with suitable hardware can download it and run it locally, including offline.

On the same day as this announcement, Meta released Muse Glimmer, an open-weight model optimized to power private AI agents running on a Mac or PC. Hopefully, this is just the beginning of a new wave of Meta tools that dissidents can run privately, on their own terms, to supercharge their work.

NVIDIA Releases Open-Weight Nemotron 3.5 Lightning

Just one day after Meta’s statement and release of Muse Glimmer, another US technology giant, NVIDIA, released its own open-weight model, Nemotron 3.5 Lightning. Similar to Meta’s model, it can run locally (therefore, privately) on personal computers and was designed to power AI agents. The model is optimized for common agent tasks, such as reviewing code, using external tools, and answering routine questions. Its release gives individuals and dissidents another powerful model developed in a democracy that they can run privately to supercharge their work. Try it out on Ollama, an application for running AI locally.

Why this matters: Chinese models like Kimi K3 and GLM-5.2 are among the leading open-weight systems. Meanwhile, many leading AI companies in democracies often keep their top models closed. These back-to-back releases signal that top tech companies in democracies may be breaking this pattern and moving toward a future where open AI is not shaped by authoritarian regimes alone.

Kimi K3 Live on Privacy-Protecting AI Sites

The Chinese AI model, Kimi K3, is now available through several privacy-protecting AI services, including Tinfoil and PayPerQ. Kimi K3 is one of the most capable open-weight AI models to date, but it requires expensive hardware to run. That’s why Tinfoil, a privacy-focused AI company, runs the model on its own powerful hardware and lets users access it privately in a simple chat interface. Tinfoil says prompts are encrypted to a hardware enclave so that Tinfoil itself cannot read them. That is the company’s claim; it depends on the security of those enclaves, and it is not the same as running the model on your own device.

Another privacy-protecting AI service, PayPerQ, also offers this end-to-end encrypted access to Kimi K3, while adding an additional layer of privacy. Users do not need to create an account, and can pay in Bitcoin to protect their financial privacy, rather than with identity-linked payment methods like credit cards. Activists and dissidents can use Kimi K3 through these services without buying costly hardware. The privacy benefit is only as strong as the provider’s encryption and enclave design, and the model can still reproduce CCP censorship and propaganda.

Important: Although “best in class,” this open-weight model can still reproduce censorship and propaganda embedded during its development in China. Tools like Tinfoil and PayPerQ do not address this, but they do address a separate risk — sensitive prompts being sent directly to a Chinese provider.

Maple AI Announces Plans for Privacy-Protecting AI Agent

Privacy-focused AI company and HRF grantee Maple is preparing to release a new privacy-protecting agent. In Maple’s app, users simply switch to “Agent Mode” and watch the AI work its magic. It will be able to work directly with local files, build websites and apps, and connect to external tools, without sending that data to a conventional closed AI lab. For small tasks, the agent can use models that run locally on a user's device. For heavier tasks, Maple says it can route work through privacy-focused providers such as Tinfoil, which is still a third party. Maple says the goal is to offer a simple way to use agents without requiring users to hand over sensitive work, personal information, or company data to closed AI labs.

Why this matters: AI agents can dramatically expand what activists can accomplish. A private, easy-to-use agent like Maple’s could put that power in activists’ hands without requiring them to hand sensitive files, strategy, or personal data to a conventional closed AI lab.

SayIt Offers Private Text-to-Speech

Pioneering freedom tech developer Calle released a free, open-source Mac app, SayIt, that uses local, private AI to transform text into speech. Users can download the app and choose a small, open-weight model that runs locally on their Mac and can read documents, articles, or other text aloud. Because everything runs locally, activists can listen to sensitive documents or catch up on articles while multitasking — without paying a cloud provider or sending that text off the device.

Why this matters: Not every AI task requires sending data to powerful cloud models like ChatGPT or Claude. Small, specialized models can increasingly handle niche work entirely on our own devices. SayIt is a simple example of how small, local AI models can perform useful, everyday tasks without sacrificing user data.

RECOMMENDED CONTENT

LM Studio: Private AI on Your Own PC

In this video, freedom tech educator Sovereign Sessions, also known as BTC Sessions, teaches beginners how to run AI locally on their computers with LM Studio. He walks through how to install the application, choose the right model for your devices, and understand some basic AI terminology. Give it a watch to learn why keeping AI under your control matters, and how to get started today.

#naddr1qp…pa4z

2026-08-12T06:30:58Z

quoting
naddr1qp…pa4z

Read first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvest_now,_decrypt_later

Someone is copying your encrypted messages right now. Not breaking them. Copying them.

That is the whole attack. It does not need a quantum computer today. It needs a hard drive today and a quantum computer eventually. Every NIP-44 message you have ever sent, sitting on relays, publicly retrievable, encrypted with a scheme that will not hold. The people doing this are not waiting for permission and they are not in a hurry.

It has a name, "harvest now decrypt later", and the fact that it has a name should tell you how long people have known.

Why Nostr specifically

Your public key is published to every relay you touch. That is not a flaw, it is the entire design. It is how anyone verifies your notes.

It is also the input to the attack. Shor's algorithm recovers a private key from a public key. Most systems at least make an adversary work to obtain the public key first. Nostr hands it over, to everyone, permanently, by default.

NIP-44 derives its conversation key from an ECDH shared secret between two secp256k1 keys. Recover either private key and you recover the conversation key. Recover the conversation key and you decrypt every message in that conversation, all the way back to the first one.

There is no forward secrecy in that construction to save you. There is no key rotation that helps, because the messages were already captured under the old key. There is nothing you can publish tomorrow that protects what you sent yesterday.

The part I cannot get people to hear

When I raise this, the answer is almost always some version of "quantum computers aren't here yet."

That is not a rebuttal. That is the premise.

The deadline is not when the machine arrives. The deadline is how long your message needs to stay secret, counted backwards from when the machine arrives. If you send something today that would still embarrass you, endanger you, or cost you money in twelve years, and the machine shows up in ten, you already missed it. You missed it at the moment you hit send.

So the question is not "when is Q-day". The question is: what did you say last week that still matters in 2036?

For most people the honest answer is "some of it". Not all of it. Some of it. Which is enough.

And it is not only your judgement that is at stake. Every person who messaged you did so believing the thing on the label. They looked at a lock icon, or a client that said encrypted, and they decided what to tell you based on that. If the encryption does not hold, you did not just lose your own privacy. You lost theirs, on their behalf, without asking them.

That is the part that actually bothers me. My own messages I can be philosophical about. I cannot be philosophical about someone else's.

Why this has stayed unfixed for a year

It is not that nobody noticed. Paul Miller opened the issue in July 2025. fiatjaf, Vitor Pamplona and Mike Dilger have all been in that thread. These are not people who miss things.

It stalled on something real. The obvious fix is to derive a post-quantum key from your Nostr private key:
pq_key = KDF(nsec)
That is circular and it buys you nothing. An adversary recovers your nsec from your npub, runs the same KDF, and now has your post-quantum key as well. You added computation and no security.

That objection killed every proposal. Working prototypes existed. A specification did not.

The fix is a change of shape, not of algorithm

Do not derive from the nsec. Derive from the seed.

NIP-06 already takes you from a BIP-39 mnemonic to your Nostr key at m/44'/1237'/0'/0/0, through HMAC-SHA512, which is one-way. Given the resulting private key you cannot walk back to the seed.

So take that same seed and expand it a second time, with domain separation, into post-quantum keys:
kem_seed = HKDF-SHA256(seed, info = "nip-pqc/v1/ml-kem-1024/0", 64)
dsa_seed = HKDF-SHA256(seed, info = "nip-pqc/v1/ml-dsa-87/0", 32)

Both keys are children of the seed. Neither is a child of the other. They are siblings.

An adversary who breaks secp256k1 and recovers your Nostr private key learns nothing about the seed, because that would mean inverting HMAC-SHA512. So they learn nothing about your post-quantum keys. Messages encrypted to your ML-KEM key stay confidential permanently, even after your identity key is gone.

And your words never change. The same mnemonic restores your Nostr key and both post-quantum keys. There is no new backup, no re-enrolment, no "generate a fresh identity and rebuild your social graph", which is the migration nobody ever completes.

The rest of the design, briefly

Keys go in a kind:10203 replaceable event, not in your kind:0 profile. Clients rebuild profile JSON from the fields they know about and republish it, so the first time you changed your display name in a client that had not implemented this, your post-quantum key would vanish silently. You would still think you were reachable. Senders would quietly fall back to classic encryption. A security feature that fails silently is worse than one that is not there.

The ML-DSA key counter-signs a proof of possession binding your npub to both public keys. A secp256k1 signature proves you published those bytes. It does not prove you hold the matching post-quantum secrets. Without the counter-signature you could advertise a key you cannot decrypt with, by bug or on purpose, and people would send you messages nobody can read.

The post-quantum secret is combined with the existing NIP-44 conversation key through HKDF. Never used alone. Lattice schemes are young and they do break, HAWK fell in July. A flaw in a new scheme must not be able to make Nostr messaging worse than it is today.

Everything rides inside NIP-59 gift wrap, unchanged. The outer layers stay secp256k1, so these messages cross today's relay network with no modifications, and clients that know nothing about any of this are unaffected. No relay changes. No flag day.

It is not a proposal, it is running

I am tired of design documents, so we shipped it.

There is a demo at nostr-wot.com/pqc/chat that generates two identities in your browser, publishes their attestations to damus, nos.lol, primal and snort, reads each other's ML-KEM keys back off those relays, and exchanges real post-quantum gift wraps.

Nothing is simulated. A message only appears once a relay hands it back and it decrypts, and each one names the relay that served it. You can take any event apart layer by layer, the kind:1059 wrap a relay actually stores, the kind:13 seal inside it, the envelope with a byte map, and the kind:14 rumor at the centre. Layers your browser holds no key for are marked sealed rather than guessed at, so you can switch accounts and see the same event from a different vantage.

Publishing it for real also taught us something estimating would not have. One of those four relays rejects the 12,200-byte attestation outright, on size. Three accept it, so discovery still works, but that is a real constraint and it is in the spec now rather than in someone's incident report next year.

The browser extension is released. The library is on npm as @nostr-wot/pq. New identities default to 24 words, because 12 words carry 128 bits of entropy and that would make your seed the weak link instead of the lattice. That change costs nothing today and cannot be applied retroactively, which is exactly why it has to happen now.

What this does not do

An adversary with a quantum computer can still sign events as you. Events are still signed with secp256k1. They could also publish a replacement attestation carrying their own keys and intercept your future messages.

This protects past messages, permanently. It does not protect future messages against someone who has already broken secp256k1.

Signature migration is a separate and harder problem. An ML-DSA-87 signature is 4,627 bytes, roughly 6.2 KB base64, on every event. That is a several-fold increase in relay storage and bandwidth for a short note, and it is a decision that needs relay operators at the table, not something a client ships unilaterally.

Publishing the ML-DSA verification key now is what keeps that door open. The commitment exists, signed by your classic key, from before the break. So when signatures eventually migrate, nobody needs a new seed phrase.

I would rather say all of that plainly than let the claim inflate. If someone tells you their post-quantum scheme fixes everything, they have not understood which half of the problem is fixable after the fact.

What to do

If you hold 24 words, you can be post-quantum today. One button in the Nostr WoT extension derives the keys and publishes the attestation. Nothing new to back up.

If you hold a bare nsec, the spec covers you too, with standalone keys marked origin: independent. They need their own backup, which is worse than derived keys and enormously better than nothing.

If you are building a client, the reference implementation is open and the NIP is drafted. Take it apart. Tell me what is wrong with it. I would much rather be corrected now than have this be right and ignored.

And if you do nothing else: stop treating this as a 2035 problem. The messages that will be read are the ones being sent this week.

Written by the Nostr WoT and QuantaKrypto teams. Demo: nostr-wot.com/pqc/chat

Check whether someone supports it: nostr-wot.com/pqc Full write-up: quantakrypto.com/blog/post-quantum-identity-keys-for-nostr

Great work! #naddr1qq…su28

2026-08-11T06:33:10Z

Great work!

quoting
naddr1qq…su28

A big step toward making the different parts of Lotus feel like one connected workspace.

Search reaches deeper into Nostr. Voice messages can become readable transcripts. Live broadcasts feel at home inside the app. Calendar events travel between compatible clients. Drive connects directly with Calendar. Messaging gains editing and deletion. And more of Lotus can keep working even when the network cannot.

Underneath it all, this release also brings a much larger test suite, stronger input validation, better interoperability and a more reliable local data layer.

Highlights

One search across Lotus.\ Search now reaches profiles, posts, articles, live broadcasts, pictures, videos, communities and reading lists from one place. A new Discover view sits behind the search bar with dedicated areas for different kinds of content. Open it without typing anything and Lotus can surface what is live, what people are talking about, things to read, fresh media and communities to explore. Feeling Lucky can even drop you directly into a live broadcast.

Live video, built into Lotus.\ Watch broadcasts with the conversation right beside them, see the viewer count update while you watch, and continue with the recording once a stream ends. Lotus understands scheduled, active and finished broadcasts, supports multiple playback sources and updates previews as streams change.

Voice messages you can listen to or read. (First Alpha Release)\ Voice messages now show their waveform and duration directly in the conversation. Open one for a full player with scrubbing, skip controls, playback speed and a reply field that remains usable while the message keeps playing. Audio continues when you move elsewhere in Lotus, with a compact player to return to it and support for headphone and lock-screen controls.

Voice messages can also be opened as text. Transcription happens locally on your device, without sending the recording to a transcription service. The transcript is timestamped, so selecting a line jumps directly to that point in the recording. Finished transcripts can securely follow your account across your devices.

Video messages and richer media.\ Video messages arrive with a preview, play button and duration before the full video needs to download. Open one for a dedicated player with fullscreen and picture-in-picture support.

Photos and videos also get a cleaner presentation in conversations. Media-only messages can stand on their own, while adding a caption brings back the surrounding message frame. PDFs now show a preview of their first page together with the page count.

Edit messages and take them back.\ Your own text messages in chats, groups and threads can now be edited for up to fifteen minutes, with up to five edits. An Edited indicator opens the message history so you can see what changed.

Private conversations also support deletion. Use Delete for everyone on your own messages or Delete for me to remove a message from your own view. Deleted content is removed from the conversation as well as related previews, quoted replies and pinned messages.

As with every decentralised messaging system, Lotus cannot force another device or server to erase data it has already received, so the interface makes that limitation clear.

A calendar that works across Nostr.\ Lotus Calendar now supports interoperable Nostr calendar events in both directions. Events created in compatible apps can appear in Lotus, while events created in Lotus can be understood elsewhere.

Timed events, all-day events and multi-day events are supported. Private events remain encrypted so only invited people can read them, and new events remain private by default. Multi-day events are shown as one continuous entry across the calendar.

Invitations become part of your workspace.\ Invitations waiting for a response now appear wherever they are useful: on the calendar, beside Calendar in the sidebar, above your week and directly on Home.

Respond with Yes, Maybe or No without hunting for the invitation first. Opening an event shows who invited you and gives you the response controls there as well. Invitation cards include the date, duration, location, description and organiser.

Bring Drive files directly into Calendar.\ Calendar now has a full Drive picker with folders, thumbnails, search and files shared with you. It is available from both the quick event editor and the full editor.

Attachments can be opened directly from an event. If a private Drive file is attached to something public, Lotus asks before creating a public copy and leaves the private original untouched. Cancel the action and nothing gets published.

One home for your settings.\ Account, appearance, notifications, privacy, message delivery, servers, storage, billing and wallet preferences now live together inside a dedicated Settings area.

The same underlying controls are shared with the individual Lotus apps, keeping preferences consistent wherever they are changed.

Keep working when the connection disappears.\ Supported changes are now saved on your device first and synchronised when connectivity returns. Calendar changes, invitation responses, invitations you send, booking pages and deletions can wait safely for the network instead of depending on one request succeeding.

Rather than filling the screen with repeated connection errors, Lotus shows a single Waiting to sync state while pending work remains.

Invitations are also delivered to each guest's own servers, making it possible to reach people even when you do not share the same server setup.

UI/UX

Groups are easier to discover and join.\ Browse now prioritises real communities, pending join requests have their own place, and admins can see how many requests are waiting directly from the group list.

Group states are clearer as well. Missing groups are identified as missing, rejected requests show a useful explanation, and groups you already belong to are no longer hidden by discovery limits.

Save messages for yourself or pin them for the group.\ Groups now support two distinct actions. Save for me creates a private bookmark visible only to you, while admins can use Pin for everyone to highlight something for the whole group.

A single view brings saved and pinned messages together with All, Saved and Pinned filters.

A proper discussion composer.\ Discussions now behave like something you compose rather than something that publishes the moment media is selected.

Photos, videos and files remain as removable previews until you press Publish. Multiple attachments are supported, writing and preview modes are separate, and phones get a full-screen editor.

A Home screen centred around what matters now.\ Search takes the lead at the top of Home. Pending invitations appear directly below as swipeable cards, while schedule, tasks and files share one compact overview instead of separate half-empty areas.

Recent files now include files other people shared with you and open directly in the viewer. Audio can also start there and continue playing while you move through Lotus.

A cleaner sign-in experience on every device.\ Saved profiles now use a compact grid with search for larger account collections. Removing a profile lives behind a menu and asks for confirmation first.

Amber, Amethyst and Primal are presented consistently as signer options. On phones, Lotus prioritises opening the signer app already installed on the device instead of leading with a QR code intended for another screen.

Lotus Pro checkout adapts to the screen.\ On phones, checkout opens as a bottom sheet with the payment action kept within reach. Tablets use a fitted card, while desktop gets a two-column layout.

The underlying dialog work also prevents primary actions elsewhere in Lotus from being pushed beyond the visible screen.

A mobile top bar with room to breathe.\ Less frequently used actions move into an overflow menu on smaller screens while the important action stays visible.

Long file names can no longer stretch layouts beyond the width of the phone. FAQ and Contact pages also join the experience, together with German and Spanish entry points.

Clear multi-file selection in Drive.\ File selection is now visible on touch devices without relying on hover. Once selection begins, checkboxes appear across the file list so selecting several files feels consistent on desktop and mobile.

Contacts communicate connection state clearly.\ A temporary connection problem no longer looks like an empty address book. Lotus explains when contacts cannot currently be loaded and offers Try again.

If existing contacts remain available while changes cannot be saved, a compact status notice makes that clear without replacing the list.

New profiles start with a finished look.\ Accounts created through sign-up now receive a default Lotus profile banner. It is only applied during account creation, so removing or replacing it later remains entirely your choice.

Friendlier empty states in Groups.\ Empty areas across Groups now use proper illustrations and clearer guidance instead of a generic icon and a single line of text.

Trending becomes part of discovery.\ Open Search without entering anything and trending content can appear alongside the rest of Discover. It no longer depends on enabling a separate preference first, and discovery waits until the page is ready before requesting data.

A proper maintenance experience.\ Planned updates can now show a dedicated maintenance page instead of leaving visitors with an interface that simply appears unavailable.

Reliability & Fixes

The identity key information screen can now always be closed normally.

Drive now continues loading older file history instead of stopping after the first batch. New results are merged with existing local data rather than replacing it, preventing temporary network issues from making existing files appear to disappear.

Permanently deleted files are remembered locally so they cannot simply reappear when another server or device still has an older copy.

Revoked shared files no longer return as ghost entries carrying their previous name and access information.

Uploads started from the Drive picker now land in the selected folder, and attaching multiple files with identical names no longer causes one to replace another.

Public file links are now retained locally when a tab closes or a server cannot be reached, keeping those links visible and manageable afterward.

Calendar invitation state now loads completely. Invitations that were already accepted, declined or otherwise answered no longer return as pending because only part of the response history was available. Guest lists and attendance counts benefit from the same complete history.

A single unavailable attachment no longer blocks an entire calendar edit. Public links that have been removed are also cleaned from their associated events instead of remaining as dead attachments.

Lotus now has a working offline copy of the data used by Calendar, Drive and Scheduling. These areas can start from local data, including when there is no connection, instead of requiring a full network reload every time the app starts.

Group links created by compatible apps such as 0xchat can now appear as complete group cards with their name, description, picture and member information across chats, groups, threads and discussions.

Wallet connections can initialise before visiting the Wallet app, removing an unnecessary step before the first tip. A browser-wallet fallback is available as well.

Private voice messages now work with local transcription and waveform generation without being blocked by Lotus's own content security rules.

Joined rooms no longer appear twice in the Groups sidebar.

Duplicate notifications are collapsed rather than stacking repeatedly, and connection messages now accurately describe whether an action will retry automatically.

Videos chosen through the media menu are sent as videos rather than images, and double-tapping a playing video to pause it no longer triggers a reply.

Active voice and video playback is protected from temporary-media cleanup, preventing audio from disappearing partway through playback.

Engineering Quality

More than 1,100 automated tests now protect Lotus.\ The test suite grew from 478 tests at the beginning of this release to more than 1,100.

New coverage includes message editing and deletion, transcript synchronisation, calendar merging, deletion handling, offline data, storage limits, recent files, stale live broadcasts and many of the workflows introduced in v0.4.1.

Calendar now uses one shared attachment control across both event editors.

Invitation responses use one shared Yes / Maybe / No control across the different invitation views.

Scheduling and Forms now share the same save-state indicator.

Repeated storage-limit checks were consolidated into one implementation.

Five separate duration-formatting implementations now use one shared formatter.

Three separate group join controls were replaced by one shared component, also bringing the missing filter behaviour to Discussions.

The logic deciding which servers Lotus should query for different kinds of data now lives in one defined place rather than being duplicated across several features.

Data received from unknown senders is validated before Lotus trusts it. Malformed messages can no longer take down complete mail or chat lists, and public forms or booking pages cannot make browsers process arbitrary values without appropriate boundaries.

Limits introduced through security work are tied to real application boundaries, with tests confirming that the largest legitimate inputs remain accepted.

Test directories that were previously outside the active test configuration are now included in normal runs.

A function that could previously receive the wrong value while leaving the test suite green is now checked strongly enough to stop the build instead.

Technical Updates

Optional receipt email support for Lotus Pro.\ Checkout can now accept an optional email address for receipts and renewal reminders. The backend includes opt-out handling, bounce handling, last-contact tracking and the required database fields.

NIP-53 live video support.\ Live broadcasting now follows the published NIP-53 model, including scheduled broadcasts, lifecycle detection, multiple video URLs, refreshed preview images and live chat.

NIP-51 reading lists.\ Reading-list handling now follows the published NIP-51 structure for better interoperability across compatible Nostr applications.

Full NIP-52 calendar interoperability.\ Calendar support now covers timed and all-day events in both directions, including compatibility with the older field still used by some clients.

Editing an older all-day event upgrades it cleanly, timed events keep the time zone in which they were created, and shared calendars can receive event suggestions while approvals remain in the account owner's encrypted record.

NIP-A0 voice message metadata.\ Voice messages now publish their actual duration and waveform using the standard format, allowing compatible clients to render a useful voice-message preview without downloading the audio first.

Private transcript synchronisation.\ Transcripts are synchronised as a single encrypted record rather than publishing one identifiable entry per transcribed message.

This prevents servers from learning which individual conversations you transcribe. Merge behaviour is covered by tests so devices with different transcript histories can converge on the same state.

Channels and Rooms groundwork.\ Lotus can now read group Channels and Rooms, with a rooms column on desktop and a swipe-out drawer on phones.

Testing against the five servers currently shipped with Lotus showed that none retain the information required for this feature, so the interface explains the limitation and keeps the feature disabled until compatible server support is available.

Deletion uses the same reliable delivery path everywhere.\ All three stages of deletion now pass through the same local save-and-retry queue. A server reporting that an item is already deleted is treated as a successful outcome rather than another error.

More private file uploads.\ Private uploads no longer expose the original file name to the storage server alongside the account. The file name remains inside the encrypted record where Lotus already expects to find it.

Storage limits come from the server.\ Upload limits are now discovered from the selected storage server instead of relying on one hard-coded value. If a server rejects an upload, Lotus can show its actual reason.

Safer CSV exports.\ Booking and Forms exports now protect against spreadsheet formula injection using the same protection already used for Wallet and Billing exports.

Einundzwanzig meetup calendar integration.\ Accounts that have joined at least one Einundzwanzig meetup room can surface those meetups as a read-only community calendar.

Accounts that have not joined a meetup room generate no additional traffic for the integration.

Release maintenance mode.\ The deployment process can now deliberately switch Lotus into maintenance mode during updates.

New public pages and language entry points.\ FAQ and Contact pages have been added together with German and Spanish web entry points.

Reusable test personas and communities.\ Development now includes a stable collection of test accounts with real profiles and seeded groups, making it easier to test complete workflows in a real browser without rebuilding temporary accounts for every run.

Contributors

Thanks to everyone who helped ship Lotus v0.4.1:

@DoktorShift

@pratik227

Community

Try Lotus: https://lotus.mybuho.de

Join the Lotus community: https://lotus.mybuho.de/join/g/groups.0xchat.com/lotus?p=https%3A%2F%2Fblossom.einundzwanzig.space%2F6b5a22ebfd361b9ebec6f8daabc0b8f92847920249d335dea89af0df8648d530&a=Lotus+is+your+space+to+plan%2C+create%2C+share+and+stay+close.%0A%0ABring+your+calendar%2C+files%2C+chats%2C+tasks+and+people+together+in+one+calm%2C+friend&n=Lotus+Public+Community

Deutsche Nazifamilien demonstrieren Kontinuität. In Berlin, ...

2026-08-10T16:26:12Z

Deutsche Nazifamilien demonstrieren Kontinuität. In Berlin, Brüsse und Kiewl sind diese Nazis wieder sehr geschätzt.

quoting
nevent1q…np33
Meinung der Pressesprecherin des russischen Außenministeriums Maria Sacharowa

⚠️ Die Pressekonferenz von Vučić und Selenskij am 8. August 2026 in Belgrad färbte der FAZ-Journalist Michael Martens braun. Seine Frage lautete: „Können Sie uns Europäern sagen, was wir konkret tun können, um Ihnen zu helfen, mehr Russen zu töten? Natürlich mehr russische Soldaten.“

❗️ Um jeden Zweifel an den Motiven der Provokation auszuräumen, legte er in seinem Social-Media-Account nach: „Es ist nichts Skandalöses daran, den ukrainischen Präsidenten zu fragen, wie Europa der Ukraine helfen kann, mehr Russen zu töten. Genau das ist nötig. Außerhalb der Barbie-Welt werden Kriege nun einmal so geführt.“

Dieser Deutsche weiß, wie man in der realen Welt Krieg führt und „Russen tötet“. Zuvor arbeitete Martens mit Unterstützung oder, genauer gesagt, im Auftrag des Auswärtigen Amtes als Redakteur bei russisch-deutschen Zeitungen in Bischkek, Almaty, Sankt Petersburg und Kiew.

👉 Er selbst stammt aus einer Nazifamilie. Sein Großvater Hans-Hermann Martens, NSDAP-Mitglied, war ein hochrangiger Nazi-Offizier und diente im Stab des Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht unter Alfred Jodl, der durch das Urteil des Nürnberger Tribunals wegen Verbrechen gegen den Frieden, Kriegsverbrechen und Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit hingerichtet wurde. Es liegt auf der Hand, welche Gräueltaten der ältere Martens unter der Führung dieses Nazi-Verbrechers beging.

✍️ Im Jahr 2024 schrieb sein Nazi-Enkel auf X: „Ich hatte mir vor der Reise nach Breslau vorgenommen, mich an politischen Gesprächen über Israel, sollte es zu solchen kommen, keinesfalls zu beteiligen. Als Deutscher, zumal als Nachfahre eines Offiziers des Führungsstabs der Wehrmacht im Zweiten Weltkrieg, steht mir das nicht zu.“

Martens ist ein waschechter brauner Propagandist, der fremdenfeindliche Äußerungen und Entmenschlichung der Russen verbreitet sowie Hasssprache gegen Russland legitimiert.

Quelle: telegam-Kanal der Russischen Botschatft in Deutschland

#naddr1qq…vdch

2026-08-10T06:29:55Z

quoting
naddr1qq…vdch

Since a long time, I was looking to fully replace the convenient Google/Apple/Microsoft productivity setups most people still use with one that is open source and privacy-focused, without running my own server. The goal: Contacts, calendar, notes, tasks management and office suite easily synced between phone, tablet, desktop running Android, Windows or Linux. There was always something that didn't quite work or which was less convenient than what Google/Apple/Microsoft offer. But now I got it to work. Reliably.

EteSync for contacts and calendar. It costs a minor fee per month, but it's absolutely worth it. It encrypts all events before syncing them over the cloud. EteSync can be used with most calendar and contacts apps. I use “Etar“ calendar on Android and “Thunderbird” calendar on desktop. For contacts I recommend “Fossify Contacts” on Android, and again Thunderbird on desktop. Works flawlessly.

Joplin for notes (replacing Keep, Evernote etc.). It encrypts the notes on device and syncs them with a cloud service of your choiice. Convenient old-school notes management.

Super Productivity for tasks, project and habit management with Pomodoro timer. An astonishingly powerful tool that also encrypts events on device before syncing.

And the most complicated one ... the office suite.

I use Focus Writer on desktop for, you guessed it, focused writing. Very clean.

Apache OpenOffice together with OnlyOffice on desktop, and AndrOpen Office on Android. OnlyOffice has a fresh modern design and works best for DOC and DOCX compatibility. I use OpenOffice and AndrOpen Office as default for ODT files. Both apps basically have the same UI which helps with the workflow between desktop and mobile. Yes, I tried “Libre Office” on desktop and “Collabora Office” on Android before. But I found Libre Office too heavy for my use case and Collabora Office practically unusable most of the time. Unfortunately, the same goes for the mobile version of OnlyOffice. AndrOpen Office is the big surprise here. It's fast and intuitive.

So, how do I solve the syncing of documents between devices? Well, admittedly, I don't really. Because this is the one thing that's not straightforward simple or private at this point. “Cryptomator” comes close to what I would need. It encrypts any files on device before syncing them with your cloud service. But the mobile app isn't working reliably, and doesn't let you easily open and edit documents straight from the cloud. So instead, I use a portable SSD with all my files that can hop from device to device. And with the apps I mentioned this works very conveniently. When the SSD is formatted in ext4 it works with Linux, Windows and the later Android versions. "Material Files" is a good hassle-free file manager on Android. Don't forget your regular backups though.

The beauty of this setup is that I can now work on the same things with any device from any place. At home with the laptop, outside in the sun with the Daylight, and for very light travel just with the phone. Clean, convenient, and private ... a fresh air of freedom.

This is the state in mid-2026. Hope that's helpful for someone. And please share your own experience in the comments, so we can learn from each other. So good to see that open source is always catching up eventually!

#naddr1qq…l2as

2026-08-10T06:29:31Z

quoting
naddr1qq…l2as

Origin Story

A few months ago, when vibecoding was starting to become more of a reality on #nostr with initiatives like Team Soapbox (npub10qd…arpj) 's https://shakespeare.diy/ , I had an idea that I had been marinating for a while and found myself wanting to have a go at this vibecoding hype. As a non technical person with absolutely no training in software development or engineering I realized soon my limitations when I started building my idea on Shakespeare and noticed that $200 bucks into starting I was running into a lot of issues and problems I hadn't thought through, but the tokens were running and the end was nowhere near, so I halted on my project, took the learnings and thought I'd pick back up the idea later. Derek Ross (npub18am…p424) was right when he said we were paying for learning.

In any case, the months went by and under the mentorship of Bitkarrot (npub18pu…a699) , whom I've been lucky to collaborate with on Hivetalk (npub1z0l…8ldk) , I started to learn to use some of the tools that would help me keep learning to vibecode under a tighter budget, even if it meant weekly token usage spent and having to wait on things. The result of months of learning and effort and trying to understand as much as I could is NosWalls.com .

What is NosWalls?

NosWalls started with the desire to share with my normie friends some curated content from Nostr, and the most basic iteration was for each user to be able to create walls they could pin content to. That way, when my friend recently interested in privacy asked me somewhere to start, i could simply direct them to my #Privacy wall from my theBridge (npub1cah…qglz) account without having to put on them the burden to find the interesting stuff on nostr going through all the content they weren't interested in (and that normies sometimes get bombarded with upon joining nostr). It was meant to be a simple and easy way to direct people to Nostr content curated by their friends.

It was also meant to be a discoverability tool, using pins and walls to find people to follow according to the people whose events were pinned on specific walls, or simply seeing who had been creating or customizing their walls. Yes, customizing. Customization was also something that felt important to me, not everyone wants their walls or their profiles experienced in the same way. Ditto has made great advances in customization and people have launched themselves at using it! (Maybe when I learn a bit more I can implement for people to be able to bring their custom skins from Ditto :P, love the magic of interoperability :) ) But in my case the type of customization I was interested in introducing was giving users the ability to choose which kind of content should have prominence in their profile or walls: do I want a wall that only shows media? do I want my profile to give prevalence to the articles I write? When I direct my friends to my profile or walls: What do I want them to see?

From all those questions and ideas Noswalls.com started to take shape. And right now I feel that, after months of silently working on it, it's at a place where my impostor syndrome is comfortable sharing it for people to know of it. See if people find value in it, if nostriches play with it and create walls that I can favorite and have easy access to, if I discover cool content thanks to people pinning interesting stuff. I'm sure there will be plenty of issues that will come up, as with any project, (although I can confirm FOLLOWS are safe since I put a lot of effort into it after having had my follow list nuked by so many new clients :).

In any case, this is a starting point, and I know the features and direction I want to take this in: giving value to human curation over algorythms. I'm very proud of having my first vibecoded Nostr client out there in the world and I hope you will enjoy it!

You can try it out at: Noswalls.com

Cheers!

Buttercup

#naddr1qq…6nxv

2026-08-07T05:56:12Z

quoting
naddr1qq…6nxv

The Identity Tax: Why Every AI Tool Wants Your Card on File

Before you type a single prompt, every major AI service asks the same questions. Email. Phone. Card. Signed terms. A monthly minimum you'll forget you're paying. That wall is a business model, not a technical requirement — and it has a cost most people never count.

The wall, and what's behind it

Sign up for any frontier AI product today and the flow is identical. You hand over an email address that can be cross-referenced against a hundred data brokers. You verify a phone number, which ties the account to a government-issued SIM registration. You paste a credit card, which gives the service your legal name, billing address, and a direct line to your bank. You click through a terms of service that can be amended unilaterally, usually with thirty days' notice buried in an email you won't read.

Only then do you get to ask a question.

Every one of those steps exists for a reason, and the reasons are not secret. They're the reasons behind every recurring-revenue SaaS company built in the last fifteen years: retention, LTV, fraud prevention, upsell attribution, lookalike-audience targeting, and regulatory coverage. None of them are about making the AI better or cheaper. They're about managing the customer after the sale.

The tax is paid in four currencies

The identity tax isn't one cost. It's four, and most users only notice the first.

1. The money tax. The $20/month floor is set to cover the cost of acquiring you, not the cost of serving you. If you use a tool three times a month, you are subsidizing heavy users. If you use it once a year, you paid $240 for that single call. Pay-per-use would price that call at the actual underlying cost, often a small fraction of a cent.

2. The identity tax. Every account is a record that can be leaked, subpoenaed, or sold. The service that asked for your phone number "for security" will later sell enriched data to a marketing vendor, or get breached and dump it publicly, or hand it to whichever agency shows up with a letter. You can't retract what you've already given up.

3. The access tax. A journalist in Lagos without a US credit card cannot pay for the frontier models used by researchers in New York. A builder in Buenos Aires whose local currency inflates 10% per month cannot commit to a fixed dollar subscription. A freelancer in Tehran is geofenced out entirely. The identity requirements are a filter that selects for people inside the richest payment networks and quietly locks out everyone else.

4. The agent tax. AI agents cannot fill out signup forms, paste OTP codes, solve CAPTCHAs, or sign up for Stripe. Every time you want an autonomous agent to use a paid tool, someone — a human — has to sit at a desk and onboard that agent. The "agent economy" everyone is excited about runs headfirst into a wall the moment it tries to pay for anything.

Why it's a choice, not a requirement

The defense for the identity tax is usually some mix of three arguments: we need it for fraud prevention, we need it for regulatory compliance, we need it to build a relationship with the customer. Each falls apart on inspection.

Fraud prevention is a card-present problem. If the customer pays in Bitcoin Lightning — a push payment, not a pull — there is no chargeback mechanism to exploit. The payment either arrives or it doesn't. No fraud layer is needed because there is no fraud surface.

Regulatory compliance applies to financial intermediaries. A service that sells an AI result for a one-time payment and never holds customer funds is not a financial intermediary. The KYC requirements that apply to exchanges and custodial wallets do not apply to a cash-register API.

Customer relationship is a euphemism. The "relationship" is a CRM record used to run retention campaigns, build lookalike audiences, and raise the price over time. The customer doesn't benefit from being tracked across sessions. The company does.

What the alternative actually looks like

HTTP status code 402 — "Payment Required" — sat unused for nearly twenty years. It was a placeholder for a micropayment protocol that the web never got around to building. Bitcoin Lightning, combined with the L402 protocol, finally filled that slot.

The interaction is simple enough to describe in one sentence: the client sends a request, the server responds with a Lightning invoice, the client pays the invoice, and the client re-sends the request with the proof of payment attached. No signup. No account. No identity. The payment itself is the credential.

For humans, this looks like scanning a QR code with a Lightning wallet — the same way you'd tip a busker, except the busker is an AI model. For agents, it looks like a protocol flow the agent can execute without human intervention: get invoice, call the wallet tool, retry with the preimage. The agent economy works, because the agent is a first-class user of the payment rail.

The economic asymmetry

Every business that currently charges $20/month for an AI tool has a customer-acquisition cost they must amortize. Removing the identity tax sounds good in principle, but it means giving up the subscription floor, the retention metrics, and the lookalike-audience data. For a VC-backed company with a growth target, that's not a tradeoff — it's an existential threat to the business model.

This is the reason the identity-tax alternative is not going to come from incumbents. It will come from infrastructure that is built on a different economic base from the start — one where the unit economics of a single call work at their own cost, without needing a subscription above them. Bitcoin makes that arithmetic possible. L402 makes it usable. MCP makes it agent-readable.

Where to go next

If the identity tax is something you've been paying without thinking about, the easiest way to notice it is to stop paying it for a week. Use an AI tool that doesn't require an account. Let your agent pay for its own API calls. See how much of the friction was actually necessary for the work, and how much was there to keep you inside someone's funnel.

We built Sats4AI as one example of what the alternative looks like — 40+ AI services, paid per call in sats, no account required. Read why at https://sats4ai.com/about or browse the tools at https://sats4ai.com/#tools. The only thing between you and a call is a Lightning invoice.

Originally published at https://sats4ai.com/blog/ai-identity-tax

#naddr1qq…h5f6

2026-08-04T06:09:46Z

quoting
naddr1qq…h5f6

Coldcard's entropy catastrophe was a software failure. It was also a failure of ownership culture.

The immediate bug was in seed generation. For years, affected Coldcards could create wallets with far less entropy than users had been promised. An attacker could search the reduced space and recover the private keys needed to steal bitcoin. Coinkite's security advisory now directs affected owners to install fixed firmware and migrate to a newly generated seed because an update leaves an old seed unchanged.

That is the technical failure. The reason Coldcard rewrote this part of its firmware begins with competition and licensing.

Coldcard originally built on free software from Trezor. That was exactly what free software was for. One company published useful security code under the GPL. Another studied and modified it, then sold a different device. Users gained another option, and knowledge moved freely between companies.

Then a new competitor exercised the same freedom.

In July 2020, Foundation announced Passport, a hardware wallet based partly on Coldcard's GPLv3-licensed firmware. Coldcard responded by moving its firmware to licenses intended to stop competitors from doing what Coldcard itself had done with Trezor's work, abandoning the rules from which it had benefited.

Coldcard added the Commons Clause to code it could relicense, prohibiting others from selling substantially derived products, a change Foundation documented at the time. Its January 2021 release notes announced the license change. Then, in March, a large commit replaced the remaining Trezor-derived GPL cryptography and BIP39 code with a new library. Coldcard's 4.0.0 release notes celebrated that "all crypto and BIP-39 related code" had been replaced and that the "remaining GPL code" was gone.

The same commit rewired random.bytes to ngu.random.bytes and changed seed generation to use that path. Coinkite's technical account and Block's independent analysis trace the entropy failure through that integration. The repository establishes the sequence. Any claim that licensing alone caused the defect, or that another manufacturer would certainly have caught it, exceeds the available evidence.

A free-software license still permits bugs, as the histories of Trezor and Linux readily demonstrate. Every substantial body of software has them.

A public repository falls short of an audit, and a license serves a different function from a security review. A license determines who can use the code, who can improve it, who may ship the result, and who has a financial reason to understand it.

"Source available" allows strangers to look at code. Free software allows them to run it, modify it, distribute it, maintain it, and build a business around making it better. Those are different security models.

Looking through somebody else's code is usually a spare-time activity. Depending on that code in a shipping product creates an enduring reason to test it, understand it, review changes, report defects, and carry fixes downstream.

Coldcard preserved visibility while restricting productive reuse. Its firmware remained readable, but the community of developers with an incentive to work on it became smaller. A competing hardware company could no longer safely make Coldcard's implementation part of its own product. Fewer independent engineers had a commercial reason to understand its vendor-specific library deeply.

Coldcard gained more control over who could compete with it. Its users lost some of the scrutiny that competition could have supplied.

The lost scrutiny is why putting source code on GitHub is insufficient.

Source availability helps users inspect behavior and verify builds. Those are useful properties. They are not software freedom. If a license withholds the freedom to reuse and improve a program for real purposes, including commercial ones, the vendor has provided a window into its code without creating a commons around it.

The distinction is especially important in hardware security.

A signing device asks its owner to trust firmware with secrets that cannot be recalled after a failure. Claims about air gaps, secure elements, reproducible builds, and tamper-resistant packaging all depend on the code that creates and handles the keys.

That code should be shared infrastructure. Multiple independent teams should have both the right and the incentive to test it in production.

Coldcard's attempt to restrict competition coincided with divergence in one of the least forgiving parts of the system. The replacement did not change a decorative feature or a menu. It touched cryptography and seed generation.

Users carried the risk of that business decision.

Hardware manufacturers should go beyond publishing code that others may only inspect. Their firmware should be free software. Users and competitors should have the legal freedom to run it, study it, modify it, redistribute it, and sell products based on it. Licenses should protect those freedoms downstream; commercial restrictions belong under an honest label.

Manufacturers should publish hardware designs as free hardware wherever their component agreements permit it. They should make reproducible builds routine, accept upstream contributions, fund independent reviews, and allow owners to install firmware they build themselves. Security-critical libraries should remain shared foundations improved across products, leaving proprietary islands behind.

Competition does not improve when every manufacturer rewrites the dangerous parts. Companies can compete on hardware design, usability, support, manufacturing, and the quality of their reviews while maintaining common foundations together.

Users should demand more than visible source code. Ask whether anyone may build it, modify it, ship it, and maintain a competing implementation; then examine whether fixes move between products and how many independent organizations depend on the critical libraries. The device should also accept owner-built firmware.

For meaningful amounts of bitcoin, use multi-vendor multisig so that one manufacturer's implementation failure cannot become a total loss.

Coldcard benefited from Trezor's commitment to software freedom. When Foundation exercised the same freedom, Coldcard moved to restrict commercial reuse. That licensing project included replacing shared GPL code in a security-critical path. The replacement contained a catastrophic defect that remained undetected for years.

Coldcard tried to protect its product from competition.

It should have protected its users from Coldcard.

Solche Ehrlichkeit ist heute selten, aber Transparenz ist die ...

2026-08-03T13:25:15Z

Solche Ehrlichkeit ist heute selten, aber Transparenz ist die Grundlage für Vertrauen.

quoting
naddr1qq…qtda

Der jüngste Artikel in den Einundzwanzig News, „Wenn andere auch nicht Programmieren können“, hat bei mir einen wunden Punkt getroffen. Obwohl ich keinen sicherheitsrelevanten Core-Code für Bitcoin schreibe, lief mir beim Lesen ein kalter Schauer über den Rücken. Der Artikel beschreibt akribisch, wie mangelndes Verständnis und blinder Aktionismus („Hauptsache es läuft“) zu einer kritischen Sicherheitslücke in der Coldcard-Firmware führten. Und plötzlich saß ich da, blickte auf mein eigenes Projekt – die Einundzwanzig-Meetup-App – und musste mir eine unangenehme Frage stellen: Bin ich nicht gerade auf demselben gefährlichen Pfad?

Das Geständnis: Ich bin kein Entwickler

Lassen wir die Kirche im Dorf: Ich bin kein Entwickler. Ich verstehe Code im Grunde nicht. Wenn man auf mein GitHub-Repository schaut, sieht man eine wachsende App, aber der wahre Autor dieser Zeilen bin nicht ich. Es ist die künstliche Intelligenz. Ich bin derjenige, der die Prompts schreibt, die Fehlermeldungen hin und her kopiert und am Ende Knöpfe drückt. Es fühlt sich in der heutigen Zeit fast schon beschämend an. Man zeigt stolz, was man „gebaut“ hat, erntet vielleicht sogar Lob aus der Community, aber tief im Inneren nagt das Gefühl des Hochstaplers. Man schmückt sich mit Federn, die einem nicht gehören. Am Ende des Tages bin ich nicht der Schöpfer, sondern nur der Handlanger der KI.

„Manchmal, wenn Entwickler nicht weiterwissen, probieren sie wahllose Dinge aus, um zu sehen, ob es hilft... Der Compiler gab dem Entwickler eine letzte Chance, sein Vorhaben zu überdenken, aber der Alarm wurde ignoriert und abgestellt.“ — Einundzwanzig News, über den Coldcard-Bug

Die Parallele zu „runs“

Genau hier schließt sich der Kreis zu dem Coldcard-Debakel. Der dortige Entwickler stand vor einem Compiler-Fehler, verstand das zugrundeliegende C-Problem nicht und schaltete den Hardware-Zufallszahlengenerator ab, um den Fehler stummzuschalten. Der Commit trug den lakonischen Titel „runs“. Es lief zwar, aber es war katastrophal. Wenn ich ehrlich bin, tue ich mit der KI oft genau dasselbe. Wenn eine Fehlermeldung aufpoppt, frage ich nicht „Warum passiert das im System?“, sondern ich füttere die KI mit dem Fehler und sage: „Mach, dass es weggeht.“ Und wenn die App danach startet, denke ich mir: Super, läuft. Doch was im Hintergrund passiert, welche Abhängigkeiten entstehen und ob dort unsichtbare Abgründe klaffen, entzieht sich komplett meiner Kontrolle. Das ist der Trugschluss von modernen LLMs: Sie vermitteln uns die Illusion von Kompetenz. Sie lassen uns glauben, wir könnten komplexe Systeme beherrschen, ohne die Grundlagen gelernt zu haben. Es erweckt den Anschein, als bräuchte man kein tiefes Verständnis mehr, um funktionale Software auszuliefern. Aber das ist eine Lüge.

Aber: Täglich dazu lernen

Gibt es einen Ausweg aus diesem Dilemma? Ich denke schon, und er liegt in der radikalen Ehrlichkeit und dem Willen zur Demut. Ja, ich nutze die KI als Krücke. Aber ich nutze sie auch als Lehrer. Jeder Fehler, den ich dank der KI behebe, ist eine Gelegenheit, eine Zeile Code länger anzustarren und zu verstehen, was dort eigentlich passiert. Ich bin zwar als bloßer Handlanger gestartet, aber mein Ziel ist es, jeden Tag ein Stückchen mehr zu begreifen. Die KI darf nicht die Blackbox bleiben, die mir das Denken abnimmt, sondern sie muss die interaktive Dokumentation sein, die mich befähigt, irgendwann selbst zu gehen. Zudem unterscheidet sich mein Projekt in einem wesentlichen Punkt vom Coldcard-Bug: Ich baue keine Sicherheitssoftware für das härteste Geld der Welt. Die Meetup-App verwaltet keine Private Keys. Trotzdem trägt jedes Stück Software in unserem Space eine Verantwortung, besonders wenn es von der Community genutzt wird.

Mein Versprechen an die Community

Ich teile diese Gedanken auf Nostr und in den Einundzwanzig News nicht, um Mitleid zu erregen, sondern um transparent zu sein und mich selbst in die Pflicht zu nehmen:

Radikale Transparenz: Dieses Projekt ist zu 100% mit KI-Unterstützung gebaut. Ich werde mich niemals als der geniale Programmierer hinstellen, der ich nicht bin.

Open Source und Review: Weil ich den Code selbst nicht vollumfänglich verstehe, bin ich auf euch angewiesen. Schaut in mein Repository (louisthecat86/Einundzwanzig-Meetup-App). Kritisiert mich, korrigiert mich und helft mir zu lernen.

Demut vor der Komplexität: Ich werde versuchen, seltener einfach nur „runs“ zu akzeptieren, sondern die KI vermehrt zu fragen: „Erkläre mir genau, warum dieser Fix funktioniert und welche Nebenwirkungen er hat.“ Wir leben im Zeitalter der Code-Demokratisierung durch KI. Das ist ein mächtiges Werkzeug, um Ideen zum Leben zu erwecken. Aber wenn wir die Demut vor dem Handwerk des Programmierens verlieren, laufen wir ungebremst in die nächste Sackgasse. Lasst uns die KI nutzen, um über uns hinauszuwachsen – nicht, um unsere Unwissenheit zu bemänteln.

Statt in Entwicklung wurde in Marketing investiert. Die ...

2026-08-03T07:54:19Z

Statt in Entwicklung wurde in Marketing investiert. Die zahlreichen prominenten Promotoren haben kräftig verdient und sich mitschuldig gemacht. Affiliate ist potentieller Betrug, mit den Käufern als Opfer.

quoting
nevent1q…lc3t
Ich war wirklich kein guter Programmierer in meiner aktiven Zeit aber ich bin überrascht wie schlecht andere programmieren und wie wenig auch diese Leute den Code beschreiben :-)

Hier ein Artikel dazu

https://media.einundzwanzig.space/s/einundzwanzig-news/draft-1785740747150

#naddr1qq…gswa

2026-08-03T07:39:13Z

quoting
naddr1qq…gswa

******** Opinion about Coldcard Mk3 (hardware)  Coldcard and its creator, NVK, have long been polarizing figures in the Bitcoin ecosystem. Over the years, Coinkite drew criticism for repeatedly changing or tightening software licensing around Coldcard firmware and related code, frustrating some open-source advocates who felt the project was moving away from Bitcoin's traditional open-development ethos. Relations with WalletScrutiny also deteriorated, with NVK and supporters publicly criticizing WalletScrutiny's methodology and conclusions on X (formerly Twitter), particularly regarding reproducible builds and transparency. Those disputes resurfaced after the recent Coldcard security fiasco, in which a firmware flaw affecting seed generation led to large-scale Bitcoin thefts from vulnerable wallets, prompting critics to revisit earlier concerns about transparency, independent verification, and the project's adversarial stance toward external reviewers. Supporters argue Coldcard remains one of the most security-focused hardware wallets and that NVK has responded aggressively to fix issues, while detractors see the episode as evidence that independent scrutiny should be welcomed rather than attacked.

As of August 3, 2026, the best-supported public estimate is that approximately 1,367 BTC has been stolen across three waves of attacks, affecting roughly 4,585 Bitcoin addresses. At prevailing BTC prices, that is about US$89 million in losses. Galaxy Research believes the attacks are linked to the same underlying Coldcard seed-generation vulnerability disclosed at the end of July. Coindesk

The latest reporting indicates the vulnerability affected Coldcard-generated seeds, but the practical risk differed by model:

Mk2 and Mk3 (especially seeds generated with affected firmware from 2021 onward) were considered the highest risk because the entropy reduction was much more severe. news.com.au

#WalletScrutiny #nostrOpinion

Join the conversation!

#naddr1qq…lej3

2026-08-01T13:48:04Z

quoting
naddr1qq…lej3

Am 31. Juli 2026 gab es einen Vorfall, den man in seiner Wucht durchaus neben Mt. Gox stellen darf – nur mit einer anderen Ursache. Innerhalb von 25 Minuten wurden rund 594 Bitcoin aus etwa 500 Wallets abgeräumt. Kein Phishing, kein Hack einer Börse, keine Unachtsamkeit der Nutzer. Ein Programmierfehler in der Firmware der Coldcard hatte fünf Jahre lang dafür gesorgt, dass der echte Hardware-Zufallsgenerator übersprungen wurde. Der Angreifer musste die Seeds nicht stehlen – er konnte sie ausrechnen. Die ganze Geschichte samt Betroffenheits-Check steht in unserem Artikel zur Coldcard-Sicherheitslücke.

Ich hatte mir schon vorher wochenlang den Kopf über eine Frage zerbrochen, die im Workshop immer wieder aufkommt: Kann ein Computer überhaupt echten Zufall erzeugen? Und wenn nicht – wie sicher ist dann eigentlich der Seed, den mir meine Hardware-Wallet ausspuckt? Seit dem 31. Juli ist diese Frage keine Theorie mehr.

Die kurze Antwort vorweg: Ein Hardware-Wallet würfelt den Zufall nicht aus, es misst ihn. Der Zufallsgenerator im Chip greift physikalisches Rauschen ab – thermisches Rauschen im Halbleiter, Jitter zwischen Oszillatoren. Das ist echter, nicht-deterministischer Zufall, dieselbe Kategorie wie ein fallender Würfel. Ein reiner Software-Zufallsgenerator dagegen rechnet mit einem Algorithmus: gleicher Startwert, gleiches Ergebnis. Das ist tatsächlich kein echter Zufall. Dieser Unterschied ist wichtig.

Und genau er wurde bei der Coldcard verwischt. Der Chip konnte es. Die Physik war da. Nur hat die Firmware sie nie gefragt und stattdessen einen simplen Software-Generator laufen lassen, gespeist aus Seriennummer und Zeitgeber-Registern.

Der eigentliche Punkt:

Du kannst nicht in den Chip hineinsehen. Du kannst nicht prüfen, ob das Rauschen wirklich sauber läuft oder ob dir jemand etwas unterschiebt, das aussieht wie Zufall, aber für einen Angreifer vorhersehbar ist. Der Zufall ist echt – wenn das Gerät ehrlich ist. Nachrechnen kannst du das nicht. Es bleibt eine Blackbox. Fünf Jahre lang hat das bei einem der meistempfohlenen Geräte der Branche niemand gemerkt.

Genau da setzt der Würfel an. Beim Würfel siehst du die Physik passieren. Du musst niemandem glauben. Das ist nicht „Chip = unsicher, Würfel = sicher" – die Entropie moderner Secure Elements ist mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit stark. Es ist der Unterschied zwischen Vertrauen und Prüfbarkeit. Dieselbe Logik wie Open Source gegen Closed Source, nur eine Ebene tiefer: nicht verifizierbarer Code, sondern verifizierbarer Zufall.

Dass diese Unterscheidung kein Nerd-Hobby ist, hat der Juli bewiesen: Wer seinen Seed damals mit eigenen Würfelwürfen erzeugt hat, war von dem Fehler nicht betroffen. Die Entropie kam von ihm, nicht vom kaputten Generator.

Und das Beste: Du musst kein Kryptograf sein, um das zu machen. Ein paar Würfel, etwas Disziplin, eine halbe Stunde Ruhe.

Bevor du anfängst: die Regeln, die für jede Methode gelten

Egal ob Coldcard, BitBox02 oder ein anderes BIP39-Wallet – ein paar Dinge sind nicht verhandelbar. Wenn du hier schludrig wirst, ist der ganze Aufwand umsonst und im schlimmsten Fall dein Geld weg.

Ordentliche Würfel – Casino-Würfel sind präzisionsgefertigt und praktisch symmetrisch. Bei den Methoden, die am Ende durch SHA256 laufen, wäscht die Hash-Funktion kleine Verzerrungen ohnehin raus – trotzdem: anständige Würfel kosten fast nichts.

Ein privater Raum – Handy weglegen – nicht nur lautlos, sondern weg. Kameras aus. Zahlen und Wörter nicht laut aussprechen. Nichts auf einen Zettel schreiben, der später im Müll landet.

Air-Gap-Disziplin – Deine echten Würfe gehen ausschließlich ins air-gapped Gerät selbst – niemals in einen vernetzten Computer. Das ist der Punkt, an dem die meisten Anleitungen im Netz gefährlich werden.

Genug Würfe – Ein sechsseitiger Würfel liefert pro Wurf log2(6) ≈ 2,585 Bit Entropie. Für 12 Wörter (128 Bit) brauchst du mindestens 50 Würfe, für 24 Wörter (256 Bit) mindestens 99.

Merk dir diesen einen Satz: Tippe deine echten Würfelergebnisse niemals in einen normalen, vernetzten Computer. Sobald deine tatsächlichen Rolls über eine Tastatur an einem Rechner mit Internet laufen, ist dein Seed kompromittiert – der ganze Vorteil des air-gapped Wallets ist dahin.

Nimm 24 Wörter, wenn du die Wahl hast. Und keine Abkürzungen: Jeder Wurf muss wirklich gewürfelt werden. Zahlen „ausdenken", weil man gerade keine Lust mehr hat, zerstört genau die Zufälligkeit, um die es geht.

Coldcard: der saubere Weg

Ja, ausgerechnet die Coldcard – und das ist kein Widerspruch. Das Gerät hat das Würfeln direkt eingebaut, und – das ist der Punkt – die Umrechnung ist vollständig nachprüfbar. Der Fehler vom Juli betraf den geräteinternen Zufall. Genau den schaltest du hier ab.

Vorher: Firmware prüfen:

Wenn du eine Coldcard für einen neuen Seed benutzt, bring sie zuerst auf aktuelle Firmware (Mk4/Mk5 ab 5.6.0, Q ab 1.5.0Q). Für die Mk3 hat Coinkite kein Update angekündigt – erzeuge auf ihr keinen neuen Seed mehr. Bei der reinen Würfel-Methode spielt der interne Generator zwar keine Rolle, beim Mischmodus „TRNG + Würfel" aber sehr wohl.

Du hast drei Optionen, wenn du auf einer leeren Coldcard einen neuen Seed erzeugst:

Nur die eingebauten TRNGs – bequem, aber du vertraust komplett der Hardware. Wie das ausgehen kann, weißt du jetzt.

TRNGs + Würfel – der Mittelweg: Gerätezufall gemischt mit deinem eigenen. Selbst wenn du dem Chip nicht traust und deine Würfelei fehlerhaft wäre, bleibt es stark.

Nur Würfel – entfernt jedes Vertrauen in die Coldcard-Hardware. Der gesamte Zufall kommt von dir und ist reproduzierbar.

So geht die reine Würfel-Methode:

1. Menü öffnen

Im Hauptmenü New Seed Words → Advanced → 24 Word Dice Roll wählen. Auf älteren Firmware-Ständen sitzt die Option stattdessen am Ende der angezeigten Wortliste: ans Ende scrollen und 4 drücken, um eigene Würfe hinzuzufügen.

2. Mindestens 99-mal würfeln

Jetzt würfelst du und tippst jede Zahl ins Gerät – ins Gerät, nicht in einen Computer. Du siehst mit jedem Wurf, wie sich der Hash-Wert ändert. Für 24 Wörter sind 99 Würfe das Minimum, für 12 Wörter 50.

3. Bestätigen

Danach ✔ drücken. Die Coldcard errechnet daraus deine 24 Wörter, die du sofort sicherst – am besten auf Stahl, an einem anderen Ort als das Gerät.

Was die Coldcard intern tut: Sie bildet den SHA256 über deine Würfe als ASCII-Zeichenkette. Das ist der elegante Teil. SHA256 nimmt deine rohe Würfel-Entropie und gibt gleichmäßig verteilte 256 Bit aus – jede minimale Würfel-Verzerrung ist damit erledigt. Aus diesen 256 Bit wird nach dem BIP39-Standard der Seed.

Kleiner Faktencheck am Rande: Bei 0 Würfen zeigt die Coldcard immer den Hash e3b0c44298fc1c149afbf4c8996fb92427ae41e4649b934ca495991b7852b855 – das ist SHA256 über eine leere Zeichenkette. Genau so gehört sich das.

Der Trust-Beweis: nachrechnen, dass das Gerät nicht lügt

Das ist der Grund, warum ich die Coldcard-Methode so mag. Du kannst mit eigenen Augen prüfen, dass das Gerät deine Würfe ehrlich in einen Seed verwandelt und nicht heimlich einen manipulierten Wert unterschiebt. Nach dem Juli-Vorfall ist das keine akademische Übung mehr.

Niemals mit deinen echten Rolls:

Du prüfst die Methode mit Wegwerf-Würfen, nicht dein echtes Wallet. Coinkite formuliert das selbst unmissverständlich: Wer seine echten Würfe auf einem normalen Desktop-System eingibt, kompromittiert damit die Sicherheit seiner Coldcard vollständig.

Nimm eine beliebige Testfolge von Zahlen (z. B. 123456), gib sie einmal in die Coldcard ein und schau dir Hash und resultierende Wörter an. Dann rechnest du dasselbe unabhängig nach:
echo -n 123456 | openssl sha256
Coinkite stellt außerdem kleine Python-Skripte bereit (rolls.py für 24, rolls12.py für 12 Wörter), die aus derselben Zahlenfolge Hash und die kompletten Seed-Wörter erzeugen:
echo -n 123456 | python3 rolls.py
Stimmt das Ergebnis mit dem der Coldcard überein, hast du bewiesen: Das Gerät wendet BIP39 korrekt an und würfelt dir nichts vor.

Diese Prüfung machst du auf einem Rechner, der offline ist und bleibt – idealerweise ein von USB gebootetes Tails-System ohne Festplatte und ohne Netzwerk. Und nochmal, weil es der wichtigste Satz des ganzen Artikels ist: Das sind Test-Würfe zum Verstehen des Verfahrens. Deinen echten Seed erzeugst du danach ausschließlich auf dem Gerät, mit frischen Würfen, die kein Computer je zu sehen bekommt.

BitBox02: würfeln über die Lookup-Tabelle

Die BitBox02* geht einen etwas anderen Weg – kein SHA256-über-Zahlenketten-Feature, sondern eine Wort-Auswahl über eine Lookup-Tabelle. Standardmäßig kombiniert sie ohnehin mehrere Entropiequellen (Fertigung, dein Gerätepasswort, der Host-Rechner, Microcontroller und Secure Chip). Wer aber komplett ohne Vertrauen in die internen Zufallsgeneratoren arbeiten will, würfelt selbst.

Das Prinzip: Shift Crypto stellt eine offizielle Diceware-Anleitung samt Lookup-Tabellen als PDF bereit. Du brauchst fünf Casino-Würfel und eine Münze (ein einzelner Würfel geht auch, dauert nur länger). Pro Wort gilt:

Würfel 1 bestimmt die Seite der Lookup-Tabelle

Würfel 1 bis 4 bestimmen die Zeile

Würfel 5 und der Münzwurf bestimmen die Spalte

An dieser Stelle steht dein Wort aus der BIP39-Liste. So erzeugst du die ersten 23 Wörter selbst und schreibst sie auf die Backup-Karte.

Das 24. Wort wählst du nicht frei. Es trägt die Prüfsumme – bei 24 Wörtern die letzten 8 Bit, berechnet aus deiner Entropie. Sobald du die 23 Wörter eingegeben hast, zeigt dir die BitBox02 acht gültige Optionen für das letzte Wort an. Von diesen achten suchst du dir eine zufällig aus und notierst sie als 24. Wort. Danach validierst du das Backup, indem du die Wörter noch einmal gegenprüfst.

Das Schöne daran: Die 23 Wörter mit deiner echten Entropie hängen an keinem Zufallsgenerator – nur an deinen Würfeln. Lediglich die Prüfsummen-Rechnung überlässt du dem Gerät, und die ist deterministisch und damit ohnehin nicht „vertrauenskritisch".

Die Tabellen selbst lädst du direkt von der Herstellerseite (BitBox_Diceware_HowTo.pdf) – bei diesem Thema zählt jede Stelle, deshalb bitte nicht aus zweiter Hand. Wie du die entstandenen Wörter danach sauber sicherst, zeigen wir in Seed-Phrase mit der BitBox02 sichern.

Jedes andere BIP39-Wallet: geht auch, aber ehrlich mit dem Kleingedruckten

Hast du weder Coldcard noch BitBox, kannst du Entropie würfeln und über ein Open-Source-Tool wie SeedPicker oder den Ian-Coleman-BIP39-Generator (offline) in 24 Wörter umwandeln, die du dann ins Wallet importierst.

Aber sei ehrlich mit dir: In dem Moment, in dem ein Computer deine Würfe in Wörter übersetzt, holst du dir einen Vertrauenspunkt zurück, den du gerade loswerden wolltest. Das ist nur dann vertretbar, wenn dieser Rechner ein air-gapped Tails-System ohne Netzwerk ist, das Tool vorab verifiziert wurde und die Maschine danach nichts speichert. Der geräteinterne Weg (Coldcard, BitBox) ist sauberer, weil deine Entropie das air-gapped Gerät nie verlässt.

Wo weiterhin Vertrauen steckt – und das gehört dazugesagt

Würfeln nimmt dir eine Blackbox ab: den Zufallsgenerator. Es macht nicht alles vertrauensfrei, und alles andere zu behaupten wäre unehrlich.

Du vertraust weiterhin darauf, dass die Firmware die BIP32-Ableitung und das Signieren korrekt macht. Der Trost hier: Sowohl Coldcard als auch BitBox02 sind Open Source und reproducible built – du kannst prüfen, was der Code tut, auch wenn du es nicht selbst nachrechnest. Genau darüber ist der Juli-Fehler überhaupt gefunden worden: Externe konnten den Code lesen. Und du bist weiter selbst verantwortlich für Passphrase, Backup und physische Sicherheit. Der beste Seed der Welt nützt nichts, wenn die Backup-Karte offen im Regal liegt.

Wer noch eine Ebene weiter gehen will, verteilt das Risiko auf mehrere Geräte verschiedener Hersteller – der Einstieg dazu steht in Multisignatur-Wallets. Alle im Juli geleerten Wallets waren Single-Sig.

Das ist kein Grund, es sein zu lassen. Es ist nur der Unterschied zwischen „ich habe ein Problem gelöst" und „ich habe alle Probleme gelöst". Ersteres ist ehrlich, Letzteres wäre Marketing.

Wenn du das Verfahren einmal selbst durchgezogen hast, verändert sich etwas – der Seed fühlt sich nicht mehr an wie etwas, das dir ein Gerät gegeben hat, sondern wie etwas, das du selbst in der Hand hattest. Und genau darum geht es.

Haftungsausschluss:

Dieser Artikel dient der Bildung und beschreibt ein Verfahren nach bestem Wissen. Die Erzeugung eines Seeds und die Verwahrung von Bitcoin geschehen ausschließlich in deiner eigenen Verantwortung und auf eigenes Risiko. Ein Fehler beim Würfeln, bei der Eingabe, beim Backup oder bei der Aufbewahrung kann zum unwiderruflichen Totalverlust deiner Bitcoin führen – es gibt keine Stelle, die eine solche Transaktion rückgängig macht, und niemanden, der dafür haftet. Genau das ist der Preis der Selbstverwahrung. Wir übernehmen keine Haftung für Schäden oder Verluste, die direkt oder indirekt aus der Anwendung der hier beschriebenen Schritte entstehen. Herstellerangaben, Firmware-Stände und Menüführungen ändern sich – prüfe die Anleitungen von Coinkite und Shift Crypto immer selbst in ihrer aktuellen Fassung. Dieser Text ist weder Anlage- noch Rechts- oder Steuerberatung. Teste dein Setup zuerst mit einem Betrag, dessen Verlust du verschmerzen könntest.

👉 Selbstverwahrung prüfen 👉 Kostenloses Erstgespräch

Häufige Fragen

Ist ein Würfel wirklich zufälliger als ein Chip?

Nicht unbedingt „zufälliger" – aber prüfbarer. Der Hardware-Zufallsgenerator eines Secure Elements misst echtes physikalisches Rauschen und liefert im Normalfall exzellente Entropie. Du kannst nur nicht von außen kontrollieren, ob er das im konkreten Gerät auch tut. Beim Würfel siehst du die Physik mit eigenen Augen. Der Coldcard-Vorfall vom 31. Juli 2026 ist das Lehrstück dazu: Der Chip konnte es, die Firmware hat ihn nur nie gefragt.

Wie viele Würfe brauche ich wirklich?

Ein sechsseitiger Würfel liefert pro Wurf etwa 2,585 Bit. Für eine 12-Wort-Seed (128 Bit) sind das mindestens 50 Würfe, für eine 24-Wort-Seed (256 Bit) mindestens 99. Das sind auch genau die Minima, die die Coldcard erzwingt. Mehr Würfe schaden nie, weniger machen den Seed angreifbar.

Machen billige Würfel meinen Seed unsicher?

Praktisch nicht. Kleine Ungleichgewichte führen zu minimalen Verzerrungen in der Verteilung, und die werden von SHA256 vollständig weggewaschen – die Hash-Funktion verteilt die Bits gleichmäßig, egal wie leicht schief die Eingabe war. Casino-Würfel sind trotzdem die bessere Wahl, weil sie ein paar Euro kosten und die Diskussion damit erledigt ist.

Darf ich meine Würfe in einen Rechner eingeben, um sie zu prüfen?

Deine echten Würfe: niemals. Sobald sie über eine Tastatur an einem vernetzten Rechner laufen, ist der Seed als kompromittiert zu behandeln. Zum Verstehen und Prüfen des Verfahrens nimmst du eine beliebige Wegwerf-Folge wie 123456, und zwar auf einem offline gebooteten Tails-System. Deinen echten Seed erzeugst du danach mit frischen Würfen ausschließlich auf dem Gerät.

Ich habe meinen Seed damals mit Würfeln auf einer Coldcard erzeugt. Bin ich von der Sicherheitslücke betroffen?

Wenn du mindestens 50 unabhängige, selbst geworfene Würfe eingegeben hast, kam die Entropie von dir und nicht vom defekten Generator – nach Einschätzung des Herstellers bist du dann nicht betroffen. Warst du dir bei der Anzahl unsicher oder hast die Würfel nur zusätzlich zum Gerätezufall genutzt, behandle den Seed sicherheitshalber als gefährdet. Die Details stehen im Artikel zur Coldcard-Sicherheitslücke.

Kann ich einen bestehenden Seed nachträglich „auswürfeln"?

Nein. Entropie lässt sich nicht nachträglich hinzufügen – ein Seed steht mit seiner Erzeugung fest. Wenn du deinem bisherigen Seed nicht mehr traust, führt der Weg über einen komplett neuen Seed und einen Umzug deiner Bitcoin. Den alten Seed behandelst du danach als verbrannt und benutzt ihn nie wieder.

Quellen: COLDCARD: Verifying Dice Roll Math, COLDCARD: Master Seed, BitBox Support: Roll your own Bitcoin seed, BitBox02 Diceware HowTo (PDF). Stand: 1. August 2026.

<sub>* = Affiliate-Link. Wenn du darüber kaufst, unterstützt du diese Seite – für dich ändert sich nichts am Preis. Mehr Infos</sub>

Dieser Artikel erschien zuerst auf bitcoinlighthouse.de – dort findest du auch unsere Bitcoin-Workshops in München.

These only reasonable decision can be - leave Coldcard asap! ...

2026-07-31T20:22:27Z

These only reasonable decision can be - leave Coldcard asap!

quoting
nevent1q…4e0e
594 BTC. Around 500 wallets. Roughly 25 minutes.

The devices never needed to be touched.

Here is the Coldcard security incident in plain English:

A hardware wallet is supposed to create a secret key so random that nobody could ever guess it.

A firmware bug meant some Coldcards generated keys using far less randomness than intended.

Think of choosing a winning number from billions of billions of possibilities, only to discover that the machine was secretly choosing from a much smaller list.

An attacker could calculate possible keys offline, compare them with Bitcoin addresses visible on the blockchain, and take the coins without touching the device or knowing its PIN.

What is confirmed:

• 594.48 BTC was swept from 1,324 old #Bitcoin outputs
• The sweep involved roughly 500 single-signature wallets
• 562 #BTC was later gathered into one address
• Coldcard confirmed a serious seed-generation bug
• Fixed firmware has now been released

What is not yet fully proven publicly:

That every wallet in the 594 BTC sweep came from this exact Coldcard bug. The connection is strong, but the investigation is continuing.

Coldcard users should:

1. Update Mk3 to 4.2.0+, Mk4/Mk5 to 5.6.0+, or Q to 1.5.0Q+.

2. Do not stop after updating. An old weak seed remains weak forever.

3. Generate a completely new seed on the fixed firmware.

4. Verify the backup and receiving address, send a small test amount, then move the remainder carefully.

At least 50 fair, private dice rolls materially protected against this specific flaw. A strong BIP39 passphrase adds another barrier, but Coinkite still recommends migration.

Multisig helps only when enough keys were generated independently and securely.

The uncomfortable lesson:

An air gap can protect a strong key.

It cannot rescue a weak key created at birth.

Self-custody removes the bank. It does not remove software risk, human responsibility or the need for independent verification.

Share this with anyone using a #Coldcard. Calm action protects funds. Panic attracts scammers.

Credit to Rob from Anchor watch (tag him if you know his npub) for the sharp on-chain tracking behind the 594 BTC figure. Rob, flag anything here that needs tightening.

Too much marketing money is always a bad signal. Better use money ...

2026-07-31T20:17:06Z

Too much marketing money is always a bad signal. Better use money for R&D an Dev.

quoting
nevent1q…ydfn
This scenario hurts me to the core

#naddr1qq…dana

2026-07-31T12:40:59Z

quoting
naddr1qq…dana

Als der Termin für den Atemkreis online ging, kam genau die Frage, mit der ich gerechnet hatte: Was zum Teufel hat ein Atemkreis bei Bitcoinlighthouse verloren?

Die kurze Antwort habe ich im Newsletter gegeben: Du musst nicht raus aus dem System – das System muss raus aus dir. Das hier ist die lange.

Zwei Stufen, die wir gut beherrschen

Souveränität ist in diesem Umfeld kein Fremdwort, aber sie wird fast immer nur auf zwei Ebenen buchstabiert.

Die erste ist die Schlüssel-Souveränität. Du hältst deine Bitcoin selbst, die Seed-Phrase liegt bei dir, kein Verwahrer kann dein Guthaben einfrieren, keine Börse muss dich um Erlaubnis fragen. Not your keys, not your coins – der bekannteste Satz des Raums, und er stimmt.

Die zweite ist die Geräte-Souveränität. Du entscheidest, welche Software auf deiner Hardware läuft. Linux statt Windows, ein entgoogeltes Handy statt eines Werbeterminals, ein eigener Node statt eines fremden Servers, dem du glauben musst. Auch das ist im Kern eine Eigentumsfrage: Wem gehört dein Smartphone eigentlich?

Beide Stufen haben etwas gemeinsam. Sie holen die Kontrolle über etwas zurück, das außerhalb von dir liegt. Und beide lassen sich lernen, an einem Wochenende, mit einer Anleitung und ein bisschen Geduld. Deshalb sind sie so beliebt: Sie sind machbar.

Der Mensch, der alles richtig gemacht hat

Stell dir jemanden vor, der beide Stufen abgeräumt hat. Die Seed-Phrase steht in Stahl, die Passphrase nur im Kopf. Der Node läuft im Flur, das Handy ist entgooglet, gekauft wird ohne KYC. Auf dem Papier ist dieser Mensch souverän.

Und dann schaut er vierzehnmal am Tag auf den Kurs. Sagt ja, wenn in ihm längst ein Nein steht. Bleibt in einem Job, der ihn auffrisst, weil man das eben so macht. Schweigt bei Themen, die ihm wichtig sind, weil er weiß, wie die Runde reagieren würde. Verschiebt das Leben, das er eigentlich führen will, auf einen Kurs, der irgendwann kommen soll.

Dieser Mensch hat seinen Verwahrer nicht abgeschafft. Er hat ihn gewechselt.

Der letzte Verwahrer sitzt im Kopf

Max Stirner hat dafür ein Wort, das nach 180 Jahren immer noch besser trifft als alles, was seither erfunden wurde: der Spuk. Fixe Ideen, die sich in einen Menschen setzen und ihn von innen regieren – Pflicht, Anstand, Ansehen, „das gehört sich so“. Nicht der Staat hält ihn, er hält sich selbst. Ich habe das an anderer Stelle ausführlicher aufgeschrieben: Max Stirner, der erste Bitcoiner?

Das ist keine Nebensache, sondern die effizienteste Herrschaftstechnik, die es gibt. Proof of Force – der Konsens durch Gewalt, auf dem das Fiatgeld ruht – braucht einen Apparat: Behörden, Gerichte, Vollstrecker, am Ende Waffen. Das kostet. Die fixe Idee kostet nichts. Es hat nie ein Beamter kontrolliert, ob du dich schlecht genug fühlst, wenn du etwas für dich beanspruchst. Das erledigst du zuverlässig selbst, und zwar gratis, jeden Tag.

Deshalb ist die Formel unvollständig. Not your keys, not your coins hat ein Gegenstück, das niemand auf ein T-Shirt druckt: Wer seine Muster nicht kennt, dem gehören sie nicht – sie besitzen ihn.

Warum Ausstieg nicht Ausstieg heißt

Man kann hundert Prozent seines Vermögens in Bitcoin halten und trotzdem vollständig nach Fiat-Logik leben.

Fiat-Logik heißt: hohe Zeitpräferenz, ständiger Vergleich, Wert über Status, Entscheidungen aus Angst statt aus Interesse. Diese Muster wurden nicht von der Europäischen Zentralbank in dich installiert, sie sind älter als sie. Das Geldsystem hat sie nur belohnt und verstärkt. Wer sein Geld wechselt, wechselt deshalb nicht automatisch seine Logik.

Der Bitcoiner, der Sats hortet und sein Leben aufschiebt, hat die Zeitpräferenz nicht gesenkt – er hat nur das Objekt getauscht. Der, der Freiheit predigt und beim Familienessen keine unbequeme Wahrheit ausspricht, hat den Zwang nicht verlassen, er trägt ihn mit sich. Bitcoin senkt keine Zeitpräferenz. Es entfernt lediglich einen der Gründe, sie hochzuhalten. Was du mit dem gewonnenen Spielraum machst, steht in keinem Protokoll.

Wie unmerklich sich dabei Handeln in Funktionieren verwandelt, habe ich mit Mises und Stirner schon einmal auseinandergenommen: Handelst du noch – oder funktionierst du nur?

Don't trust, verify – angewandt auf dich selbst

Bei Bitcoin ist die Antwort auf diese Frage eingebaut. Du glaubst nicht, du prüfst: eigener Node, eigene Adresse, eigene Verifikation. Was passiert, wenn man dieses Prinzip auf das eigene Leben anwendet, ist eine der unbequemeren Übungen, die ich kenne.

Denn hier stößt die Methode an eine Grenze. Das Werkzeug, mit dem du prüfen willst, ist Teil dessen, was geprüft werden soll. Der Verstand ist ein befangener Auditor: Er hat die Muster nicht nur gespeichert, er verteidigt sie – mit Begründungen, die sich anfühlen wie Einsicht. Man kann sich nicht aus einem Muster herausdenken, wenn das Denken selbst im Muster läuft. Wer es versucht, bekommt am Ende meist eine noch bessere Erklärung dafür, warum alles genau so bleiben muss.

Es braucht also einen Zugang, der nicht über Argumente läuft. Und da bleibt nicht viel übrig: der Körper.

Warum ausgerechnet Atmen

Der Atem hat eine Eigenschaft, die sonst nichts im Körper hat. Er läuft automatisch, im vegetativen Nervensystem, ohne dass du dich darum kümmern musst – und du kannst ihn trotzdem jederzeit bewusst übernehmen. Herzschlag, Verdauung, Hormonlage kannst du nicht per Entschluss ändern. Den Atem schon. Er ist die einzige Schnittstelle, an der der bewusste und der unbewusste Teil unmittelbar zusammenkommen.

Verändert man das Atemmuster nicht für drei Züge, sondern für längere Zeit und angeleitet, verschiebt sich der Zustand, in dem der Körper ist. Und in diesem Zustand kommt hoch, was im Alltag keinen Platz hat: Gefühle und Empfindungen, die sich über Jahre angesammelt haben und für die nie Zeit war. Das ist der ganze Mechanismus, und mehr Behauptung braucht es nicht.

Der Rest ist derselbe Move wie bei der Node: nicht glauben, was man dir über dich erzählt hat, sondern selbst nachsehen. Und wie bei der Node ist das Ergebnis nicht garantiert angenehm.

Was das nicht ist:

Ein Atemkreis ist keine Therapie und ersetzt auch keine. Es ist kein Heilversprechen, keine Weltanschauung und nichts, wofür du irgendetwas glauben musst. Es ist ein Vormittag mit ein paar Leuten, einer Decke und der Bereitschaft, dem, was da ist, nicht auszuweichen.

Dass diese Ebene überhaupt zum Geldsystem gehört, ist übrigens kein weit hergeholter Bogen. Der Schweizer Arzt Michael Sonntag beschreibt einen Kreislauf, den ich in Vom Uhrwerk zum Organismus ausführlicher aufgegriffen habe: Unter chronischem Stress fällt der Mensch auf alte Muster zurück und greift nach mehr Kontrolle – was den Stress erhöht, was den Rückfall verstärkt. Die beiden stärksten Auslöser chronischer Belastung sind Unvorhersehbarkeit und Kontrollverlust, und schleichende Geldentwertung liefert beides zugleich. Das Fiatsystem erzeugt also nicht nur ökonomische Schäden, es erzeugt genau den Zustand, in dem Menschen am wenigsten in der Lage sind, ihn zu verlassen. Wer nur das Geld wechselt und den Zustand behält, hat die Hälfte des Ausstiegs gemacht.

Das Resonanzprinzip ist kein Preismodell

Der Atemkreis hat keinen Festpreis. Du gibst hinterher das, was es dir wert war – Value4Value.

Das klingt nach einer netten Geste, ist aber vor allem ein Test. Ein Preis, den dir jemand vorschreibt, nimmt dir eine Entscheidung ab: Du kannst ihn zahlen oder es lassen, bewerten musst du nichts. Ein Betrag, den du selbst festlegst, verlangt genau das. Du musst benennen, was dir etwas wert ist, ohne dass dir jemand die Zahl vorgibt, an der du dich orientieren kannst.

Bemerkenswert viele Menschen finden das unangenehmer als jeden Festpreis. Das ist derselbe Reflex im Kleinen: Wer es gewohnt ist, dass Werte von außen gesetzt werden, dem fehlt die Übung, sie selbst zu setzen. Freiwilligkeit ist anstrengender als Zwang – deshalb ist sie auch das seltenere Prinzip.

Die dritte Stufe

Schlüssel. Gerät. Geist.

Die ersten beiden Stufen kannst du lernen und dann besitzen. Sie sind irgendwann eingerichtet, und danach ist Ruhe. Die dritte ist keine Einrichtung, sondern eine Praxis. Sie ist nie fertig, es gibt kein Backup davon, und niemand kann sie für dich übernehmen.

Genau deshalb steht im selben Kalender ein Atemkreis neben einem Linux-Workshop. Es ist dieselbe Bewegung, einmal nach außen und einmal nach innen: Wir befreien einen Laptop von einem Konzern, der über ihn bestimmt – und wir können denselben Blick auf die Glaubenssätze richten, die über uns bestimmen. Souveränität hört bei den Schlüsseln nicht auf. Sie fängt dort an.

Beide Richtungen, ein Kalender Am 9. August der Atemkreis mit Mátyás nach dem Resonanzprinzip, am 18. Oktober der Linux-Workshop. Nach innen und nach außen – die Plätze sind bei beiden begrenzt.

👉 Atemkreis am 9. August 👉 Linux-Workshop am 18. Oktober

Dieser Artikel erschien zuerst auf bitcoinlighthouse.de – dort findest du auch unsere Bitcoin-Workshops in München.

#naddr1qq…3nf0

2026-07-30T19:50:07Z

quoting
naddr1qq…3nf0

Unfiltered thoughts are a beautiful thing. I think that's in part why people enjoy long-form conversations, or the unhinged stuff that kids will say from time to time. You can't self-censor for three hours straight, and kids haven't developed the ability to self-censor in the first place.

The current world is a filtered world. There are certain things that are kosher when it comes to evening news, and other things that are kosher when it comes to what's being discussed on X (what used to be twitter), and YouTube, and all these other platforms.

On the one hand it's the Overton window and various political agendas, on the other hand it's "the algorithm" (and again, various political agendas. Mixed in with business interests and other stuff, but hey, there's hardly any difference between business and politics these days, so: potato, potahto.)

The algorithm.

Everyone is catering to "the algorithm."

Algorithms are useful, no doubt about it. What they are not is an end-all and be-all thing that can tell you what to think about, what to care about.

The hyper-optimized algo feeds we find ourselves in are pretending to show us what is relevant, but they are not optimized for us, they are optimized against us. Our nervous system is the training data, our ego and our vices are the knobs to tweak and levers to pull.

Even worse: "the algorithm" creates audience capture without much of an audience. It creates self-censorship and a chilling effect of ungodly proportions, since everyone is trying to satisfy "the algorithm" instead of satisfying their soul.

What a soulless world we've created. And to what end? Reach? Influence? Daily active users, which, of course, is just a different word for addiction?

I can't help but think of the letter that Kurt Vonnegut wrote to the kids of Xavier High School a mere 20 years ago:

Practice any art, music, singing, dancing, acting, drawing, painting, sculpting, poetry, fiction, essays, reportage, no matter how well or badly, not to get money and fame, but to experience becoming, to find out what's inside you, to make your soul grow.

—Kurt Vonnegut

Whatever "the algorithm" does, there is one thing it does not: make your soul grow. Whether you're a "creator" or a "consumer," you are a cog in a machine, catering to interests that you barely understand—that anyone barely understands. Feeding the machine, with your work, your time, your attention, and yes, even your soul.

Creating for "the algorithm" instead of creating for the sake of creation itself is hardly creation at all. It is a soul-shrinking activity, as is consumption for consumption's sake. We've built a world that glorifies consumption, and are now living in a world that is hyper-optimized towards one singular metric: the consumption of information. Whether this information is properly ingested, digested, and transformed into a body of knowledge doesn't matter. And why stop at knowledge? Why can't we build a world that produces, grows, encourages, incubates, or otherwise brings about lovers of wisdom?

Filtering can be useful, no doubt about it. There is hardly any difference between censorship (no information) and overload (all the information, all the time). We're drowning in information, but starving for wisdom.

Algorithms won't help us with that. We need art, and music, and singing, as Vonnegut wrote so beautifully. Express what's inside of us, to experience becoming, to make our souls grow.

The world is splitting in two, or at least my world, which is the internet. It might be hard to resist the pull of the soul-sucking machinery some days. But when it comes to building a home for my work (and my soul), the choice of which side to inhabit is an easy one: the one that is unfiltered.

This article first appeared on dergigi.com.

#naddr1qq…zc9g

2026-07-29T16:58:14Z

quoting
naddr1qq…zc9g

Why Some People Love AI... and Others Give Up

Some people say AI has completely changed the way they work.

Others try it once and think:

"That's not what I asked for."

or

"The answer wasn't very good."

So who's right?

Actually... both.

Imagine asking a stranger:

"Help me."

Their first question would probably be:

"Sure... what do you need help with?"

AI behaves the same way.

The less information you provide, the more it has to guess.

And guessing isn't always accurate.

The Cake Shop Lesson 🍰

Imagine walking into a bakery and saying:

"I'd like a cake."

The baker smiles.

Then immediately asks:

What flavor?

How many people?

Is it for a birthday?

Any allergies?

What should be written on it?

The baker isn't asking because they don't know how to bake.

They're asking because there are hundreds of possible cakes.

AI works exactly the same way.

When your request is too general, the AI has to fill in the missing pieces by guessing.

Sometimes those guesses are right.

Sometimes they're completely different from what you imagined.

The Secret Isn't Better AI. It's Better Instructions.

Here's a simple example.

Instead of saying:

Recommend a movie.

Try saying:

Recommend a funny family movie that's suitable for children, released within the last ten years, and available on popular streaming services.

Notice what changed?

Not the AI.

The instructions.

The clearer your destination, the easier it is for the AI to help you get there.

The Four Ingredients of a Great Prompt

You don't need special commands.

You don't need to memorize complicated techniques.

Just remember these four ingredients.

🎯 What do you want?

Be specific.

Instead of:

Write something.

Try:

Write a short article introducing Bitcoin Cash.

🎯 Why do you want it?

Purpose changes everything.

For example:

I want beginners to understand Bitcoin Cash without feeling overwhelmed.

🎯 Who is it for?

Writing for children is different from writing for investors.

Tell the AI who your audience is.

🎯 What are your limits?

Give the AI some boundaries.

For example:

Keep it under five minutes to read.

Use simple English.

Avoid technical terms.

Make it friendly and encouraging.

Boundaries often produce better results.

Watch the Difference

Let's compare two prompts.

❌ Prompt A

Write an article about Bitcoin Cash.

Now compare it with this.

✅ Prompt B

Write a beginner-friendly article about Bitcoin Cash for people who have never owned cryptocurrency. Use simple language, explain ideas with everyday examples, keep it under a five-minute read, and end with three practical tips for getting started.

Both prompts ask for the same topic.

Only one explains what success looks like.

Three Mistakes Almost Everyone Makes

1. Asking for everything at once

Big tasks become easier when you solve them one step at a time.

Instead of asking for an entire book, start with the title.

Then the outline.

Then one chapter.

Build it like stacking building blocks.

2. Being too vague

Short isn't always better.

If important details are missing, the AI has to invent them.

That usually means more revisions later.

3. Forgetting who you're talking to

The same explanation won't work for everyone.

A child.

A student.

A grandparent.

A cryptocurrency enthusiast.

Always tell the AI who you're trying to help.

Try This Today

Open your favorite AI.

First, type:

Plan a vacation.

Read the answer.

Now start a new conversation and type:

Plan a four-day family vacation in the Philippines with a budget of ₱20,000. We enjoy nature more than shopping, prefer peaceful places, and will be traveling with two children. Ask me three questions before making the itinerary.

You'll probably notice something interesting.

The second conversation feels less like asking a machine...

...and more like talking to a helpful travel planner.

That's exactly what good prompting should feel like.

One Simple Habit That Changes Everything

If you remember only one sentence from this article, make it this:

Don't just tell AI what you want. Tell it what you're trying to accomplish.

That small change can turn generic answers into genuinely helpful ones.

And once you've mastered that habit, you're ready for the next step.

Not by asking longer questions...

But by giving AI enough context that it begins thinking in the same direction you are.

That's where the real magic begins.

#naddr1qq…wves

2026-07-29T16:57:54Z

quoting
naddr1qq…wves

😅 The Day I Tried to Write the "Perfect Prompt"

When I first started using AI, I thought the secret was writing one perfect prompt.

So I kept adding more.

More details.

More instructions.

More examples.

More rules.

By the time I pressed Enter, my prompt looked more like a short essay than a simple question.

Surely...

this would finally give me the perfect answer.

It didn't.

Some parts were excellent.

Others completely missed what I wanted.

So I edited the prompt.

Added even more instructions.

Pressed Enter again.

Still... not quite right.

Looking back, I realized something.

I wasn't asking AI one question.

I was asking it ten questions at the same time.

🏠 Then I Thought About Building a House

Imagine telling a builder:

"Build my dream house."

That's all you say.

No blueprint.

No budget.

No number of rooms.

No idea where the kitchen should be.

Would you expect the finished house to match your imagination?

Probably not.

Not because the builder lacks skill...

But because building a house isn't one decision.

It's hundreds of small decisions that fit together.

Then it hit me.

Why was I expecting AI to do everything in one giant step?

💡 The Secret Isn't a Better Prompt

It's Better Steps.

Think about baking a cake.

You don't mix the ingredients, decorate it, light the candles, and sing "Happy Birthday" all at the same time.

Everything happens in order.

AI works surprisingly well the same way.

Instead of asking it to complete your entire project in one response...

Let it solve one small problem first.

Then use that answer to solve the next one.

That's the idea behind Prompt Stacking.

You're not chasing one perfect prompt.

You're creating a series of simple conversations that build on each other.

✍️ Let's Write a BCHNostr Article

Imagine you want to write an article about Bitcoin Cash.

Most people ask:

"Write a complete article about Bitcoin Cash."

Sometimes the result is good.

Sometimes it feels too technical.

Or too generic.

Now let's stack the prompts instead.

Conversation 1

Suggest five interesting topics that beginners would enjoy reading.

↓

Conversation 2

Which topic is most likely to make readers curious enough to finish the article?

↓

Conversation 3

Create a simple outline.

↓

Conversation 4

Write only the introduction.

↓

Conversation 5

Expand the first section using relatable examples.

↓

Conversation 6

Review everything and simplify anything that might confuse a beginner.

Notice something?

The article didn't appear all at once.

It grew.

Just like writing with a human editor.

🌍 It Works Beyond Writing

Prompt Stacking isn't just for creating articles.

Planning a vacation?

Choose the destination first.

Then the budget.

Then the itinerary.

Learning a language?

Master greetings.

Then common phrases.

Then conversations.

Starting a small business?

Research the idea.

Understand the customers.

Create a simple plan.

Then build your first product.

Big goals become much less intimidating when they're broken into smaller conversations.

🚪 One Small Step Opens the Next

Here's something interesting.

Each answer from AI often reveals a better next question.

That's something one giant prompt can never do.

As the conversation grows...

Your understanding grows too.

You're no longer trying to predict every question in advance.

You're discovering the path as you walk it.

That's why Prompt Stacking feels more natural.

It isn't just about getting better answers.

It's about having better conversations.

🎯 Try This Today

The next time you use AI, resist the temptation to ask for the final result immediately.

Instead, ask yourself:

"What's the first small step?"

Then let the next question grow naturally from the previous answer.

You may discover that the best ideas aren't created in one prompt...

They're built through many small conversations that support one another.

🌟 Final Thought

We often think progress comes from making bigger leaps.

But in reality...

Books are written one page at a time.

Houses are built one brick at a time.

Friendships grow one conversation at a time.

Perhaps that's why AI works so well this way too.

Stop searching for the perfect prompt.

Start building better conversations.

Because the most impressive results rarely come from one brilliant question.

They come from many simple questions that lead you to the right destination.

#naddr1qq…0ja8

2026-07-29T06:54:33Z

quoting
naddr1qq…0ja8

Introduction

Nature holds within it fundamental laws that we humans, no matter how hard we try, cannot ignore. Sometimes we invent technologies that are in harmony with such an order, and sometimes we invent technologies, or make changes to existing ones, that violate that order. Often we do this unknowingly, only later discovering the consequence of our mistakes. In turn, those mistakes deepen our appreciation for the fabric of reality we exist within.

Bitcoin, this entropy engine, is not exempt from this pattern of human action. Bitcoin is an incredibly complex and beautiful invention, exhibiting properties that align human incentives and behavior in ways that orient us toward a more efficient utilization, movement, storage, and transmission of energy and information. Yet, we have made changes to it in the past that may have contained an oversight, one whose consequences are only now becoming apparent. In witnessing them, we gain a clearer understanding of what Bitcoin truly is and how we ought to steward it.

The Landauer Attack

A conversation is unfolding across the Bitcoin community over the network's use for non-financial data. Images, text, and arbitrary files are inscribed onto the timechain through inscriptions and ordinals, burdening node runners with data unrelated to the movement of money. Most discourse treats this as a matter of personal preference, spam, or node policy. This article argues that the issue is more fundamental: a mispricing of the true thermodynamic cost of permanent memory, made possible by a decision nearly a decade ago. We will call this a Landauer attack.

Before applying this idea to Bitcoin, let us review the relevant physics.

The Laws of Thermodynamics

The first law of thermodynamics holds that energy is never created or destroyed, only transformed. The second holds that entropy in an isolated system never decreases. Entropy is a measure of the number of configurations a system can occupy; more particles mean more possible arrangements, and therefore more entropy. The universe trends toward its most probable state: maximal entropy. This is why heat flows from hot to cold, why a dropped glass never reassembles, and why every engine ever built loses energy to friction and waste heat. This loss is not an engineering flaw. It is structural to the universe.

Information and Energy

Less appreciated is the fact that information and energy are not separate domains, but two expressions of one reality. Claude Shannon formalized information as a measurable quantity using a formulation nearly identical to the entropy equations of statistical thermodynamics[1]. Information obeys the same conservation laws that govern heat and motion, including when it is remembered or forgotten.

Information Has a Physical Cost

In 1961, Landauer introduced a concept fundamental to the physics of computation: erasing a bit of information is not free[2]. It requires a minimum amount of energy to be dissipated as heat. This is Landauer's principle. Any operation that destroys information, collapsing two possibilities into one, must shed entropy somewhere, and that shedding has an energetic floor that no engineering can escape. It is woven into the second law itself.

For decades, the principle remained largely theoretical, confirmed only at small scales. In 2025, physicists led by Stefan Aimet and Mohammadamin Tajik experimentally probed Landauer's principle in the quantum many-body regime, publishing their findings in Nature Physics. Using a quantum field simulator of ultracold Bose gases, they tracked a quantum field through a mass quench and measured the entropy production tied to its information changes[3]. Their results confirmed, for the first time in a complex quantum system, what Landauer proposed over sixty years earlier: the link between information and energy is not a metaphor. It is real, measurable, and binding.

Why This Matters for Bitcoin

This gives us a powerful lens through which to reconsider what Bitcoin is. Every byte written to the chain was purchased with irreversible computation: trillions of discarded hashes, each one information destroyed, each destruction paid for in dissipated heat. Once written, that byte imposes a standing obligation, replicated and defended against entropy by every node, forever. The chain is not merely a record: it is a physical commitment, paid for in energy at its creation and maintained by energy for as long as it exists.

Bidding for Permanence

It is tempting to view mining as merely the process of finding a winning hash, but it is better understood as a competitive process for inscribing information into permanent memory, a record that will persist far into the future.

There is only one Bitcoin ledger. Just as the supply of satoshis is finite, so too is the block space available at any moment. Every node must store this data forever. There is no opt-out, no deletion, no changing the rules, no altering history, no turning back the clock. Permanence is the entire point of the invention. Like human time, and like entropy itself, the timechain flows in one direction only. Every bit committed to it is therefore not merely data, but a permanent energetic burden borne on every node operator: disk space, bandwidth, and the electricity required to maintain it.

The Economics of Block Space

This is why mining functions, in part, as a bidding process. A transaction fee is an economic signal. It is the expression that a piece of data is worth its permanent inscription because someone chose to spend their precious sats to compensate the network for the burden it imposes. In a well-functioning fee market, that signal is honest, reflecting the true cost each byte imposes on every node that carries it forward. Because every byte shares an identical thermodynamic burden, every byte of a transaction should therefore be priced identically.

What happens, then, when that signal is distorted because one class of bits is different from another? This is exactly what occurred with Segregated Witness.

A Brief History: The Block Size Wars and SegWit

To understand how we arrived here, recall the block size wars of 2015–2017, the pivotal conflict over Bitcoin’s scaling. The debate was whether to raise the 1 MB block limit via a hard fork or preserve the status quo in the interest of decentralization. Large miners and businesses favored bigger blocks, lower fees, higher throughput. Node operators, developers, and users favored smaller blocks so anyone could keep running a full node and keep the network decentralized.

The case for smaller blocks was simple: bigger blocks mean greater storage and bandwidth costs, and because blocks are produced at roughly ten-minute intervals with a fixed size limit, that growth is predictable. Larger blocks burden every node, and this burden falls hardest on those with the least access to hardware and bandwidth, concentrating influence in fewer, wealthier hands.

Node operators won this war, but not without cost. The compromise was SegWit, activated in 2017, which separated signature data, or witness data, from base transaction data. The 1 MB base limit remained, but witness data gained roughly three additional megabytes of allowance, raising the practical block size limit to around 4 MB.

The Witness Discount

The justification seemed reasonable at the time: signatures validate a transaction once but are not strictly needed to verify the UTXO set thereafter, so witness data could theoretically be pruned more aggressively. On this presumption, witness data was weighted at one quarter the fee cost of base data. As a result, a witness byte costs roughly 75% less than a base byte, despite occupying the same physical storage on every full node.

This upgrade also solved transaction malleability, the ability to alter a signature without changing a transaction's validity. By segregating signatures from the transaction identifier, SegWit enabled commitment transactions whose validity could be guaranteed in advance, the foundational requirement for the Lightning Network. In solving malleability, SegWit unlocked a genuinely transformative scaling solution.

It is worth being clear regarding two separate features of Segwit. The malleability fix, which made Lightning possible, follows from segregating signature data from the transaction identifier. The fee discount applied to that data was a separate decision.

Defining the Landauer Attack

Prices, properly understood, are not arbitrary numbers attached to goods by sellers. They are signals, condensed from the voluntary exchange of countless individuals acting on knowledge no central authority could ever fully gather. In a free market, a price tells us, in a single figure, how scarce a resource is relative to demand, directing it toward its most valued use without requiring anyone to grasp the system as a whole.

A Landauer attack is what occurs when that calculation breaks. It is the gap between the price charged for permanently inscribing a bit and the true thermodynamic cost that bit imposes on every node forever. It requires no malicious intent, no more than a shortage under a price ceiling requires malice from a shopper who buys more simply because the goods are so cheap. It requires only mispricing. Rational actors faced with an artificially cheap resource will use more of it. This is not a flaw in human behavior; it is the correct, predictable response to a false signal, which is precisely why integrity of that signal matters.

Why Mispricing Matters

It is worth being precise about the actual attack surface. A discount alone is not catastrophic, no more than a single subsidized good collapses an economy. The danger lies in what subsidies always produce over time: a misallocation that compounds the longer it persists. The fee is paid once. The storage cost is permanent and recurring. When a one-time price fails to capture an ongoing cost, the market is not pricing the good at all; it is pricing only the moment of sale, while the true cost is quietly shifted onto a third party with no say in the transaction: the node operator, who bears it long after the fee is spent. This is the signature of every subsidy: benefit concentrated on the chooser, cost diffused onto everyone who must live with it.

Beyond the Block Size Debate

This differs meaningfully from the centralization concern of the block size wars, which was a question of affordability: could the average person still afford to run a node as blocks grew, a question technology could, in principle, ameliorate? The Landauer attack is a question technology cannot solve because it does not originate in technology. Strip away hardware cost, Moore's Law, the falling price of storage, and one fact remains: a bit is physical, and physics does not distinguish a witness bit from a base bit. Landauer's principle establishes that information carries real energetic cost, and that cost attaches to the bit itself, not to the category a protocol assigns it. Hardware improvement lowers the burden for every byte equally. It cannot make one class of physically identical bytes cheaper than another. Only a pricing rule can do that.

Discounting witness data relative to base data, despite an identical thermodynamic burden, is a subsidy of one category over another. Subsidies do not simply make things cheaper; they distort market signals so that economic actors do not make the decisions that properly reflect the healthy allocation of resources. Capital, here in the form of block space, no longer flows to its most valued use; it flows to whatever sits on the subsidized side of the ledger. This is not a moral failing of those who exploit the discount. It is the same rational response that drives any actor toward an underpriced good, whether housing, credit, or a permanent inscription on the most secure ledger in history. The fault lies with the incentive, not the actor responding to it. An incentive structure that rewards witness inscription over base inscription, despite identical cost to the network, is not a neutral feature of the protocol. It is a standing invitation for capital to misallocate itself until the price signal is repaired.

Ordinals, Inscriptions, and the Filter Debate

This is not hypothetical. It is the proximate cause of the debate now roiling the node-running community.

In 2023, a developer discovered a method for inscribing arbitrary data, including images, directly into Bitcoin transactions, giving rise to Ordinals: Bitcoin-native NFTs. The technique relies on witness space introduced by SegWit and made further accessible by Taproot.

The result has been a measurable acceleration in chain growth, driven by data unrelated to monetary flow. Following the introduction of Ordinals, average block sizes increased. Node operators now absorb a burden that is being mispriced in the fee market by 75%.

The Search for a Solution

The community's response has centered on node software. Many have migrated from Bitcoin Core to Bitcoin Knots, which maintains stricter relay filters and greater configurability. This is an understandable choice, but it does not address the underlying mispricing. Filtering what a node relays does not change the user’s incentive to pay a miner to include a transaction that uses cheap witness data. Node-level filtering patches a problem whose root cause lies upstream in the protocol's pricing structure.

More recently, this tension gave rise to BIP-110, a proposed fork that restricts certain methods of embedding non-monetary data through limits on specific Taproot and witness script structures. Its mechanics and activation method merit their own discussion elsewhere. What matters here is that BIP-110, whatever its merits, is another downstream patch. It restricts particular exploitation methods without correcting the discount itself. Furthermore, it is a temporary rule change, and is not designed to be a permanent solution. As demonstrated by a user who embedded an image within BIP-110's own constraints, restricting specific techniques tends to produce a technical game of whack-a-mole rather than a lasting solution, because the economic incentive to exploit discounted witness space remains fully intact.

Conservation as the Missing Principle

If this diagnosis is correct, the right frame is not spam, personal preference, or even decentralization narrowly construed. It is conservation.

Bitcoin's original protocol enforced a clean symmetry: every byte of block space competed under identical economic rules, regardless of content. 1 byte = 1 byte. This symmetry allowed the fee market to function with honest price discovery. Whatever made it onto the chain had, by definition, paid a price that the market determined was commensurate with the permanent burden it imposed on the network.

Bitcoin Through the Lens of Physics

Recent work viewing Bitcoin through the lens of physics argues this symmetry is not merely good design, but is analogous to a conservation law. In their 2026 paper, Bitcoin: The Architecture of Time, researchers Jack and Nick treat Bitcoin as a system in which time itself is computable and quantized, each block representing a discrete, irreversible unit of inscription rather than a point on a smooth continuum[4].

Within that frame, one could argue that the protocol's original constants, the 21 million supply, the 1 MB block limit, and the relationship between satoshis and bits, are not arbitrary, but expressions of an underlying physical symmetry: 1 sat = 1 sat, 1 bit = 1 bit. Bitcoin's legitimacy as a ledger of permanent memory, in their view, depends on that symmetry holding, much as a physical theory depends on its conservation laws. Whether or not one accepts the full scope of their argument, the intuition is useful: a protocol that claims to price permanence honestly cannot do so while treating two physically identical bits as different categories of cost.

SegWit, in solving malleability and unlocking Lightning, introduced an asymmetry into this otherwise clean system. It created two classes of data, identical in physical reality and thermodynamic burden, but priced as though fundamentally different in kind. This is no different than any economic subsidy: a distortion of price signals that misallocates resources.

Restoring Honest Price Discovery

A return to symmetric pricing would not require reverting to a strict 1 MB block, nor would it end the Lightning Network. It requires only recognizing that the thermodynamic cost of permanent inscription does not discriminate by category. To the node that must store them forever, a signature and an output are identical in cost. They should not be distinguishable in price.

When pricing reflects this honestly, the fee market resumes its function as an arbiter of value. Data reaches the chain only when its worth to the payer exceeds the true cost of permanent inscription. Spam becomes self-limiting, not through an ever-expanding set of rules that define and exclude it after the fact, but because the incentive to exploit a subsidized resource disappears once pricing is honest. Accordingly, node operators are fairly compensated for the burden they carry. The conservation law that gave Bitcoin's original design its integrity, one bit equals one bit, just as one satoshi equals one satoshi, is restored.

Conclusion

We return to where we began. Bitcoin is an entropy engine, converting physical energy into an immutable record, bound by the same thermodynamic laws that govern every process in the observable universe. The realization that information itself carries an inescapable energetic cost, proposed by Landauer over sixty years ago and now confirmed by recent research, gives us a sharper understanding of what we have built, and what we may have unintentionally broken.

SegWit was not a mistake in conception. It solved a real problem and enabled scaling the network surely needed. However, bundling that solution with an unexamined discount on one category of data may simply reflect that we did not yet appreciate how fully Bitcoin mirrors the physical order from which it was born from. Nearly a decade later, we are watching the consequences unfold, as the community fractures over node implementations, relay filters, and increasingly aggressive soft forks, each patching a symptom while leaving the cause untouched.

If Bitcoin is truly governed by conservation laws as fundamental as those governing energy and mass, the path forward lies not in more elaborate filters or endless debates over legitimate use. It lies in asking what the physics requires and having the discipline to restore it. Bit by bit.

References

Shannon CE. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J. 1948;27(3):379-423.

Landauer R. Irreversibility and heat generation in the computing process. IBM J Res Dev. 1961;5(3):183-191.

Aimet S, Tajik M, Tournaire G, et al. Experimentally probing Landauer’s principle in the quantum many-body regime. Nat Phys. 2025;21(8):1326-1331.

Jack & Nick. Bitcoin: The architecture of time. Published online February 2026. https://bitcoinlens.net/

Nostr event nevent1qqswadc0jcxcu9azjscztneypfq30a3drj4zamsk8qfhgxmupjx2pwgpypmhxue69uhhq7tjv9kkjepwwdjkce3dv3jhgetjd45kuety9ejx2q3qelchyrnhhvrg7r4m6wyae4ggytw34jxj4s9s7hcgqzhfu9w8u2eqppkl4q

2026-06-09T06:18:29Z

Nostr event nevent1qqsf2s3qkupvgl622r2vt27kf3uy0sk57zqtga3ztz6s4zrfgzzjswspypmhxue69uhhq7tjv9kkjepwwdjkce3dv3jhgetjd45kuety9ejx2q3qelchyrnhhvrg7r4m6wyae4ggytw34jxj4s9s7hcgqzhfu9w8u2eqg69zhd

2026-05-20T15:16:42Z

The belief in superpower has gone, for the oponents first and now ...

2026-05-19T19:36:45Z

The belief in superpower has gone, for the oponents first and now for the "superpower" itself.

quoting
nevent1q…2qgn
Here is the truth of the matter👇🏼

The Pentagon reveals Trump paused the strikes on Iran not for negotiations as he claimed, but because Iran is becoming rapidly more effective at tracking US air operations, improving its air defenses and becoming too strong at detecting signs of a surprise attack, per NYT.

Iran has used the ceasefire to successfully dig out all bombed ballistic missile sites, making them fully operational again. Iran also moved a large number of new mobile launchers across the entire country and adjusted tactics for any resumption of strikes, per a US military official.

Iranian commanders studied US fighter jet and bomber flight patterns with close Russian and Chinese help. The recent downing of an F-15E and groundfire striking an F-35 revealed American flight tactics had become "too predictable."

Nostr event nevent1qqsypr38cj2fk0a73vawtwffwqh383243suag9k6sapg5f6gfgqr2fqpypmhxue69uhhq7tjv9kkjepwwdjkce3dv3jhgetjd45kuety9ejx2q3qelchyrnhhvrg7r4m6wyae4ggytw34jxj4s9s7hcgqzhfu9w8u2eqmlxwxt

2026-04-16T16:46:46Z

Zufallsfund an einem Waalweg in Südtirol.

Nostr event nevent1qqsgqepl7pf0xyxcuhm9evx85wev0a4wwyu8yrk99pz9d4nwwpafglgpypmhxue69uhhq7tjv9kkjepwwdjkce3dv3jhgetjd45kuety9ejx2q3qelchyrnhhvrg7r4m6wyae4ggytw34jxj4s9s7hcgqzhfu9w8u2eq27lvcx

2026-04-14T08:50:25Z

Find/control your device with #Marmot. ...

2026-04-13T09:59:14Z

Find/control your device with #Marmot.

https://gitlab.com/Kalle/fmd-android/-/tree/nostr-marmot?ref_type=heads

Nostr event nevent1qqsydj5ux559ep8v7sff7f5xmyy77rklnzy40758y79p5amfsfuhsncpypmhxue69uhhq7tjv9kkjepwwdjkce3dv3jhgetjd45kuety9ejx2q3qelchyrnhhvrg7r4m6wyae4ggytw34jxj4s9s7hcgqzhfu9w8u2eq5z83uq

2026-04-09T05:44:16Z

With him Amerika becomes a shithole, not great! ...

2026-04-08T19:36:55Z

With him Amerika becomes a shithole, not great!

That's why it always leads to a fiasco! ...

2026-04-07T11:02:07Z

That's why it always leads to a fiasco!

Woran genau? Ich erkläre es gerne.

2026-04-05T10:52:41Z

In reply to nevent1q…sxcs
_________________________

Woran genau? Ich erkläre es gerne.

Funktioniert. 👍

2026-03-24T10:28:32Z

In reply to nevent1q…csuu
_________________________

Funktioniert. 👍

Nostr event nevent1qqsr6yksqy25y2fxgsm6rjc944h8zl0q720rxu9wwnc7y7ehzehkhwgpypmhxue69uhhq7tjv9kkjepwwdjkce3dv3jhgetjd45kuety9ejx2q3qj0sepfdu6w7e0u8kxlgy30v40lhjm6jwudyzvrp34jtsa4sr7jls55tghw

2026-03-17T06:13:17Z

Test 2

Nostr event nevent1qqsfvu7ypfumllsgs2yyxfkddt5psvnwg26uyxthqm9dslsgnvvn0dqpypmhxue69uhhq7tjv9kkjepwwdjkce3dv3jhgetjd45kuety9ejx2q3qj0sepfdu6w7e0u8kxlgy30v40lhjm6jwudyzvrp34jtsa4sr7jls74nzk9

2026-03-17T06:09:37Z

Test