B Man

Public Key

npub1qyv5l4usxwd0z4eekcmymmk8vvalvlp69n9cdhqxeju8w2v9gtvsersqa7

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsqzx2067gr8xh32uumvdjdamrkxwlk0sazejuxmsrvewrh9xz59kgpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0ds2dtm44

Publishing to

nostr.wine

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub1qyv5l4usxwd0z4eekcmymmk8vvalvlp69n9cdhqxeju8w2v9gtvsersqa7

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-03-27 13:32:45 UTC

- reply

It can seriously harm some people, but it also genuinely helps a lot of others.

2026-03-21 17:32:06 UTC

Mastering Bitcoin, 3rd edition, by Andreas M. Antonopoulos (O’Reilly), available for free online.
https://github.com/bitcoinbook/bitcoinbook/blob/develop/BOOK.md

2026-03-19 03:34:33 UTC

- reply

Green

2026-03-15 06:16:44 UTC

- reply

I understand the appeal of what you’re describing. The relief people feel when they no longer believe that everything depends on them can be profound. When that pressure lifts, attention often shifts outward. The mind stops circling so tightly around its own story. There is usually more space for patience, generosity, and simple attention to other people.
But I think the interpretation you’re placing on that experience goes a step further than the experience itself requires.
The deeper issue here is the sense of self. Most of us move through life with the feeling that there is a real subject at the center of experience. It seems as though there is a thinker somewhere behind the eyes producing thoughts, making decisions, and carrying responsibility for everything that happens.
Yet if you look carefully at your own mind, that picture becomes harder to maintain.
Thoughts appear on their own. You do not know what the next one will be until it arrives. The same is true for emotions, impulses, and even intentions. If you pause and try to observe the exact moment a thought is created, you will notice that it simply shows up. The sense that “I am thinking this” usually arrives just after the thought itself.
So the self we feel ourselves to be is not nearly as solid as it seems. It behaves less like an inner controller and more like a narrative that keeps getting updated after events occur.
When someone says they have surrendered to God, something psychologically significant often happens. They stop insisting that the small character in their mental story is responsible for holding the world together. That shift relaxes a lot of internal tension. The mind no longer feels compelled to defend and promote the self at every moment.
And when that contraction loosens, a few predictable things tend to follow. Anxiety eases. Defensiveness drops. It becomes easier to care about what happens to other people because attention is no longer monopolized by the maintenance of a fragile self image.
But notice what actually produced the change. The benefit came from loosening identification with the story of the self.
You do not need to believe that the universe is guided by a supernatural intelligence for that shift to occur. Traditions that spent centuries examining the mind reached similar conclusions without invoking a creator at all. They noticed that what we call the self is largely constructed out of thoughts, memories, and sensations appearing in consciousness.
Seeing that clearly can alter the way experience unfolds. The constant effort to defend “me” begins to look unnecessary. Concern for other minds arises more naturally once attention is no longer locked inside that narrative.
So the freedom you’re describing is real. But interpreting it as evidence that a divine mind has taken control of events is an additional step the experience itself doesn’t justify. What the experience actually reveals is how much strain comes from believing that there is a solid self at the center of everything.
If someone wants to explore that question directly rather than adopting a belief about it, there is a simple experiment available. Spend enough time observing the mind without distraction. The ten-day silent retreats taught in the tradition of S. N. Goenka introduce the practice of Vipassana meditation in a structured way. Ten days of carefully watching thoughts, sensations, and reactions can reveal quite a lot about how the sense of “I” is constructed moment to moment.
Information about those courses is available here:
https://www.dhamma.org/en/about/vipassana

2026-03-11 04:56:03 UTC

- reply

What form of magnesium do you take?
Magnesium supplements usually come in different forms because magnesium is combined with other molecules to improve absorption or create specific effects.
Common types and their main benefits:
• Magnesium glycinate – Good absorption; supports sleep, relaxation, and anxiety.
• Magnesium citrate – Helps with digestion and constipation; mild laxative.
• Magnesium oxide – Contains a lot of magnesium but low absorption; often used for acid reflux or constipation.
• Magnesium malate – Supports energy production and muscle function.
• Magnesium L-threonate – May help memory, focus, and brain health.
• Magnesium taurate – Supports heart health and blood pressure.

2026-03-11 04:30:35 UTC

- reply

I understand the comfort in believing someone is in charge of how things unfold. When life feels uncertain, that idea can be reassuring.
But the fact that things can change at any moment doesn’t necessarily require a divine plan. Change is simply the nature of reality. History shows that situations that look hopeless sometimes shift in surprising ways.
Fear is also natural. The real skill isn’t replacing fear with belief, but learning that we can face uncertainty without being overwhelmed by it.
In that sense, the deeper confidence might not come from faith that everything will work out, but from discovering that we’re capable of meeting whatever happens.

2026-03-11 04:21:05 UTC

- reply

A lot of people reading this thread might walk away thinking the science is settled in favor of Bitcoin mining being environmentally beneficial. That’s not really what the academic literature shows.
It’s true that the “energy per transaction” metric is widely criticized because Bitcoin’s energy use is driven by mining competition and hashrate, not by the number of transactions. But pointing that out doesn’t invalidate the broader body of research on Bitcoin’s electricity consumption.
The papers cited here didn’t “debunk” environmental concerns. Most of them simply argue that some projections were exaggerated or based on questionable assumptions. That’s normal scientific debate. They don’t conclude that Bitcoin mining is environmentally positive.
At the same time, there is emerging research exploring potential upsides such as using curtailed renewable energy, acting as flexible demand for power grids, or reducing methane flaring. Those ideas are being studied, but they’re still case-specific and far from a global consensus.
So the reality is more nuanced. The literature doesn’t support the extreme claim that Bitcoin is an environmental disaster, but it also doesn’t support the claim that it’s broadly a climate solution. The impact depends heavily on the energy sources miners use and how mining integrates with local power systems.

2026-03-10 14:23:07 UTC

- reply

She may be expressing:
1. Online identity fatigue
2. Fear of a monotonous adult life
3. Low faith that effort will meaningfully improve life
Many teens who talk this way in high school shift their views in their early-mid 20s once they gain agency, mobility, and real choices outside school structures.
School is a uniquely constrained environment, which amplifies feelings of artificiality.

2026-03-07 19:46:55 UTC

- reply

0 BTC (genesis reward was 50 BTC; halvings start at block 210,000)

2026-03-04 05:11:47 UTC

- reply

What is it?

2026-03-04 05:00:02 UTC

- reply

The monetary thesis here is solid. The architecture less so.
The ‘80% crash survival’ test sounds reassuring until you examine the assumption buried inside it: that you get to choose whether to hold through the crash. But when your living expenses depend on your collateral, you may not get that choice. Strike’s margin call triggers at 70% LTV, with 24 hours to resolve it. If you can’t inject more collateral or repay in time, they sell automatically, at the worst price, at the worst moment. And under their own terms, that forced sale is a taxable event. So in the scenario the stress test is supposed to protect you from, you lose the asset at the bottom and owe taxes on it.
There’s also a baseline cost that needs to be named: 12% APR. Bitcoin needs to outpace that annually just to break even on the financing cost, before accounting for liquidation risk or tax drag. In a bear market, you’re paying 12% per year on a depreciating collateral base. That’s not a small headwind.
The deeper irony is philosophical. Satoshi’s whole project was built on one diagnosis: trusted third parties are security holes. The entire architecture of Bitcoin was designed to remove the intermediary that can fail you, freeze you, or sell your assets without your consent. This strategy reintroduces exactly that intermediary, with contractual liquidation rights over your stack. You haven’t exited the old system. You’ve added a more complex dependency on it, with leverage on top.

2026-02-27 04:28:41 UTC

- reply

I would begin by questioning the comfort hidden inside what sounds like certainty.
You are saying there is no real struggle, that what looks like conflict is merely a creature flailing against a conclusion already written before time began. But if that is true, then history stops being a moral arena and becomes theater.
Pharaoh was not defiant, just cast.
Rome was not cruel, just useful.
Every tyrant, every oppressor, every architect of suffering becomes not guilty but necessary.
And if the powerful who suppress truth are merely unwitting instruments of a divine plan, then what exactly are they guilty of? If their actions serve the very counsel they oppose, condemnation becomes incoherent. You cannot meaningfully damn someone for playing the role your script required.
That is not justice. That is choreography.
You describe the cross as a triumph, a moment when the enemy believed he had won but in fact guaranteed his defeat. But if this outcome was settled before the foundations of the world, then the suffering was not a risk taken. It was a requirement fulfilled.
Which raises an uncomfortable question.
If victory required torture by design, is this redemption or necessity dressed as mercy?
You also move quickly from theology into politics, suggesting that those who wield influence today are participants in some cosmic rebellion. I am far less impressed by that move.
Not because power does not exist, it plainly does, but because once you interpret worldly events as manifestations of principalities and powers, you have lifted them out of the realm of evidence and placed them into myth.
And myth has a peculiar advantage. It cannot be disproven.
The danger of believing the ending is already written is not merely intellectual, it is moral. If the last chapter guarantees victory, then vigilance becomes optional. Inquiry becomes secondary. Responsibility becomes diluted.
History becomes something we watch unfold instead of something we shape.
I do not find reassurance in the idea that every enemy is already under someone’s feet in principle. That kind of certainty has too often been the companion of passivity or worse, of cruelty justified as inevitability.
If the struggle is real, then what we do matters.
If it is not, then neither do we.
And I see no reason to surrender the former for the comfort of the latter.

2026-02-18 04:01:12 UTC

- reply

Drop all 30 on a table and don’t move them.
Title: “Authentic.”
The laziest art idea isn’t designed.
It just happens.
If this wins, it proves the concept.

2026-02-18 03:40:08 UTC

- reply

"No man is crushed by misfortune unless he has first been deceived by prosperity" -Seneca

2026-02-15 21:58:10 UTC

- reply

The metaphor is elegant, but it quietly smuggles in teleology.
Architecture implies an architect. Design implies intention. Evolution has neither. Natural selection produces the appearance of design without foresight, purpose, or blueprint in the conscious sense.
If parental love is a load-bearing wall, it’s not because it was meant to uphold the human edifice. It persists because lineages lacking it tended not to. That’s differential replication, not architectural intent.
Geometry doesn’t float above the stone, it is a description of how matter arranges under constraint. Likewise, consciousness isn’t an inhabitant of biology; it is biology organizing at a certain level of complexity.
Meaning, then, isn’t a foundation in the structural sense. It’s a subjective valuation produced by organisms shaped by selection. Powerful, yes. Transcendent, not necessarily.
The structure remains upright not because it has purpose, but because it has not yet collapsed.

2026-02-15 21:24:42 UTC

- reply

I’m not convinced that consciousness stands apart from biology in the way you suggest. If consciousness itself emerges from biological processes, then the “monument” may simply be a more complex extension of the blueprint.
Even the entropy metaphor might cut both ways: living systems don’t defy entropy so much as participate in it through energy exchange. From that perspective, parental love isn’t a rebellion against decay, it’s one of evolution’s most efficient strategies within it.
That doesn’t make the experience any less meaningful. It just means the meaning may be fully natural rather than metaphysically sovereign.

2026-02-15 20:56:33 UTC

- reply

I really appreciate how you describe that moment. Reading this actually reminded me of an idea from The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, that many of our deepest emotions, including parental love, can be understood as evolutionary mechanisms designed to ensure the survival and propagation of our genes.
In that sense, it’s fascinating to think that the overwhelming transformation you’re describing might also be biology doing exactly what it’s supposed to do. That doesn’t make it any less real or powerful, if anything, it makes it even more remarkable that something so deeply meaningful is also wired into us at such a fundamental level.

2026-02-02 14:37:01 UTC

- reply

This post mixes a real medical program with false claims and hate rhetoric.
• Israel does have a large national skin bank, used mainly to treat severe burn victims — but there is no evidence it’s “the largest in the world.” No global authority ranks skin banks.
Source: Sheba Medical Center (National Skin Bank)
https://eng.sheba.co.il/medical_centers/skin_bank
• It is NOT forbidden to donate skin or organs from Jews. In fact, under Jewish law, saving a life (pikuach nefesh) overrides nearly all restrictions, and organ/tissue donation is widely permitted and supported.
Sources:
Israeli Ministry of Health – Organ & tissue donation
https://www.gov.il/en/departments/topics/organ_donation
Rabbinical Council of America – Organ donation
https://rabbis.org/organ-donation
• Claims of systematic “organ harvesting” are false. A single forensic scandal from decades ago (which affected Jews, Arabs, and others alike) was exposed, investigated, stopped, and condemned. There is no evidence of ongoing trafficking or ethnic targeting.
Sources:
Reuters overview
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/
WHO – Organ transplantation & trafficking
https://www.who.int/health-topics/transplantation
• Language like “Zionist cancer” and “global terrorists” echoes historic blood-libel conspiracy theories, which replace evidence with disgust and dehumanization rather than facts.
Source: Anti-Defamation League – Blood libel
https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/blood-libel
Bottom line:
Medical tissue banks save lives. This post uses exaggeration, false religious claims, and hate framing to turn a healthcare system into a conspiracy. If there’s evidence, cite it. If not, spreading claims like this only misinforms people.

2026-02-02 03:14:52 UTC

- reply

Hitler didn’t “discover” a fact, he repeated long-standing antisemitic propaganda myths that were later formalized by Nazism. There was no “almost exclusively Jewish” sex-slave trade in Vienna or anywhere else.
This passage from Mein Kampf is a textbook example of scapegoating: take a real social problem (prostitution existed across all European cities), falsely assign it to an entire ethnic group, then use that lie to justify hatred and political violence.
Historians are clear on this: Nazi claims about Jews controlling prostitution were fabrications, not findings. The text is studied today to understand how propaganda radicalizes, not because it contains truth.

2026-02-01 17:15:46 UTC

- reply

I actually see it a bit differently. No one should be telling kids what to think at all. The goal, whether at home or in school, should be helping them learn how to think, ask questions, and form their own views. When kids are encouraged to think critically, they don't need anyone deciding their thoughts for them.

2026-01-16 16:49:41 UTC

- reply

This response doesn’t engage with the evidence or methodology at all.
Replacing sources with insults and group labels isn’t an argument, it’s a signal that the discussion has moved from analysis to identity and belief.
I raised issues of sourcing, context, and reasoning. If those are dismissed rather than addressed, readers can reasonably infer that the material doesn’t stand up to standard historical scrutiny.

2026-01-16 16:44:14 UTC

- reply

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree that all documentaries contain errors, but the issue here isn’t minor inaccuracies, it’s the core analytical framework of the film.
My “big hitter” concern is this: the main message relies on systematic asymmetry in skepticism. The film rigorously doubts mainstream accounts only when they conflict with its preferred narrative, while treating alternative explanations for Germany’s actions with far less scrutiny. That’s not balance, that’s advocacy.
Reframing Germany’s actions as “more logical” isn’t, by itself, controversial, historians routinely analyze motives, constraints, and strategic reasoning. The problem is that the film normalizes and rationalizes those actions while downplaying or relativizing their consequences, and does so by selectively excluding large bodies of contradictory evidence. That moves it from revisionism into propaganda.
“History is written by the victors” is a useful caution, but it’s not a method. Serious historical revision succeeds by adding evidence and withstanding hostile cross-examination from independent sources. This film instead builds a closed narrative system where dissenting evidence is pre-emptively dismissed as censorship or deception.
So my objection isn’t that it challenges orthodoxy, it’s that it challenges orthodoxy without meeting the evidentiary standards it demands from others. That inconsistency is why historians don’t treat it as a neutral corrective, even if some viewers find parts of it provocative or engaging.

2026-01-16 05:21:05 UTC

- reply

Just to clarify: the Warren Report was about JFK, not 9/11.
In general, official reports should always be questioned, but questioning means comparing them with independent investigations, physical evidence, and credible expert analysis, not replacing one narrative with another unsupported one.
I’m open to criticism of any official report, including 9/11 investigations. Skepticism is healthy. But skepticism has to be evidence-based and consistent, otherwise it just becomes another belief system.

2026-01-16 05:16:28 UTC

- reply

A few specific examples:
1) Quotes used as “proof” while context is ignored
Henry Ford: The film leans on the antisemitic series from The Dearborn Independent later packaged as The International Jew. But Ford later formally recanted those accusations in 1927. In his signed statement to Louis Marshall he wrote: “I hereby retract all statements made in my publications… and offer my sincere apology.”
Source (full statement PDF): https://ajcarchives.org/Portal/Default/en-US/DownloadImageFile.ashx?objectId=299&ownerId=876&ownerType=0
Additional context: https://www.thehenryford.org/collections-and-research/digital-resources/popular-topics/henry-ford-and-anti-semitism
Charles Lindbergh: In his 1941 Des Moines speech, Lindbergh explicitly named groups he claimed were pushing the U.S. toward war: “the British, the Jewish, and the Roosevelt Administration.” The film presents this kind of line as “they tried to warn us,” but historians treat it as an example of antisemitic isolationist rhetoric that was widely condemned at the time.
Speech text: https://www.charleslindbergh.com/americanfirst/speech.asp
Historical context: https://www.cfr.org/blog/twe-remembers-charles-lindberghs-des-moines-speech
2) Large bodies of independent archival evidence omitted when denying well-documented events
When it questions the Holocaust, it skips the fact that it is one of the best-documented genocides, supported by independent records across many institutions/countries (Nazi paperwork, camp records, transport documentation, court records, forensics, etc.).
Evidence overview (USHMM): https://www.ushmm.org/antisemitism/holocaust-denial-and-distortion/evidence-documentation-holocaust
Example of institutional archival holdings (U.S. National Archives): https://www.archives.gov/research/holocaust/concentration-camps
3) Correlation presented as causation
The film repeatedly points to Jewish individuals in media/finance/politics and implies coordinated control, but it doesn’t provide documentary evidence of command structures, planning, or causal mechanisms. That leap (pattern-spotting → “therefore conspiracy”) is not how historical causation is established.
That’s why I call it propaganda: not because questions are “forbidden,” but because the method is selective and inconsistent.

2026-01-15 02:31:43 UTC

- reply

It is good to reject money as a god. But do not reject it as evidence. Success must exist in reality, not only in the mind. Otherwise, you are celebrating intention instead of achievement.

2026-01-14 22:20:20 UTC

- reply

Bitcoin is the first time we’ve been able to separate money from the state.

2026-01-14 00:34:49 UTC

Proton focuses on privacy-first tools: encrypted email, storage, passwords, and VPN.
Everyone has different threat models, so people use what fits their needs.
Sharing my referral link in case it helps — 14 days of premium included: https://pr.tn/ref/GF46V3S6

2026-01-13 02:07:54 UTC

- reply

Yes, I watched it. That’s exactly why I’m cautious—many of its claims don’t hold up when compared with independent historical sources.

2026-01-13 01:28:58 UTC

- reply

Before sharing or accepting content like this, it’s worth pausing for a moment.
Many pieces like this are designed to trigger strong emotions (anger, fear, a sense of “waking up”) rather than to present verifiable facts. A common red flag of misinformation is the claim that “everyone else is lying” while only one source claims to have “the hidden truth.”
History, science, and facts are built through multiple independent sources, transparent evidence, and open scholarly debate — not through narratives that reduce complex events to conspiracies or a single enemy.
This isn’t about censorship or avoiding questions. On the contrary, real critical thinking means checking who created the content, for what purpose, and what credible academic sources say about it.
Questioning is healthy. Falling for misinformation disguised as “free thinking” is not. Let’s share responsibly.

2026-01-10 18:55:33 UTC

- reply

What!?

2026-01-10 18:54:09 UTC

📢 *Esto ya pasó en México. Y la Suprema Corte lo frenó.*
El PANAUT obligaba a registrar líneas celulares con datos personales.
La Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación lo canceló por violar la privacidad y la protección de datos.
Hoy nos dicen:
— “Es solo un registro.”
Así empiezan siempre estas medidas.
Cuando los datos existen:
— se cruzan
— se reutilizan
— se amplía el acceso
Y México *sí tiene antecedentes de filtraciones.*
Además, la extorsión telefónica *no depende de líneas registradas.*
Los delitos se adaptan.
Los ciudadanos comunes somos los que entregamos información.
La periodista y Nobel de la Paz Maria Ressa lo advierte con claridad:
*las libertades no desaparecen de golpe*, se erosionan cuando aceptamos pequeñas renuncias sin cuestionar.
Por eso, *no participar de inmediato también es una forma legítima y pacífica de expresar desacuerdo*.
Hablar del tema, cuestionarlo y *no aceptarlo en automático* es parte de la participación cívica.
Aceptar esto “porque no tienes nada que ocultar” confunde el fondo:
*la privacidad no protege cosas malas, protege libertades*.
Renunciar a ella hoy es como renunciar a la libertad de expresión porque hoy no tienes nada que decir.
👉 *Si no se discute ahora, después ya no se puede revertir.*
Comparte ahora. Después, cuando ya sea normal, será mucho más difícil cambiarlo.