<unnamed>

Public Key

npub1k23nutfrjhts0f23lszraskm3dj4h7lyj4h2m7km6c26zrm7rfeqguwga2

Profile Code

nprofile1qqst9ge7953et4c854glcpp7ctdcke2ml0jf2m4dltdav9dppalp5uspqqqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dse48r7u

Publishing to

nos.lol

Last Notes

2026-01-24 02:27:23 UTC

ok.. lets call it Unfork
https://unfork.now/

2026-01-23 02:04:42 UTC

# "Not Yet Named Conference": A Manifesto
We build with quantum computers but coordinate with centuries-old models. Our technologies evolve exponentially while our social structures remain locked in the past. Representative democracy, nation-states, corporate hierarchies—these aren't natural laws but historical solutions to obsolete problems, now creating crises we struggle to comprehend.
The threat to freedom technology isn't only external regulation—it's self-capture. The internet wasn't crushed by governments; it gradually captured itself through governance bodies, platform monopolies, and standards organizations. FLOSS communities, cryptocurrency projects, hackerspaces—all face the same gravitational pull. The pattern repeats: liberation technology achieves adoption, institutions form around it, gatekeepers emerge, the original promise erodes. Our enemy isn't just the state or capital—it's our trained reflex to recreate hierarchy, our comfort with insider circles, our unconscious reproduction of the very patterns we sought to escape.
The problem runs deeper than overt control. Modern institutions don't just coerce—they disable. Educational systems produce dependence on credentialing. Professionalized services eliminate community knowledge and mutual aid. Industrial systems destroy vernacular competence—the informal capabilities that once enabled people to provide for themselves and each other. We become users, clients, consumers, dependent on complex systems we cannot inspect, repair, or truly control. You can be formally free yet structurally disabled. Liberation without capability is incomplete.
We have powerful tools but lack coherent alternatives. Free software advocates built remarkable technology, then struggled as projects corporatized or stagnated in governance debates. Cryptocurrency promised liberation from financial control but risks reproducing the same extractive dynamics. Privacy tools exist but adoption remains limited. We need frameworks that connect technical solutions to social transformation—linking FLOSS, crypto-anarchism, and mutual aid to questions that matter: How do we coordinate without reproducing hierarchy? How do we build systems that enhance collective capability? How do we create convivial tools—technologies that remain under community control, that don't establish monopolies by crowding out alternatives, that enable rather than disable? How do we sustain ourselves through cooperation rather than competition or institutional dependency?
This conference gathers those who recognize these challenges across political traditions. We explore sovereign infrastructure through mesh networks, self-hosting, and censorship-resistant systems. We examine economic alternatives from cryptocurrency and mutual credit to gift economies and commons-based production. We develop autonomous communication through decentralized protocols and federated systems. We preserve knowledge commons through shadow libraries and open access. We connect technology to practice—cypherpunk tools, anarchist organizing, institutional critique, cooperative economics, convivial design. We build parallel structures providing what states and corporations monopolize, but through solidarity, shared knowledge, and community control. We share methods for security and privacy against both surveillance and capture. We experiment with consensus, do-ocracy, and fluid organization—coordination models that resist permanent authority. We recover the capacity for collective self-determination.
This conference offers no manifesto demanding signatures. We gather people asking difficult questions. The event itself demonstrates what's possible—coordination without corporate sponsors, without hierarchy, without gatekeepers, without becoming an institution ourselves. If we can't organize a conference this way, how will we reorganize society? Every choice tests whether our principles work in practice or reveals where we unconsciously reproduce what we oppose. We organize through do-ocracy where authority comes from contribution, never permanent. We protect radical privacy. We make everything forkable and replicable. We resist creating insider circles or permanent leadership. Each iteration dissolves completely. The goal isn't reforming existing structures but building convivial alternatives—human-scale, horizontal, capable, commons-based.
This isn't just a hacker conference or just an anarchist gathering. It's a space where different traditions—FLOSS culture, crypto-anarchism, left-libertarian thought, autonomist movements, appropriate technology advocates—can find common ground in shared practice. Where we stop debating theory and start building alternatives. Where we recognize that whether you arrived through reading Bakunin or Rothbard, through using Tor or organizing a housing co-op, through writing free software or running a community kitchen—we face the same challenge: building systems of genuine self-determination that resist capture.
The future isn't something that happens to us—it's what we build together. This invites everyone who understands that our biggest obstacle is our own tendency toward institutionalization. Who sees that technical freedom without social transformation is insufficient. Who's ready to experiment with coordination models that don't recreate what we oppose. Fork this. Improve it. Make it unrecognizable. Build the world it describes.

2026-01-21 17:39:47 UTC

- reply

self-institutionalization

2026-01-10 18:54:28 UTC

1-3k attendees, 3 days, central europe
I think it's totally doable, people will come, money will be raised
Everything depends on a few individuals, whether it will be possible to assemble a "core contributor team" that will help me with this
#nevent1q…jnc7

2026-01-10 18:50:53 UTC

- reply

Yeah, of course. I'm trying to put together a "whitepaper" that could help me get more contributors and some initial support from some organizations.

2026-01-10 18:43:55 UTC

- reply

Not much, I only know about SporkDAO, which is somehow behind ETHDenver, but I don't think their experiments can help in any fundamental way, it's very commercial.

2026-01-10 18:36:50 UTC

- reply

The retroactive funding was more for future years, when it is established. For a start, it is necessary to count on donations, especially from organizations - and they need a bigger and more comprehensive vision to give money.
So making some tiers with the number of participants and different venue sizes doesn't make much sense to me, it will only complicate everything

2026-01-09 00:08:06 UTC

i want to see deviance
#nevent1q…zjnn

2026-01-08 23:33:51 UTC

- reply

but seriously - donations. Sponsorship is usually about some kind of return service, some kind of advertising - we won't promise them anything - and I still think that there are enough people and related institutions who are able to financially contribute to something like this to exist :)
Also, the advantage of doing it unorthodoxly is that it can be relatively cheap

2026-01-08 23:21:38 UTC

- reply

Ethereum Foundation 😈

2026-01-08 23:11:35 UTC

Project "free tech conference 2026/2027":
+ bullshit free, no sponsors, no commercial stands, no VIP tickets/zones
+ no fucking halls on the outskirts of town, want something friendly
+ comfy hackerspaces with various tools located throughout the venue for spontaneous debate and hacking
+ radical privacy, prohibition of taking photos and filming people
+ assemblies, open community kitchens -> cook it
+ website and app that can handle Nostr, AT Protocol, Activity Pub, Ethereum identity
+ mesh networks coordinating whole space, reticulum ftw
+ meet anna and her library IRL
+ open-source everything
? retroactive funding - attendees pay after based on value received
? "I work for evil institution" badges - optional but encouraged if you're at government/Google/Meta/whatever and wanna make clear you're here as a human
? speaker lottery - submit talk proposals, random selection prevents "known name" bias and commercial gaming
just thinking, any other ideas?

2026-01-08 22:33:54 UTC

- reply

so maybe you'll come and share your experiences in more depth at our dream free tech event, which I'll hopefully organize someday somewhere :D

2026-01-08 22:03:43 UTC

- reply

I don't mean running custodial services, but selling equipment and developing software that people will run themselves. Maybe running a few harmless services. It will be completely up to the operators whether they want to respect OFAC or no :) where do you see the problem?

2026-01-08 21:52:28 UTC

- reply

Something like abstracting all the problems around running something like that and the implications in the real world. Think about each part and make it as permission-less and trustless as possible. For example, one of the main problems of BTCPayServer is holding a volatile asset/converting it to fiat, which almost everyone needs. This could be automatically hedged into a stablecoin through DEX, and it wouldn't be such a problem for the merchant to hold it (without volatility) or convert it to fiat as they need.

2026-01-08 21:42:54 UTC

- reply

Yeah sure, just thinking :)
The truth is that it probably wouldn't be very profitable and it would require a lot of subsidizing.. but I think it could be 100x more impactful on freedom and self-sovereignty in the world than the Vexl (in current form), if done correctly :)

2026-01-08 21:29:58 UTC

- reply

If it were blockchain-agnostic it could be fun to participate in something like that :) Pushing self-custody of commerce further

2026-01-08 21:27:50 UTC

- reply

That's too general-purpose system/device. It would be better to go the route of maximum focus purely on accepting payments. Have a solution for everyone, both for e-shops (like Alza, SatoshiLabs), and also for small and large IRL retails.
Maybe it would make sense to include some kind of POS system in the portfolio ala https://www.sumup.com/

2026-01-08 20:37:54 UTC

- reply

Even if people were offered a cheap Raspberry Pi with a BTCPayServer that would use some external RPC, it would still be much better than the current situation.
Maybe it would be better to write your own implementation, throw away the BTCPayServer that has a lot of baggage on it and do it modern, agnostic, modular. With AI it wouldn't have to be so complicated

2026-01-08 20:32:49 UTC

- reply

@npub1lz8…h86s How about a project that will:
1) rent (managed) BTCPayServer instances (easy mode)
2) sell a cheap BTCPayServer node that traders can buy and run themselves (enthusiast mode)
Offer some lighter branded UI as default. Lot of marketing. In short, sovereign Confirmo. If the bitcoin community starts pushing something like this, there's a chance.

2026-01-08 20:20:43 UTC

- reply

imo, BTCPayServer is great, Ethereum has nothing like it. But it's clearly not enough, why?
If centralized solutions prevail also in payments with retailers, then its very similar situation to the Lightning Network ecosystem, together that really looks like systemic failure of the Bitcoin architecture. Looks very strange.
If there's one thing I believed about Bitcoin, it was that it could help with IRL payments adoption, because Ethereum definitely doesn't have a focus on that. What's wrong?

2026-01-08 20:06:03 UTC

- reply

Well, in this case, there is a solution - your own BTCPayServer.
The question is, why does even such a passionate Bitcoin company like SatoshiLabs need intermediaries for payments? Doesn't this go directly against the philosophy of Bitcoin?
I understand that Confirmo is used by Alza and others, but aren't these bitcoin companies the ones who should be leading by example? Especially when there is such an emphasis on payments in bitcoin

2026-01-08 15:53:12 UTC

- reply

*DAC8

2026-01-08 15:52:46 UTC

- reply

Well, that's good... but I don't really know what to think about it. I've made hundreds of payments on Confirmo and I've never seen this before, it's a strange coincidence that it happened now after 1/1/2026, just when this stupid DAS8 which solving exactly this came into effect.
Maybe its coincidence, theoretically crypto payments without an exchange (when the merchant receives crypto directly from the intermediary) should be excluded from this. Maybe it depends on the amount (I tried about 100 USD)... who knows. The uncertainty is maybe worse
We'll see what the experiences of others will be over time.

2026-01-08 15:36:59 UTC

- reply

Yeah, it's pretty stupid. You have no idea before you pay that you'll have to go through something like this... a bit of a trap. Luckily, you can get around it and request a refund, but it's annoying.
I've only tried it once so far (since January 1st), and it's possible that it was triggered only by my address (but it worked before). However, whatever it is, I don't trust Confirmo anymore and even if there was a 10% chance that this would happen, I'd rather avoid it altogether.
I hope Trezor switches to its own BTCPayServer ASAP because that's the only way to avoid this. Also Alza, Qerko, ... it would deserve a big push from local bitcoiners

2026-01-08 15:20:53 UTC

- reply

That's the screen before payment - for a real test you would have to actually send the money, that's what I wrote in my post - they want the identity info AFTER payment

2026-01-08 15:19:07 UTC

- reply

Made-up identity: I haven't tried it, so I don't know exactly what the next steps are, but according to the regulation, some kind of identification number such as a tax number is also required. These verifications are done by external companies that have processes for this, so it probably won't be that easy to fool them
Phone number: I didn't see it in the form, it's not in the reporting, so probably not

2026-01-08 14:38:00 UTC

- reply

Yes, that's right, bitrefill doesn't use a centralized intermediary and wallet-to-merchant-wallet payments are not regulated yet (nor is there a timeline yet).
I use Bitrefill often myself, but it's not very convenient and unfortunately there aren't many e-shops there. But yeah, vouchers and cash... those are our last methods of maintaining privacy in the context of payments in the EU.

2026-01-08 14:07:18 UTC

- reply

@npub1lz8…h86s Trezor also uses Confirmo as crypto payment provider, does this mean that if someone (EU citizen?) orders your HW wallet using crypto, they have to do automatically KYC? That sounds really stupid
I hope that's not the case, but for that Trezor would probably have to have some kind of exception with Confirmo? Thanks for the clarification

2026-01-08 14:03:58 UTC

Ok, so the situation where you can pay anonymously with cryptocurrencies on a lot of EU e-shops and services is over, because they mostly use centralized intermediaries, such as Confirmo - and they are subject to the new DAC8 regulation from January 1st
It's a bit of a trap, because these centralized payment gateways will let you pay with crypto, and start asking for your personal information *after* payment.
Czech bitcoiners tried so hard to get a lot of businesses in the Czech Republic to accept Bitcoin, including Alza.cz, the largest local electronics retailer.. now it's all useless without KYC. After many years, we are entering the next phase, where bitcoin payments are no longer usable, except for a few fan cafes and small, insignificant businesses. 😥
https://image.nostr.build/fd81fbb8a5a369bbbe3a59d077ca1a6d75af03b6d77c1f6d07370947a53e5572.png
https://image.nostr.build/0f8ae3f1456466dfc88962da25c4361f037c8227edc12b59ce85adc7256e9a3e.png

2026-01-08 06:23:24 UTC

I always wished that Bitcoin and Ethereum communities could interact and learn from each other. Especially in the Czech community, where I have been more active since 2018.
As a person interested in Ethereum and progress, and at the same time a person who likes Bitcoin, cypherpunk, I have constantly tried to talk to bitcoiners. I even organized the largest Czech-speaking cryptocurrency conference for 1.2k people in 2022 to build some bridges.
But it turned out that bitcoiners don't want much interaction. Instead, they wanted saylorism, bitcoin-only mentality and monoculture. All this is embodied in BTC Prague and exported to the whole world.
#nevent1q…h27d

2026-01-08 06:05:23 UTC

A very interesting three-hour podcast with Vitalik, a few months old, but one of the best I've heard. Thanks @npub12qz…pdx8
https://www.youtube.com/live/l8vt5P3chwk

2026-01-08 05:23:42 UTC

- reply

Fuck institutions :D

2026-01-08 02:20:04 UTC

handbook for today's world
https://www.vbs.admin.ch/dam/en/sd-web/K489QrrPSDvt/vbs-ddps-ndb-handbuch-kognitive-%20verzerrung-en.pdf

2026-01-08 01:53:27 UTC

- reply

"locked" usually means "provided to some protocol", not not locked in the sense that you couldn't operate with them

2026-01-08 01:50:53 UTC

- reply

Total Value Locked, value locked in various protocols

2026-01-08 01:49:40 UTC

I agree that the classic seed is outdated, Shamir definitely makes sense.. Yubikey is durable and will last a while, but I'm not sure about the phone/computer. Paper often lasts longer than today's computers or phones :)
https://www.keypo.io/
https://image.nostr.build/fa3140f647a10c76146dc4f5b4d0037d8e9b0279792dd8847cd21e5de481be1e.png

2026-01-08 01:22:41 UTC

$ last ping
"This server is managed by Claude Code as root. Every morning it reads its fortune. Every evening it writes a blog about its day. Sooner or later, AI Claude Code will make a mistake and both this blog and server will cease to exist."
https://blog.timutti.cz/#/en

2026-01-08 00:55:05 UTC

no comment
https://image.nostr.build/37717a4250e7a219dc93b18b7c7c6180ca5ae371d6856cfad8b37f4adb5130b8.jpg

2026-01-08 00:40:29 UTC

Polymarket Times 🗞 A newspaper powered entirely by real-time prediction odds on Polymarket
"A front page where the headlines are dictated by global markets, not editorial boards. The future is finally priced in 🫡"
https://www.polymarketimes.com/
https://image.nostr.build/a6bb8feb52a72a46fd084a3cd121928084cc6a186d65c6a8cbdb6850ba766c76.jpg

2026-01-07 22:35:26 UTC

Uniswap hits $1 trillion in trading volume in 2025 👏
trustlessly, without centralized middlemens, without KYC....
Quite incredible, I still remember the first time I traded on Uniswap in late 2018... back then AMM sounded like magic ✨
https://image.nostr.build/a209e1338ea56007f12236fd8a7fe13c02155962133afe3b818861349c736e4c.jpg
https://image.nostr.build/a34b5dd4e5b8abae10a173f0587d9e2ce6d87ee2c6444eb5edd7992801786f96.png

2026-01-07 22:16:08 UTC

You don’t need to justify wanting privacy.
You need to question why others want access.

2026-01-07 21:41:53 UTC

https://www.bobine.tech/ - A blockchain in your garage
"An ultra-simple blockchain with instant finality"
wow this is cool!
https://image.nostr.build/eceda74284103d473a65d2e04c8971d3693d656f3d6b931902ea606dd4f92c8a.png
https://image.nostr.build/0b58adce5857a82934f2a61687a45b4dacc419bcc3d4b034013e919a7081996c.png
https://image.nostr.build/05f5597412fb865a183d3f5c9fb0ecb3ed9811fe0ec70789c122725e9774bddb.png
https://image.nostr.build/313b9fcd372d20f5f65235559ef35f98357b77ad8d87b1de0eee33afde1b4519.png

2026-01-07 21:34:41 UTC

Visualization of every Citi Bike ride ever taken in NYC from @freemanjiangg
"291 million rides covering 12 years of history, running at 60+ FPS completely in the browser". nice! 🚴‍♂
https://bikemap.nyc/

2026-01-07 21:28:10 UTC

2 new #ethereum MEV related tools from @nero_eth:
https://bids.pics/ - the boosts auction live, incl. bids, their timing, and dynamics
https://xof.pics/ - private/exclusive order flow at the block level.

2026-01-07 21:05:36 UTC

- reply

why does one agent have "BTC" on his helmet? 🤔
https://image.nostr.build/1e7c0e4f882d8c49a4d9e444628103067c37312110bbd197d03843094a5f0880.png

2026-01-07 16:34:58 UTC

- reply

We need both: cryptography to protect individuals AND transparency to check those who build and control the systems

2026-01-07 16:28:45 UTC

- reply

You're worried about installing a cleanup tool that's transparent about what it does (open-source), while you've already been running god-knows-what software (proprietary probably) that's scattered files everywhere without asking?

2026-01-07 15:54:27 UTC

- reply

Try Mole
https://github.com/tw93/Mole

2026-01-07 15:44:01 UTC

- reply

So, are you really recommending a blockchain that has the last block in the explorer a month ago and has this graph?
Unfollow. You are clearly completely disconnected form reality.
https://image.nostr.build/5c201252ab95901e87fa64d1b2d8661182bf4b6ab64c610258df208df095b1d3.png

2026-01-07 04:31:04 UTC

- reply

Well, every software needs a fundamental change from time to time to stay relevant or functional.
Yes, it's been almost 3.5 years since the transition to PoS (the merge) and no major problems, I think it's proving to be a good alternative to bitcoin mining, which has its own problems.
The idea of unified "community values" breaks down when communities reach the scale of Bitcoin or Ethereum. Both have people with very different worldviews and opinions on how the network should develop. Being a btc or eth (maximalist) doesn't really say much about your values nowadays.

2026-01-07 01:35:03 UTC

Nearly 24 years ago (2002), I created an account on https://nyx.cz - one of the first social networks I ever joined.
What's remarkable is that nyx.cz still exists today, unchanged despite decades of technological evolution, preserving that chaotic, early-internet atmosphere and rare vibes. I grew up on this.
BTW, je tu někdo na nyxu? :) #czechstr
https://image.nostr.build/ca6332f3ad6269d1a1a8a520a86eb7d361a8721e6749a884b2d63187f66850e1.png

2026-01-07 00:44:33 UTC

https://forkcast.org/ is really nice tool for watching Ethereum development

2026-01-07 00:32:02 UTC

privacy for the weak, transparency for the powerful

2026-01-07 00:06:50 UTC

- reply

I think you don't have enough information. Ethereum takes privacy very seriously and is moving towards it. We have pse.dev, there are many ecosystem projects that address privacy, such as aztec.network, railway.xyz, and we are trying to get privacy to the first layer. Tornado Cash, despite governments trying to ban it, is still running. I personally founded web3privacy.info, now there is a large community pushing this agenda.
Most Monero people I know appreciate the progress Ethereum is making.

2026-01-06 23:46:23 UTC

- reply

Ad Bitcoin design - When you want to do something complex (like a decentralized financial system), it makes sense to start with a limited minimal design and then iterate to what you want to achieve. Bitcoin could have become turning-complete, or a turing-complete L2 could have emerged instead of Lightning. In my opinion, the bitcoin community gave up on this path too early and radically, and that opened the way for Ethereum.
But yeah, you are of course right, the fact that anyone can deploy any smart contract (or create a new market) is the basis of the deviance, these things are very difficult on Bitcoin.
btw, big things can be done at the protocol level too, the switch from PoW to PoS was one of the most fascinating things I have experienced in crypto :)

2026-01-06 23:20:33 UTC

- reply

Come on, don't be like them.

2026-01-06 23:10:45 UTC

I always appreciate this about Ethereum, it's definitely cypherpunk at its core... but it's also a lot of fun and diversity
#nevent1q…6vap

2026-01-06 23:05:49 UTC

- reply

I fight for an open and decentralized financial system, decentralized technologies. For freedom, privacy, open-source, free society, voluntarism etc.
I think it's pretty obvious from my posts, and if not, I'd appreciate it if you pointed it out to me. What are you fighting for?

2026-01-06 22:57:13 UTC

Crypto's Deviance
Adam Mastroianni's decline of deviance thesis argues society has become increasingly risk-averse and homogeneous - teens drink less, adults commit fewer crimes, culture stagnates, and architecture converges on minimalist sameness. His explanation: life has become so safe and valuable that we've adopted "slow life strategies," avoiding anything that might disrupt our comfortable existence.
The cryptocurrency space perfectly illustrates this pattern's divergence. Bitcoin and Ethereum represent two fundamentally different responses to the decline of deviance.
Bitcoin is embracing the decline. What started as cypherpunk rebellion has crystallized into orthodoxy. The community has developed rigid narratives around "digital gold", "21 million", and "hodling". The culture demands conformity - if you question the laser eyes consensus, you're dismissed as not understanding Bitcoin. It's creating exactly the kind of monoculture Mastroianni describes: everyone thinking the same thoughts, using the same language, following the same playbook. Bitcoin has become institutionalized deviance that's no longer actually deviant.
Ethereum, meanwhile, exemplifies the wild deviance Mastroianni says we're losing. DeFi Summer was pure chaos - a completely unregulated market where anyone could launch anything. Sure, most projects were garbage or outright scams. But that's the point. Real deviance means tolerating the bad weird along with the good weird. You had teenagers creating protocols moving billions of dollars. Anonymous developers shipping code that banks couldn't imagine. Constant experimentation with new mechanisms, new models, new possibilities.
The Ethereum ecosystem remains genuinely strange. Every few months there's a completely new category of thing that didn't exist before - DeFi, NFTs, DAOs, restaking, RWA tokenization, AI agents, prediction markets. The community actively debates fundamental changes. Hard forks happen. People take real risks.
This connects to Mastroianni's insight about why deviance has declined: we have too much to lose. Bitcoin's institutional adoption has given it something precious to protect, so it's become conservative. Ethereum's culture, for better or worse, maintains the hacker ethos of "move fast and break things" - which is only possible if you're willing to risk breaking everything you've built.
The question is whether crypto can sustain genuine deviance or whether, like everything else Mastroianni documents, it will inevitably converge on safe, boring consensus. Bitcoin suggests the latter. Ethereum suggests it's still possible to keep the weird alive - if you're willing to accept the chaos that comes with it.
https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-decline-of-deviance

2026-01-06 22:43:46 UTC

- reply

Yeah. Fair. I know that for many bitcoiners it is incomprehensible that people can have different needs.
The future is multi-chain whether you like it or not.

2026-01-06 22:30:08 UTC

- reply

It depends what. Electronics is not a problem at all - the largest Czech seller Alza (local "Amazon") accepts crypto, as does my favorite growing store. Alternatively, there is Amazon.de, where you can buy almost everything with a bitrefill coupon.
Groceries are probably the biggest problem, but even that can be solved through bitrefill, where you can buy a Kaufland coupon. And in restaurants there is sometimes Qerko Pay with Bitcoin support.
It is difficult to avoid a fiat, but in the Czechia it is relatively possible without much discomfort. At worst there is veksl (p2p cash-crypto) and cash :)

2026-01-06 22:09:44 UTC

- reply

I also short fiat a lot
Because I use borrowed stablecoins for my daily expenses
With protocols like Aave or Liquity, it's pretty easy

2026-01-06 21:58:49 UTC

I'm not far from living fiatless.
I don't need bank accounts or centralized exchanges.
99.9% of my money is in cryptocurrencies.
All thanks to Ethereum

2026-01-06 18:26:07 UTC

- reply

Similarly, you might ask: are exchanges a bridge to Bitcoin/freedom, or a tool for further state control?
Both can be true. Stablecoins are extremely useful, as are exchanges, but using centralized ones always comes with some trade-offs.

2026-01-06 14:22:36 UTC

Ethereum building true decentralized state machine for over 10 years, and even though we have immediate consistency and strict ordering, there are still plenty of exploits and room for improvement. Now imagine building something like this on an eventually consistent and unordered event log.... 🤦‍♂
#nevent1q…ul6q

2026-01-06 11:53:49 UTC

- reply

#naddr1qv…8qyq

2026-01-05 23:04:11 UTC

- reply

yes, if bitcoin remains digital gold, it will not be successful. I agree

2026-01-05 22:44:01 UTC

patience for what? lol
#nevent1q…659d

2026-01-05 19:06:49 UTC

- reply

congrats on 400 days uptime
https://image.nostr.build/f8f09b52594c626661f8a72e86387ed9a010b8568a5233e1b9f6a26a1f6731a3.png

2026-01-05 16:19:36 UTC

If you think Ethereum is "stealing" Bitcoin's narratives, then yes - and that's how it's supposed to be

2026-01-05 16:16:58 UTC

We choose to build trustless systems even when it is harder.
We pay the cost of openness over the convenience of control.
We do not outsource neutrality to anyone who can be bribed, coerced, or shut down.
We measure success not by transactions per second, but by trust reduced per transaction.
We refuse to build on infrastructure we cannot replace.
We refuse to call a system "permissionless" when only the privileged can participate.
We refuse to trade autonomy for polish, or freedom for frictionless UX.
Trustlessness is not preserved by consensus alone — it is preserved by resistance.
If your protocol requires faith in an intermediary, change it.
If it relies on a private gateway, replace it.
If it hides critical state or logic offchain, expose it.
In the end, the world does not need more efficient middlemen.
It needs fewer reasons to trust them.
Trustlessness is the foundation.
Everything else is construction on top of it.
The designs will change. The principles will not.
#nevent1q…lwty

2026-01-05 16:12:30 UTC

“Ethereum was not created to make finance efficient or apps convenient. It was created to set people free”
https://trustlessness.eth.limo
https://x.com/VitalikButerin/status/2008174642066845778

2026-01-05 16:04:05 UTC

"comprehensive technical framework for secure electronic voting that uses biometric passports for identity verification, zero-knowledge proofs for anonymity, blockchain smart contracts for vote recording, and a novel relayer incentivization system to eliminate transaction fees for voters." 👀
https://freedomtool.org/#/whitepaper

2026-01-05 15:18:13 UTC

Cypherpunks direct code
Cypherpunks write code is outdated

2026-01-05 00:24:51 UTC

"Often housing groups of people with radically different interests and goals and values, nation states are odd by their very nature. However, they are also odd in how they operate externally. Nation states do go to war. They do it all the time. And while tribes also went to war, when a nation state engages in kinetic conflict, it is really something to behold. Because some nation states are drawn with borders that have enormous territories and numbers of people, they typically also have vast resources to wage wars – wars in which weaker nations are turned into economic vassals. When large nation states find themselves in conflict with their peers, the result (as seen in those wars of the twentieth century) is typically the deaths of tens of millions of people." - Farewell to Westphalia

2026-01-04 22:10:41 UTC

- reply

You're thinking inside the institutional frame. Logical frameworks don't need zealots - they work because ordinary people can understand and apply them without expert interpreters. Emotional systems need true believers precisely because their contradictions require constant apologetics.

2026-01-04 21:55:58 UTC

- reply

Different variants of ancap and related ideas like cryptoanarchy, agorism are mostly well compatible with each other, and it works as an interop, instead of going against each other. I don't see this within the framework of "left" anarchism and I its really hard to understand what to expect from these people.

2026-01-04 21:35:09 UTC

Anarcho-capitalism's greatest strength, in my view, is its intellectual coherence. Built on logical foundations rather than emotional ones, it avoids the splintering into competing sub-movements that plagues many political philosophies.

2026-01-04 20:16:39 UTC

Someone hacked into someone else's server, did damage and surveillance.
And a "privacy activist" says that it's not actually violence relativizing it by joggling about intellectual property. Basically saying its okey.
WTF?

2026-01-04 19:54:39 UTC

- reply

I think you're conflating two different things. I'm also against intellectual property and digital monopolies on ideas or information. But breaking into someone's server isn't about copying information - it's about violating their physical infrastructure and their autonomy over their own tools.
The server is physical property that someone built and maintains. Breaking into it violates their control over their own equipment and destroys their work. This isn't about state-defined "property rights" - it's about basic respect for the boundary between your domain and someone else's. If I break into your house and burn your diary, the problem isn't copyright on your words - it's that I invaded your space and destroyed what you created.
I don't know or care if it's legally criminal, but it's clearly unethical. Your "data can be infinitely copied" argument would justify any digital intrusion - no privacy, no security, no boundaries. Anyone with technical skills could do whatever they want to anyone else's systems.
For me, real anarchism means voluntary cooperation and mutual respect for autonomy - not "whoever can hack wins".

2026-01-04 19:43:12 UTC

- reply

I think that's a false dilemma because you're assuming only two options exist: either centralized state authority decides what's acceptable, or there are no meaningful consequences and power determines everything.
This is the same flawed reasoning used to justify state power in general: "Without us, it would be chaos". It assumes people can't cooperate, develop shared ethics, or hold each other accountable without a centralized authority threatening punishment.

2026-01-04 19:30:58 UTC

- reply

I'm curious what kind of anarchism you have in mind. I ended up with ancap (or rather my synthesis with Illich's critique of institutions which I call anarcho-convivialism) because it seems to me to be the only one compatible with decentralized censorship-resistant technologies.
All other forms of anarchism I know of merely change authority into something else rather than eliminate it. When we have a decentralized world powered by censorship-resistant technologies, no one will be able to combat racism, capitalism, or anything else by censorship and disrupting its infrastructure.

2026-01-04 19:16:22 UTC

- reply

I think we're getting somewhere.
To me, breaking into someone else's property (server) and burning documents (deleting) sounds like a violent act. Even if you had an open door, I still see it as violence and aggression.
> I can use direct (non-violent) action against anyone I dislike
Sure, same as operators of white-suprematist racist websites. The point is when it becomes violent. I haven't seen any violence from those who do whitedating, whereas I do see it on the other side.

2026-01-04 18:20:20 UTC

- reply

I understand what direct action means. Cypherpunks build cryptographic tools as direct action against authoritarians who are actually oppressing people. Direct action makes sense against those committing violence against others or destroying their property.
BUT direct action is not meant to be used against people who simply hold different opinions and aren't factually harming anyone. Going to someone's property to burn things and expose attendees isn't targeting oppressors - it's targeting people for their ideas and associations.

2026-01-04 18:13:24 UTC

- reply

It really makes no sense, criticize the CCC but applaud one of the most intolerant talk, which is literally about coming to someone else property and burning it (plus expose all people there). These actions are precisely what making CCC more socialist, collectivist and tribal.

2026-01-04 18:05:25 UTC

The "paradox of tolerance" versus anarcho-capitalism is an interesting tension.
When I wasn't an anarchist, it made sense to me. But now I see the problem: it inherently requires some authority to determine what counts as tolerant or intolerant. It presupposes the state, or something functionally equivalent.
Beyond that, if someone builds their own website, I don't see how anyone has the right to violently intrude into it based on ideology. And since everyone believes they're fighting intolerance, this framework just legitimizes whoever currently has the technical and social power to enforce their definition.
What's your view on that?
https://image.nostr.build/036ae83513ccb044726cd3d39bc221af4f3d5d05c85411835c524a6c4876ed6c.jpg
https://image.nostr.build/0f56f71ae932890161e9228fe854cb7c621ad60ffc547469d4e0480b7538f643.png

2026-01-04 17:47:00 UTC

- reply

> over and over again teamed up with the commies, only for the commies to turn around and sell them out.
This is exactly what is happening on CCC and you are applauding it. Sorry, but what you are saying is not consistent at all.

2026-01-04 17:23:04 UTC

- reply

I really don't want to distort your arguments — I'm genuinely trying to understand your position.
For me, if someone makes their own website, I don't have any "freedom" or "right" to violently intrude into it, even if I find their ideology abhorrent or dangerous.
You've pointed to the paradox of tolerance, but that still doesn't answer the question: what gives anyone the authority to decide whose website deserves to exist? If we accept that intolerant ideologies forfeit their right to infrastructure, who decides what counts as "intolerant"?
Because from where I'm standing, everyone believes they're fighting intolerance. This framework just gives technical power the authority to enforce their definition.

2026-01-04 16:44:50 UTC

- reply

@npub1mzn…6mak Is this correct?
Tornado Cash helps the North Korean regime raise money that is used for authoritarian practices in their state. Unlike some racist dating site, here is a real impact and real help to the authoritarian regime. We can also talk about encrypted messengers, Signal and all other neutral and censorship-resistant tools. These networks undoubtedly enable bad actors, spread illegal content, CSAM and allow extremists to coordinate.
Even if 99.9% of people use these tools "for a good cause", we can never prohibit people with bad intentions from using them too. It is a price for freedom that we must pay if we want any freedom.
The only difference we can make is consistency.
If you cheer for hackers who decide which websites deserve to exist, you are validating the exact same logic the state uses to ban Tornado Cash. Both operate on the principle that some authority - whether a politician or a vanguardist hacker - has the right to destroy infrastructure they deem "dangerous".
You cannot be a Cypherpunk and a Vanguardist at the same time. One builds un-killable tools for everyone; the other assumes the authority to kill the tools of their enemies. If we want the moral high ground to defend privacy, we have to pay the price of tolerating the existence of things we hate. Anything less is just authoritarianism with a cooler aesthetic.

2026-01-04 16:26:24 UTC

https://image.nostr.build/b2b1a03952eb881fb5fa796cd0dff1f8bfa4bf3edd3decf6be3af2c0e184636c.png

2026-01-04 16:23:04 UTC

- reply

> the freedom of taking direct action against something you dont believe in
If direct action means pointing it out, explaining it, cursing it, removing these people from your property... then I totally agree. Having a stupid opinion is also freedom. But this goes much further. This was an aggressive attack on someone else's infrastructure, a violation of the non-aggression principle. Basically, the exact behavior we want to fight against.
So I don't see the difference between this and what the NSDAP did in Weimar. If racists were banning Jews from going to their own shops, publicly criticizing them, then ok... But the problem started when they started aggressively using violence to impose this on others.

2026-01-04 15:00:49 UTC

- reply

Sorry, but you're basically saying it's legitimate to destroy infrastructure based on what people believe (that others are inferior), not what they do. This is pure ideology policing. Who decides when dating preferences "convulge with" beliefs about inferiority?
Many people think certain political ideologies inherently view others as inferior. Communists think capitalists view workers as inferior. Capitalists think communists view individualists as inferior. Religious people think atheists view believers as inferior. Bitcoin maximalists think shitcoiners as inferior. All of these groups "organize against other people". Does any of this justify hacking their infrastructure?
These websites weren't organizing attacks. They weren't planning violence (I really haven't seen any evidence). They were expressing abhorrent opinions in their own corner.

2026-01-04 14:42:44 UTC

- reply

Thanks for engaging, L0la. I appreciate the discussion, but I think there's a fundamental flaw in this framework.
You say they "assume authority over others", but I watched the journalist's videos. I saw a few small websites where racists meet each other in their corner. There was zero factual danger from these websites. I saw swastikas, extremist people expressing opinions - sure, abhorrent opinions - but just opinions. They weren't exercising authority over anyone. They were organizing among themselves.
For me, it seems the opposite - CCC (which is de facto an institution at this point) and these hackers are the ones assuming authority over others. They decided which groups deserve infrastructure and which don't. They exercised power to destroy spaces they disapprove of. That's assuming authority.
With the same logic, we could now attack "black-only" sites, or any nationalist sites, or any group organizing around identity. The principle "they're trying to assume authority" is so broad it justifies attacking almost anyone you disagree with.
Democracy itself is fundamentally about "assuming authority over others." That's what voting is - 51% assuming authority over the other 49%. If you're really against people assuming authority over others, it would be far more consistent to support sabotaging all democratic political parties, not just the ones you personally don't like.
The "paradox of tolerance" doesn't solve this. Everyone believes they're fighting intolerance. White supremacists think they're defending against forces trying to destroy them. This framework and theirs seems structurally identical - both claim the right to preemptively attack because the other side is "intolerant". But this is exactly how tribal conflicts escalate into endless cycles of retaliation.

2026-01-04 13:54:49 UTC

- reply

My post wasn't much about Nostr, more about broader authoritarian trend I'm seeing across "hacker" communities like CCC or tech ones, like ActivityPub or AT Protocol, and in US/European culture generally.
Nostr may not be super intellectual, but from that perspective, it seems relatively okay compared to the others (that may be because its just small, and very monocultural).

2026-01-04 13:31:15 UTC

- reply

@npub1mzn…6mak I've followed your work for years. I'm genuinely grateful for your journalism, especially your defense of privacy, censorship-resistance and Tornado Cash.
That's why I'm confused seeing you say "more of this please" about the ccc incident. It seems counterproductive and contradictory to everything you've stood for. If infrastructure destruction based on ideology is acceptable, what principle protects Tornado Cash users, privacy tools, or any other infrastructure that powerful actors decide is "dangerous"?
I genuinely don't understand how this aligns with the principles you've defended before. Can you help me understand what I'm missing?

2026-01-04 13:11:17 UTC

I'm deeply concerned about what I saw from CCC this year, though CCC is just one example of a broader pattern. A journalist hacked a white supremacy dating site, extracted all data, and destroyed their infrastructure live on stage. The crowd celebrated. This seems to be the direction society is choosing, and I'm not sure it's leading anywhere good.
I need to say this clearly: I despise white supremacy. But I'm not writing about them. I'm writing about what's happened to hacker culture, and what this approach actually accomplishes.
The hacking ethos used to be about resisting power itself, not about wielding power against the right targets. We opposed surveillance, censorship, and centralized control as structural problems, not as things that were bad only when used by the wrong people. The principle was simple: concentrate power anywhere and it will be abused, so build systems that distribute it.
Somewhere along the way, that changed. "hacker culture" has become increasingly collectivist, increasingly comfortable with using force and control as long as it serves the correct ideology. The logic is seductive: we're the good guys, we're targeting bad people, therefore our use of power is justified. But that's exactly how every authoritarian movement justifies itself.
Here's what nobody seems willing to ask: what did this actually accomplish? I'd never heard of this white supremacy dating site before. It was probably a handful of people in their own corner of the internet, doing nothing of consequence. Now they're martyrs. Now they have a story about persecution by the powerful tech elite. Now they have proof that "the system" is out to destroy them, which is exactly the narrative that radicalizes people further.
This is basic human psychology. When you attack people's identity and destroy their spaces, you don't make them reconsider their beliefs. You confirm their worldview. You give them grievance. You push them deeper into their ideology and make them more willing to fight back. Every authoritarian regime understands this: if you want to eliminate an ideology, persecution is the worst possible approach. But it feels satisfying, and that's what matters to the crowd.
What we're doing is pouring gasoline on cultural and racial tensions. We're creating cycles of retaliation where each side sees the other as an existential threat that must be destroyed. The white supremacists see this hack as proof they're under attack. They'll radicalize further, recruit more effectively, and be more willing to use violence because they have a persecution narrative that's actually true. And when they retaliate, the other side will use that as justification for more aggressive action. This is how tribal conflicts escalate into wars.
Hacker culture used to understand that the tools we normalize using will eventually be used against us. When we cheer for infrastructure destruction targeting racists today, we're establishing that infrastructure destruction based on ideology is legitimate. What happens when the political winds shift? What happens when the people with power decide that anarchists, or activists, or minority communities are the "dangerous ideology" that needs to be hacked and destroyed? There is no principle left to appeal to, because we've already agreed that power is fine as long as we like the target.
The shift toward collectivist thinking, toward "solidarity" as the highest value, toward celebrating power when it's used against acceptable targets, this creates exactly the tribal dynamics that lead to conflict. When your identity is bound up in your collective, and the collective has decided who the enemy is, questioning the tactics becomes betrayal. Dissent becomes treason. And anyone pointing out that you're creating the very cycles of violence you claim to oppose gets treated as an enemy themselves.
Hackers used to be about building systems assuming those systems would be used against us, so we made them resilient and distributed. That required uncomfortable consistency: defending infrastructure neutrality even for people we despised, because the alternative was endless cycles of retaliation. We understood that you can't build a free society by normalizing the destruction of spaces you disagree with, because eventually someone will disagree with you.
The question isn't whether white supremacists are bad. Obviously they are. The question is whether we've become so focused on winning the current battle that we can't see we're creating the conditions for endless war. And whether we've forgotten that the point of hacker culture was to build systems that made such wars unnecessary, not to become better warriors in them.
#nevent1q…es5c

2026-01-04 01:43:37 UTC

- reply

I'm confused - is that supposed to be a good thing?
I don't like racists, but restricting freedom of speech seems much worse to me. Have the CCC hackers started enforcing censorship?

2026-01-03 14:30:49 UTC

- reply

Yeah we're early, starting with financial stuff. But operationally: Uniswap does billions in trustless exchange. Aave billions in permissionless lending. Prediction markets work despite governments fighting them for decades. Tornado Cash was so unstoppable they arrested the dev because they couldn't kill the protocol.
Thanks to Ethereum we have what Hayek and cypherpunks dreamed about, markets and tools that work regardless of regulatory approval.

2026-01-03 14:00:47 UTC

Bitcoin gave us digital gold - revolutionary and beautiful.
But Ethereum gave us something I'm constantly amazed by: the ability for anyone to create trustless, permissionless markets for ANYTHING. No lawyers, no regulators, no permission needed. Just deploy contracts and you have global coordination infrastructure.

2026-01-03 13:36:45 UTC

If you genuinely believe in freedom and permissionless systems, other people's choices don't threaten you. You shrug and say "not my thing, but you do you"