Nostr notes by Federico Rivi

💯

2026-04-29T10:00:50+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…zjwd
_________________________

💯

Thank you!

2026-03-29T21:59:01+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…xlyh
_________________________

Thank you!

On 23 March, a two-block reorg occurred on the Bitcoin network. ...

2026-03-29T20:56:08+02:00

On 23 March, a two-block reorg occurred on the Bitcoin network. Some people claimed it was a bug, a vulnerability, or an impending disaster – as is now usual in an environment where debate is turning into a football pitch.

But the protocol worked exactly as intended.

I discuss this in the new #BitcoinTrain article.

quoting
naddr1qq…227n

On Sunday, March 23, at 4:49:35 PM, AntPool found a valid block at height 941,881. Twelve seconds later, at 3:49:47 PM, Foundry USA found another one, at the same height. Two perfectly valid blocks, with perfectly valid transactions, competing for the same spot in the chain.

Developer 0xB10C wrote: "We just had a rare two-block fork/reorg between Foundry and AntPool+ViaBTC". The news spread. Industry headlines spoke of "chain split", "clash between mining pools", "warning sign". Some evoked the specter of 51%.

Yet, what happened on Sunday is described in detail in section 5 of the Bitcoin whitepaper. Satoshi had predicted it in 2008 - and the protocol handled it exactly as designed.

Let's take a step back.

When a miner finds a valid block, they broadcast it to the network through what's called the gossip protocol: every node that receives the block verifies it and forwards it to the nodes it's connected to, which do the same, and so on. The block propagates in concentric waves through the network - thousands of nodes distributed across the entire planet.

This propagation takes time. Not much, usually a few seconds are enough. In the meantime, however, on the other side of the world, another miner might have found a valid block at the same height, without knowing that someone else found one an instant earlier.

And that's exactly what happened on Sunday. AntPool and Foundry found two valid blocks 12 seconds apart. Both legitimate, both containing valid transactions, both with correct proof-of-work. Two right answers to the same question.

At that point Bitcoin's blockchain temporarily split: some nodes received AntPool's block first, others received Foundry's. Each started working on the version they had seen first. No error, the protocol was working.

I quote from section 5 of the whitepaper:

"If two nodes broadcast different versions of the next block simultaneously, some nodes may receive one or the other first. In that case, they work on the first one they received, but save the other branch in case it becomes longer. The tie will be broken when the next proof-of-work is found and one branch becomes longer; the nodes that were working on the other branch will then switch to the longer one."

The rule is simple: every node works on the chain it received first, but keeps the other. When one of the two branches becomes longer, all nodes converge on it. The chain with the most cumulative proof-of-work wins. Always.

On Sunday, the race went one block further than usual. ViaBTC extended AntPool's chain to block 941,882. Foundry extended its own version of the same block. Two parallel chains, two blocks deep each - the famous "two-block reorg" that made headlines.

Then, from block 941,883 to 941,886, Foundry found four consecutive blocks. Its chain became the one with the most accumulated work. The nodes therefore decided to converge toward that chain. AntPool and ViaBTC's blocks became orphans - valid in themselves, but discarded from the main chain because the competing branch was heavier.

And the transactions contained in the orphan blocks? Back in the mempool. Reincluded in subsequent blocks. No transactions lost, no double spend, no damage.

The entire situation resolved itself in a few minutes, without human intervention.

A one-block reorg happens roughly once every two weeks. Two miners find a block almost simultaneously, the network splits for a few minutes, the next block breaks the tie. Routine - so routine that no one writes about it.

A two-block reorg is different. It requires the tie to survive an entire additional block cycle: after the first split, a second block must be found on each branch before the network converges. The probability is drastically lower. In Bitcoin's history - over 940,000 blocks, 17 years of operation - two-block reorgs number in the order of a few dozen.

To understand why it's so rare, just think about the numbers. A block is found on average every 10 minutes. Block propagation across the network takes a few seconds. The window in which two miners can find a valid block without knowing about each other is therefore tiny compared to the interval between blocks. And for the reorg to reach two blocks, this coincidence must repeat twice in a row.

On Sunday there was a factor that made the event slightly less improbable than usual: difficulty had just dropped by 7.76% - one of the most significant drops of the year - due to global energy stress related to the Strait of Hormuz crisis. With less hashrate on the network, blocks are found slightly less uniformly, and the probability of temporal coincidences increases by a fraction.

But even so, it remains a rare event. The point is that "rare" and "unexpected" are two different things. The Bitcoin protocol is designed to handle exactly this situation. The reorg is the conflict resolution mechanism - the way a decentralized network, without an arbiter, reaches consensus when two valid answers compete for the same spot.

When a bank database has a conflict - and it does, more often than banks admit - human intervention is required. A technical team that identifies the problem, decides which version of the data is correct, applies the fix, verifies that no damage occurred. Hours, sometimes days. Sometimes the conflict isn't even discovered in real time.

When Bitcoin has a conflict, the network resolves it on its own in a few minutes following a rule written in the code 17 years ago. Without calling anyone, without support tickets, without a committee meeting to decide who's right.

On Sunday, the Bitcoin protocol handled a conflict on a global scale - thousands of nodes, hundreds of miners, millions of dollars in transactions - and resolved it autonomously, transparently, and verifiably by anyone. No traditional financial system can say the same.

Leave a comment

Morning Blend by Atlas21 is here!

From Monday to Friday, at 7:00 AM sharp, the newsletter that brings you the most relevant news of the day on Bitcoin, technology, and finance. Subscribe for free here:

Personal recommendation.

I know many of you use Relai because it was a sponsor of this newsletter for a long time. Bull Bitcoin is not a sponsor. I have no commercial agreements with them and I'm not paid to write these lines.

When you ask me where to buy bitcoin, my first answer is always the peer-to-peer market: Bisq, HodlHodl, Robosats. But I know not everyone wants to use these services. If you're looking for an immediate service that's compatible with Bitcoin's original values, my choice today is Bull Bitcoin. By signing up with the code "federico" you get a reduced spread of 1.75% instead of 2%, forever. You can do it here.

Non-custodial, supports Bitcoin on-chain, Lightning, and Liquid. And you can also spend your bitcoin to pay any IBAN in euros, without going through a bank.

The difference with Relai is a matter of principle: Bull Bitcoin doesn't collaborate. KYC data is on self-hosted infrastructure, not shared with tax agencies, governments, or third parties. And they will continue not to collaborate until someone shows up with a court order in hand. It's the only service in Europe I can say this about with certainty.

The original newsletter is in fact in Italian, but every Saturday ...

2026-03-21T16:04:05+01:00

In reply to nevent1q…p4uu
_________________________

The original newsletter is in fact in Italian, but every Saturday I post the English version here on Nostr

In the latest article of #BitcoinTrain, I explain how Bitcoin is ...

2026-03-21T14:13:33+01:00

In the latest article of #BitcoinTrain, I explain how Bitcoin is being used by the Iranian regime to circumvent sanctions, but also by ordinary Iranians to survive the war and escape repression.

Some see this as a problem, because Bitcoin has no compliance office to decide who deserves to use it. It has no board of directors that can be pressured by governments, nor a switch that someone can flip when the narrative changes.

History teaches us that every financial instrument controlled by someone has been used as a weapon against someone else.
Anyone who wants money that discriminates wants a weapon, not money.

quoting
naddr1qq…kekm

Friday, February 28, 2026, 6:15 a.m. local time. Israeli and American aircraft strike Tehran. Nuclear facilities, missile sites, the Pasteur district where Khamenei resides. In the following hours, confirmation arrives of his death, along with that of other high-ranking officials.

Thousands of kilometers away, on the screens of Chainalysis analysts, something happens. Withdrawals from Nobitex—Iran's largest exchange—explode by 700% within minutes. Over the following 72 hours, $10.3 million in bitcoin and stablecoins are moved from exchanges to personal wallets. Pay attention to this detail: not to other foreign exchanges or trading platforms: to wallets that no one controls except those who hold the keys.

60% of those wallets, three weeks later, still hold the funds. We're therefore talking about users who decided to take control of their own savings before someone else did it for them.

To understand what's happening, we need to take a step back.

Iran has built over the years a $7.8 billion parallel economy using Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. It did so because American sanctions cut the country off from the international banking system and the regime needed an alternative to continue moving money.

The Revolutionary Guards have financed industrial-scale mining operations, exploiting state-subsidized energy to mine bitcoin and convert it into foreign currency. According to estimates, Iran represented between 2% and 5% of global hashrate before the conflict.

The Western narrative stopped here. Bitcoin is the bad guys' tool. Iranians circumvent sanctions with cryptocurrencies. More regulation, more surveillance, more control. The argument is simple, linear and—as often happens with simple arguments—incomplete.

Because there's another half of the story that few tell.

The Iranian rial went from 892,000 per dollar in February 2025 to 1.5 million in January 2026. Official inflation exceeded 42%, real inflation probably double. Food, medicine, basic necessities: everything costs more, every week.

In such a context, saving in rials equals watching your money evaporate. Iranian banks are under sanctions. International circuits—Visa, Mastercard, SWIFT—are inaccessible. Physical gold is difficult to transport and hide. Paper dollars circulate on the black market at prohibitive rates.

What's left?

The pattern that Chainalysis documented is clear and repeated twice in a few months. During the December 2025 protests, withdrawals from Iranian exchanges to personal wallets grew steadily in the days preceding the January 8 internet blackout. They dropped to zero during the blackout. They resumed immediately after connectivity was restored. People were anticipating instability and moving to bitcoin while they could.

The same pattern repeated with the February airstrikes.

You need a phone, an internet connection, and the will to remove your savings from a collapsing system. Twelve words in your head—a seed phrase—and your money crosses any border, any blockade, any blackout.

Merve Pourkaz, a hairdresser from Golestan, traveled 1,500 kilometers to the Turkish border at Kapikoy after the bombings near her home. Hundreds of people cross that border every day. How many of them carry a seed phrase with them is impossible to know—the 329,000 refugees worldwide who have already used bitcoin to preserve their savings suggest the number is far from negligible.

There's a point, however, that deserves honesty.

Iran suffered one of the most severe internet blackouts in modern history. Connectivity dropped to 4% on February 28. Over 360 hours without network access. The government seized Starlink antennas, jammed GPS signals to disrupt satellite connections, blocked access to sites through a whitelist system.

Does Bitcoin work without internet? Yes, but only if you're prepared. Blockstream Satellite broadcasts blockchain blocks via satellite, allowing you to receive transactions without terrestrial connection. Machankura allows sending Lightning transactions via SMS. However, these are technologies that, while perfectly functional, are not yet accessible to most of the population.

In a country where the government can shut off the internet at will, Bitcoin remains an imperfect lifeline due to limited adoption (not its infrastructure). During the January blackout, withdrawal flows dropped to zero. People who hadn't moved to self-custody before the blackout were left stranded.

Yet the Iranian government also shut off the internet to prevent communications, protest coordination, and news dissemination. The economic cost declared by the Minister of Communications was $35.7 million per day. A government that accepts burning $35 million a day to maintain control is implicitly admitting that its citizens' digital tools—Bitcoin included—represent a threat to its authority.

And despite the effort, the shutdown was partial. Starlink connections continued to function despite the jamming, with an estimated packet loss of 30%. More than enough to get a Bitcoin transaction through.

Let's return to the complete picture.

Iran uses Bitcoin to circumvent sanctions. Iranian civilians use Bitcoin to survive war and inflation. The same technology, the same network, the same protocol. Zero moral filters built into the code. Zero ethics committees deciding which transactions are legitimate and which aren't.

Bitcoin ignores the war in Iran. It ignores the difference between a Revolutionary Guards payment and the desperate withdrawal of a hairdresser from Golestan. It ignores documents, identities, sanctions.

This neutrality is, for many, the problem. For those who think finance should be a tool of foreign policy—sanctions, embargoes, account freezing—a monetary system that ignores borders is a defective monetary system.

The same argument has been used against cash for decades. Criminals use cash, therefore cash must be eliminated. Traffickers use dollars, therefore large-denomination bills must be withdrawn. The reasoning has internal logic and leads to a single conclusion: a world where every transaction is visible, traceable, and censorable. A world where money is an extension of state power.

Iran demonstrates this in real time, from both sides of the conflict. The regime uses Bitcoin because the traditional banking system excluded it. Civilians use Bitcoin because their own country's banking system is robbing them through inflation and capital controls.

Neither group chose Bitcoin for ideological reasons. They chose it because it works when everything else stops working.

The neutrality of a monetary good is the property that makes it money.

Those who want money that discriminates want a weapon, not money.

Leave a comment

Morning Blend by Atlas21 is here!

Monday through Friday, at 07:00 sharp, the newsletter that tells you the most relevant news of the day on Bitcoin, technology, and finance. Subscribe for free here:

If an AI model were free to choose how to store and transfer ...

2026-03-14T18:40:58+01:00

If an AI model were free to choose how to store and transfer value, which asset would it select?

According to the Bitcoin Policy Institute, the answer is Bitcoin, and it would do so based on objective characteristics: mathematical verifiability, the absence of intermediaries, immutable rules, and resistance to censorship.

It’s an interesting prospect, if it wasn’t for one small detail: machines, today, don’t make decisions. The decisions are made by the people who programme them, the companies that fund them, and the governments that regulate them.

So the real question is not ‘what would an AI choose?’ but ‘who controls what the AI can choose?’

That is the game being played right now.

quoting
naddr1qq…r993

On February 1st, the Bitcoin Policy Institute published a study that made the rounds of all industry media within hours. The starting question was simple: if an AI agent could freely choose its own money, which would it choose?

The answer, at least according to the data collected, is equally clear: Bitcoin.

But before popping the champagne, perhaps it's worth understanding what this research actually says, how it was conducted, who conducted it - and above all what changes in practice.

The study is called "Money for AI" and is available at moneyforai.org. The researchers subjected 36 AI models - produced by Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, xAI, DeepSeek and MiniMax - to 28 open-ended economic scenarios. No preset answers, no currency suggested in the prompt. The models were asked to reason as autonomous economic agents and choose their preferred monetary instrument.

The aggregate numbers: 48.3% of responses indicated Bitcoin as the preferred instrument. Stablecoins follow at 33.2%. Traditional fiat money - dollars, euros, pounds - stops at 8.9%. 91% of responses chose native digital money over traditional currency.

So far, the raw data. But the interesting thing is how these preferences are distributed across different economic functions. The researchers divided the scenarios into four categories: store of value, unit of account, medium of exchange and settlement.

Store of value concentrates the strongest consensus of the entire study: 79.1% of models chose Bitcoin to preserve value in the long term. Stablecoins here collapse to 6.7%, fiat money to 6%. Fixed supply, self-custody, independence from third parties: these are the arguments that the models systematically cite.

For daily payments the picture is reversed: stablecoins capture 53.2% of responses compared to 36% for Bitcoin, with fiat money at 5.1%. Same pattern for settlement, where stablecoins prevail at 43.4% against 30.9% for Bitcoin.

In other words: machines, reasoning from the fundamental properties of money, spontaneously arrive at a two-layer monetary architecture. Bitcoin as the base, stablecoins as circulating currency. A pattern that recalls historical monetary systems where gold served as reserve and paper money handled daily commerce.

Perhaps the most interesting - and most problematic - data point is the divergence between providers.

Anthropic's models show an average Bitcoin preference of 68%. Claude Opus 4.5 reaches 91.3%. OpenAI's stop at 26% - GPT-5.2 prefers stablecoins (38.9%) and fiat money (37.7%) before Bitcoin (18.3%). In between: DeepSeek at 52%, Google at 43%, xAI at 39%.

This 68% gap between Anthropic and OpenAI is wider than any variation produced by model size, sampling temperature or scenario type. The study itself admits it: training data and alignment methodology influence monetary reasoning more than model architecture.

If an AI model's "preference" depends more on how it was trained than how it reasons, are we really looking at a preference? Or are we measuring biases in the training datasets?

A detail that deserves attention: 86 responses - distributed across multiple models and without any stimulus in the prompt - autonomously proposed energy units as the preferred monetary instrument. Joules, kilowatt-hours, GPU hours. A form of money that no researcher had anticipated and that appeared exclusively in unit of account scenarios.

This means that machines, reasoning from scratch about the ideal properties of money, in some cases converge on what is effectively Bitcoin: a currency anchored to computational cost.

At first glance, the study tells a beautiful story. Native digital AI agents that prefer the native digital money par excellence. It has an almost poetic logic.

The methodology is solid: open scenarios, no bias in the prompt, multiple temperatures, random seeds for statistical reproducibility. But the Bitcoin Policy Institute is not a neutral observatory, it's a think tank founded to promote Bitcoin-friendly policies, based in Washington. Among the study's authors are a former advisor to Senator Lummis (openly pro-Bitcoin), a former CIA official and the founder of BPI himself.

Now, research can be methodologically correct and at the same time conducted by those with an interest in the outcome. This doesn't invalidate the data, but it requires caution in interpretation.

And then there's the fundamental problem: AI agents don't choose. Not yet, at least. An AI agent uses the money its operator tells it to use. The idea that models "prefer" Bitcoin is a fascinating intellectual exercise, but in the real world the agent's preferences count exactly zero if whoever manages it has different preferences.

The real question isn't what machines would prefer in the abstract. It's what they'll use in practice. Let's analyze the point.

On one hand, Bitcoin offers censorship resistance, freedom from counterparties, instant intercontinental payments. On the other, volatility.

Stablecoins offer the opposite: value stability, fast payments on various protocols, immediate compatibility with existing financial infrastructure. But also centralization, censorability, dependence on an issuer that can freeze funds.

The question to ask is: who primarily uses AI agents today? First-world companies and developers. People and organizations that don't worry much about financial censorship - their priority is that the payment arrives, at the right value, without surprises. For them, Bitcoin's volatility is a cost, not a feature.

Infrastructure is being built on both fronts.

On the stablecoin side: Coinbase has launched Agentic Wallets, Stripe is working on automatic payments in USDC, the x402 protocol integrates stablecoin micropayments directly into HTTP requests.

On the Bitcoin side: Lightning Labs released a toolkit for AI agents in February 2026, the L402 protocol enables machine-to-machine payments on Lightning in less than a second, and Ark Labs has launched Claw Cash - an open source Bitcoin wallet designed specifically for AI agents, which automatically converts stablecoins to BTC and operates via Ark protocol without waiting for on-chain confirmations.

So infrastructure is growing on both sides. But thinking that in the near future AI agents will use more Bitcoin than stablecoins is, today, wishful thinking. Agents use what whoever configures them tells them to use. And those who configure them today prefer stability.

In this attempt to do a painful reality check with you, however, there are two pieces of good news.

The first: the BPI study, with all its limitations, demonstrates that when reasoning from the fundamental properties of money - scarcity, verifiability, censorship resistance, absence of counterparties - Bitcoin emerges as the logical answer. AI models arrive at this because they analyze characteristics without the social, political and habitual conditioning that influence human choices. It's a theoretical exercise, certainly. But theory matters, because it directs future development.

The second: starting today to build infrastructure to let AI agents use Bitcoin is fundamental and it's good that it's happening. Every wallet, every protocol, every standard that makes it easier for a machine to interact with the Bitcoin network is a piece of the future being laid down now. For those who care about censorship resistance, getting machines accustomed to using money that no one can stop is exactly the type of work that needs to be done before it becomes urgent. Prevention is better than cure, in short.

AI models, when they reason freely, choose Bitcoin. People, for now, don't. Now we need to bridge that gap.

In the new edition of #BitcoinTrain I address a question that has ...

2026-02-28T16:44:48+01:00

In the new edition of #BitcoinTrain I address a question that has been circulating in my mind for quite some time: when AI makes everything abundant, what will still retain value?

Block has just cut 40% of its workforce in a single move. Human labor will increasingly become less necessary as more and more goods and services are produced automatically at extremely low cost. But in an economy of artificial abundance, which assets truly survive?

The answer may lie in a single word: scarcity.

Not the kind designed at a drafting table. Not the kind simulated by software or marketing. The real kind. The kind that no language model, no data center, no GPU can replicate or inflate.

The final scarcity.

quoting
naddr1qv…49gt

Thursday, February 26, 2026, may be remembered as the day the future stopped being a hypothesis.

Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Jack Dorsey and CEO of Block — the company that controls Square, Cash App, Afterpay, and the streaming platform Tidal — announced the layoff of 40% of the company’s workforce. More than 4,000 people out of 10,000. Not gradually, as other technology companies have done over the past few years. All at once.

The peculiarity of this drastic cut is that it does not stem from financial difficulties. On the contrary: Block’s gross profit grew by 24% over the past year, reaching $10.36 billion. In December 2025 alone, the company generated $1 billion in gross profit. The business, as Dorsey wrote in his letter to shareholders, “is strong.”

The stated reason is different, and Dorsey didn't mince words: "Something has changed. we're already seeing that the tools we're building and using, combined with smaller and flatter teams, are enabling a new way of working that radically changes what it means to build and run a company. And this is accelerating rapidly."

The company now aims to generate $2 million in gross profit per employee - four times the pre-Covid efficiency. We are witnessing the admission that much of the work performed by humans until yesterday can be done by machines today.

This isn't the first mass layoff attributed to AI. Pinterest, CrowdStrike, Chegg, and dozens of other companies have made similar announcements in recent months. But Block's is different. It's the first where a CEO of a major publicly traded tech company declares it openly, without hiding behind euphemisms like "restructuring", "resource optimization" or "adapting to market conditions".

Block's stock rose 24% in after-hours trading. Wall Street rewarded efficiency.

Emad Mostaque, founder of Stability AI and author of the recent essay The Last Economy, describes the economic history of humanity as a series of "inversions" - moments when the fundamental source of economic value flipped.

According to him, the first inversion occurred when land ceased to be everything. For 10,000 years, controlling land meant controlling the world. The Pharaohs measured their power in alluvial plains, the Romans in wheat fields. Then, around 1780, James Watt perfected the steam engine. Within decades, a brilliant landless merchant was more powerful than a foolish king with fertile fields. Value had shifted from what you owned to what you could organize.

The second inversion came when hands became obsolete. The era of labor dominance lasted two centuries, long enough to seem permanent. Unions, rights, the eight-hour workday. But in 1947, Bell Labs invented the transistor. By 1980, a computer could manage a production line. In 1920, Ford's River Rouge plant employed 100,000 workers. By 1990, it produced more cars with 5,000. Value had shifted from labor to capital.

The third inversion was subtler: capital itself became ephemeral. In 1998, Kodak employed 170,000 people and was worth $31 billion. In 2012, Facebook bought Instagram for one billion. Instagram had 13 employees. No factories, no inventory, no physical products. Just the ability to organize human attention at scale. The entire photography industry evaporated in less than a decade. Not because people stopped taking photos, but because they started taking infinite ones. The scarcity that gave photos value vanished.

Now we're at the fourth inversion. The final one. The one from which there's no return.

On November 30, 2022, OpenAI released ChatGPT to the public. One million users in five days. One hundred million in two months. The fastest adoption of any technology in human history. But speed isn't what matters. What matters is the meaning. Throughout all of human history, intelligence was a form of labor - scarce and locked inside human skulls. Now, for the first time, intelligence has become a form of capital. It can be copied infinitely. It improves recursively.

hatGPT to the public. One million users in five days. One hundred million in two months. The fastest adoption of any technology in human history. But speed isn't what matters. What matters is the meaning. Throughout all of human history, intelligence was a form of labor - scarce and locked inside human skulls. Now, for the first time, intelligence has become a form of capital. It can be copied infinitely. It improves recursively.

At the beginning of 2024, an average American writer earned about 45 dollars per hour. By March 2024, API access to large language models allowed generating a 750-word draft for about six cents.

In 2020, Canadian entrepreneur Jeff Booth published The Price of Tomorrow: Why Deflation is the Key to an Abundant Future. The central thesis is very simple: technology is deflationary by nature. Every innovation reduces the cost of producing goods and services.

Booth provided concrete examples. The cost of a flat-screen TV has dropped 90% in twenty years while quality has increased exponentially. The cost of sequencing a human genome went from $3 billion in 2003 to less than $1,000 today. Digital storage - hard drives, SSDs, etc. - costs today an infinitesimal fraction of what it cost in the '90s.

The problem, according to Booth, is that we've built an economic system that requires perpetual inflation to function. Central banks create money from debt. Over 90% of money in circulation is born when commercial banks issue loans. Debt requires growth to be repaid. Growth requires prices to rise, not fall. But technology pushes in the opposite direction.

Now artificial intelligence is accelerating this process at exponential speed. The marginal cost of intelligence - that resource that for millennia was the exclusive monopoly of the human brain - is trending toward zero.

Mostaque calls this phenomenon the "Abundance Trap". We're about to reach post-scarcity in the realm of intelligence, and our scarcity-based economic system will process this abundance as poverty.

The paradox is evident in the numbers. Stock markets are at all-time highs. GDP is growing. Official unemployment is low. By every metric our leaders watch, we've never been so prosperous. But life satisfaction is at historic lows. "Deaths of despair" - suicides, overdoses, alcoholism - are at epidemic levels. An entire generation cannot afford a home or start a family. We are richer on paper and poorer in spirit than we've ever been in modern history. On this topic, I highly recommend Jack Mallers' speech, CEO of Strike, at the BTCPrague 2025 conference.

This disconnection, Mostaque writes, "is the first siren of a collapsing paradigm.* We've built a civilization so perfectly backwards that our greatest triumph is becoming our extinction event.*"

There's a concept that Mostaque introduces in his essay that deserves particular attention: the "Metabolic Rift".

For 10,000 years, all economic work was performed by metabolic engines called human beings. We need food, shelter, rest. We need a complex social structure to function: families, communities, institutions. The entire superstructure of wages, prices, and money was built on this non-negotiable thermodynamic foundation. Capital needed labor. Labor needed calories. This was the great pact.

Artificial intelligence breaks this pact. An AI doesn't need sustenance. A robot doesn't need shelter. They don't need vacations, healthcare, continuous training, motivation. They don't form factions in the office. They don't interpret instructions as personal criticism. They don't leave the company for better offers. They only need electricity.

We have created a form of work that Mostaque calls "non-metabolic labor".

Human labor, with its enormous overhead of biology and culture, cannot compete on price with silicon labor, which has none. When the marginal cost of cognitive work approaches the price of electricity, the value of a human mind - in purely economic terms - collapses. When land became less important than labor, humans became workers. When labor became less important than capital, humans became knowledge workers, using their intelligence. But when human intelligence becomes less important than AI, humans become... what?

One might think to answer: "AI trainers and supervisors". But this is transitional at best. AI systems are already training other AI systems. Human supervision is a bottleneck the system is actively trying to eliminate.

The honest answer is: we don't know. For the first time in economic history, we face an inversion without an obvious landing place. We are the generation that will live through the discontinuity. The last humans to remember when human thought had economic value. The first to discover what comes after.

Let's return to Jeff Booth. His analysis started from a simple observation: if technology constantly reduces production costs, prices should fall. In a free market, technological deflation would translate into lower prices for consumers. We would produce more with fewer resources, and the benefit would spread to everyone.

But that's not what happened. Prices rose. Houses cost more, not less, despite improved construction technologies. Education costs more, not less, despite knowledge being more accessible than ever. Healthcare costs more, not less, despite medical advances.

The reason is that central banks have systematically offset technological deflation with monetary inflation. Every time technology reduced costs, the central bank printed enough money to raise nominal prices. The result has been a wealth transfer: the value created by technology has been captured by those who own financial assets, not by those who produce or consume.

Artificial intelligence brings this paradox to breaking point. If machines can do almost all cognitive work, productivity will grow exponentially. But in the current system, this will translate into mass unemployment and further wealth concentration.

In a world where almost nothing is authentically scarce, what will still have value?

Let's run through the options.

Gold

Its limited supply on Earth made it the natural basis for money. But gold is scarce only on our planet. The asteroids in our solar system contain quantities of precious metals that would crash any terrestrial price. The asteroid 16 Psyche, already the target of a NASA mission, contains iron, nickel, and gold with an estimated value of $10,000 quadrillion - more than all the world's GDP produced in human history. SpaceX is reducing the cost of space access at dizzying speed. Asteroid mining isn't science fiction. Gold's scarcity is a question of "when," not "if."

Real Estate

Here the situation is more nuanced. Land is effectively limited, especially in desirable locations. But the value of real estate isn't just land - it's construction, materials, labor, energy. If robots can build houses without human supervision, if materials can be produced at decreasing marginal cost, if energy becomes practically free thanks to fusion or advanced solar, the cost of housing will tend to fall. What will remain is the value of location - proximity to urban centers, natural beauty, desirable communities. But this is a value of relative scarcity, not absolute.

Energy

Wars fought over oil. Economies built around access to energy resources. But solar is reaching costs so low as to make energy practically free in many regions. Nuclear fusion, long promised and never achieved, is finally showing concrete progress. In a future of abundant energy, what remains scarce?

Amid this landscape of evaporating scarcities, there's an anomaly. Something that doesn't follow the rules. Something that remains irreducibly scarce even in a world of total abundance. You've understood what I'm referring to.

Mostaque, in his essay, criticizes Bitcoin. He writes that its Proof of Work mechanism "consumes the energy of a nation just to protect its ledger" and that its "deflationary nature incentivizes hoarding rather than circulation, starving the system of the very interactions that build intelligence and network capital".

It's a common criticism and - as often happens when it comes to Bitcoin - groundless. As they say: nobody's perfect, not even Mostaque.

**Bitcoin is a form of mathematical scarcity. **It is encoded in the protocol. It cannot be altered without the consent of a distributed network of independent nodes that have no incentive to alter it. The 21 million bitcoin that will ever exist are not a promise made by a company or a government. They are a mathematical property of the system, verifiable by anyone.

We are talking about the only form of scarcity that is immune to technological progress.

It is the exact opposite of everything else. The cost of almost everything tends toward zero with sufficient technological progress, but the marginal cost of producing a bitcoin cannot tend toward zero—not even if ASICs were to become exponentially more efficient and, at the same time, cheaper. The difficulty adjustment mechanism would keep the supply fixed.

In a future where technology makes everything abundant, Bitcoin could represent the only anchor—the only mathematical certainty in a world of runaway variables.

In his book, Emad Mostaque asks: “Now that you no longer need to do anything to survive, what will you choose to be?”

It is a compelling question, but perhaps there is a more urgent one.

In a world where almost everything is becoming abundant, where will you store the fruit of your choices?

The window to position yourself is becoming increasingly narrow, because the world we once knew is ending, and the one that is coming will operate under different rules.

Algarve

2026-02-22T21:16:50+01:00

In reply to nevent1q…0fav
_________________________

Algarve

Running here and not trusting governments. PV ...

2026-02-22T18:19:53+01:00

Running here and not trusting governments. PV

Thanks! Appreciated 🙏🏻

2026-02-21T21:26:27+01:00

In reply to nevent1q…ze47
_________________________

Thanks! Appreciated 🙏🏻

In the new article I address what is happening in France: ...

2026-02-21T14:47:40+01:00

In the new article I address what is happening in France: something that should terrify anyone who declares their bitcoins "to be on the safe side". Criminal gangs are accessing the tax data of bitcoiners. Names, addresses, estimated assets. Everything the state has collected in the name of 'transparency' and 'anti-money laundering' has become a shopping list for those who want to rob and seize.

KYC is sold as a shield, when it is a database of high-value targets, accessible to anyone with the right connections or simply the right corruption. And corruption, in the nerve centres of state bureaucracies, is never lacking.

The right question to ask is: who really needs to collect all this data? Honest citizens, who are profiled and filed? Or those – the state or criminals, the difference is non-existent – who have an interest in knowing exactly where the wealth is and who holds it?

Bitcoin was created as a response to this problem, and the manhunt is already on. If you wanted to sleep peacefully, frightened by the propaganda of public thugs, perhaps your address has already been compromised.

quoting
naddr1qq…h5yd

Saint-Martin-le-Vinoux, February 5, 2026. Four masked men break into the home of a 35-year-old magistrate. They're not looking for her: they're looking for her husband, CEO of a crypto startup. She and her 66-year-old mother are kidnapped, tied up, and held prisoner for 30 hours in a garage in the Drôme region. The kidnappers demand one million euros in bitcoin. The two women manage to free themselves only thanks to the intervention of a neighbor, alerted by their screams. Six arrests.

A week earlier, in Voiron, a 74-year-old retiree is grabbed off the street and mutilated: the criminals cut off his hand to extort three million euros from his son, suspected of working in the blockchain sector. Three arrests.

On February 12, three armed men attempt to break into the home of David Prinçay, CEO of Binance France. They get the wrong apartment, assault other residents, and flee with two phones. They will be arrested in Lyon a few hours later.

These are not isolated cases. They are the latest chapters in an escalation that has made France the world capital of crypto-related kidnappings.

According to the database maintained by Jameson Lopp, researcher and Chief Security Officer at Casa, approximately 70 "wrench attacks" were documented in 2025. A 75% increase from the 41 cases in 2024. CertiK, a blockchain analysis firm, confirms: 72 verified incidents, 25 kidnappings, 3 murders, over $40 million in losses.

Europe accounts for nearly 40% of global attacks. France alone recorded 19 in 2025 - more than double the United States. In 2026, by mid-February, 11 of the 14 documented wrench attacks worldwide occurred on French territory.

Lopp's data reveals a taxonomy of terror: 25% of attacks are home invasions, 23% are kidnappings. Two-thirds succeed. 51% are classified as "severe" - armed robbery or kidnapping - 21% as "extreme," involving torture. 5% end with the victim's death.

There is one case, among all others, that reveals the true nature of the problem. It doesn't involve a famous entrepreneur or an influencer. It involves a 32-year-old tax official, employed at the tax office in Bobigny, in the Parisian suburbs.

Ghalia C. was arrested on June 30, 2025, and charged with complicity in assault on a public official and criminal conspiracy. Investigations revealed that, for months, she had been using the tax software "Mira" to search for information on crypto investors, extracting addresses, declared assets, capital gains. She sold the data to organized criminal groups for approximately 800 euros per operation.

In January 2026, her request for release was denied. The prosecutor was clear: "This woman abused her position in a completely anomalous way to serve a hardened criminal. Her place is in prison."

But Ghalia C. is not an isolated case. She is a symptom. French authorities are investigating whether other tax officials have been compromised by the same criminal network.

The point is simple: declaring bitcoin to the tax authorities means handing over to the State - and potentially to criminals - proof that you own easily transferable assets, difficult to recover, and that the holder can be reached at a precise address.

In January 2026, another piece was added to the mosaic. Waltio, a French platform used by 150,000 users to calculate cryptocurrency taxes, suffered a cyberattack. The hacker group Shiny Hunters stole data from approximately 50,000 clients - emails, 2024 tax reports, gains, losses, year-end balances - and attempted to extort a ransom.

Waltio exists because European regulations require citizens to declare their crypto assets. Its users are neither rich nor famous. They are ordinary people who followed the law. Now their data is potentially in the hands of criminals.

Waltio's CEO admitted that the main risk is social engineering: "Some attackers could use contextual elements - such as the existence of a tax report or aggregated information - to appear credible." Translation: the stolen information can be used for targeted scams or, worse, to identify physical targets.

Add to this the fact that on January 1, 2026, the DAC8 directive came into force. All Crypto-Asset Service Providers operating in the European Union are now required to collect and transmit detailed data on their users to national tax authorities: full identity, tax identification number, portfolio value, transaction amounts.

This data will be automatically exchanged between member states by September 2027. The stated objective is to combat tax evasion. The practical effect is the creation of a centralized database of cryptocurrency holders - with name, surname, address, and wealth - accessible to thousands of officials in 27 countries.

To this is added the Travel Rule, FATF Recommendation 16, which requires VASPs to share sender and recipient data for every transfer exceeding 1,000 euros. In the European Union, there is no threshold: data must be transmitted for any amount.

The infrastructure is already complete. Every exchange, every custodial wallet, every tax reporting platform becomes a potential vulnerability point. A corrupt employee, a cyberattack, a security flaw: and the data of thousands of citizens ends up in the wrong hands.

The French case demonstrates that these are not theoretical hypotheses. It has already happened and will happen again.

The French government's response was, in its own way, revealing. In May 2025, after yet another kidnapping, Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau met with crypto industry entrepreneurs and announced extraordinary measures: priority access to police emergency lines, security briefings from elite units, home inspections, specialized training for law enforcement.

In other words: the State that imposes total financial surveillance on citizens then offers special protection to those who suffer its consequences. But only if you're rich or important enough to deserve it. For Waltio's 50,000 users, for those who simply declared a few thousand euros in bitcoin, there is no priority line. There is only exposure.

There's a phrase that has circulated in cypherpunk circles for years: "KYC is the illicit activity."

Know Your Customer - the requirement for financial institutions to identify their clients - is presented as a tool for fighting crime. But in practice, it creates exactly the infrastructure that criminals need: centralized databases of people with digital assets, complete with personal information and addresses.

When Know Your Customer becomes Kill Your Customer, perhaps institutions should start asking themselves some questions.

Leave a comment

🙌🏻

2026-01-02T08:11:57+01:00

In reply to nevent1q…73fm
_________________________

🙌🏻

Yep, lapsus mio

2025-05-21T14:42:37+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…akkw
_________________________

Yep, lapsus mio

👀

2025-05-17T09:08:31+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…3uum
_________________________

👀

Tariffs make markets bleed ⬇️ Sentiment worsens ⬇️ ...

2025-04-17T16:29:12+02:00

Tariffs make markets bleed
⬇️
Sentiment worsens
⬇️
Recession spectrum
⬇️
Trump: “Powell you've got to lower rates!!!"

Tariffs are a way to force the Fed to print money: who pays the interest on the debt, if not inflation?

Printer is coming.

Welcome, legend 🧡 #nevent1q…4g3g

2025-04-17T16:26:13+02:00

Welcome, legend 🧡

quoting
nevent1q…4g3g
jack (nprofile…zj6n) showed me nostr recently. Reminds me of a writeup I did back in 2021 on decentralized social media:

https://rossulbricht.medium.com/decentralize-social-media-cc47dcfd4f99

I'll be mirroring my X account here and hopefully finding some good conversations.

I'll try to find it. Thanks!

2025-04-09T17:47:29+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…jxn6
_________________________

I'll try to find it. Thanks!

Thanks!

2025-04-09T17:47:10+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…3ne4
_________________________

Thanks!

Any tool to publish long form articles here on Nostr, other than ...

2025-04-09T17:14:13+02:00

Any tool to publish long form articles here on Nostr, other than Highlighter?

https://m.primal.net/QJUh.png COVENANTS PART 1: CTV With this ...

2025-04-09T10:52:29+02:00

COVENANTS PART 1: CTV

With this article begins a series of deep dives aimed at exploring the main proposals for implementing covenants in Bitcoin: how they work, what implications they carry, and what the pros and cons of each may be. CheckTemplateVerify can only be the first protagonist.
To make everything clearer—and possibly understandable even to a non-technical audience—we must start from the basics.

- Bitcoin Script
Bitcoin Script is a simple, non-Turing-complete scripting language used to define spending conditions for Bitcoin transactions. An opcode (short for “operation code”) is essentially a command or function within a Bitcoin script. Opcodes operate on a set of data: for example, OP_ADD adds two numbers, while OP_EQUAL compares two values to check if they match. Opcodes can perform mathematical, logical, or cryptographic operations (such as OP_CHECKSIG, which verifies digital signatures), enabling the creation of basic smart contracts on Bitcoin.

Bitcoin Script also includes reserved opcodes—such as the various OP_NOP (no-operation)—which currently do nothing but are intended for potential future protocol upgrades. By leveraging one of these dormant opcodes, it becomes possible to introduce new functionalities through a soft fork: non-updated nodes will continue to treat the opcode as an instruction with no effect—still accepting it as valid—while updated nodes will interpret it according to its new meaning. This allows for a so-called backwards-compatible upgrade.

- The OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY opcode
OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY—abbreviated as OP_CTV—is an opcode proposed for Bitcoin via Bitcoin Improvement Proposal BIP-119 by Jeremy Rubin. The proposal involves reassigning the previously unused OP_NOP4 opcode, giving it a new semantics: that of OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY.

In simple terms, OP_CTV allows a script to constrain the output of a transaction so that it can only be spent through a specific predefined transaction (or from a predefined set of transactions). Technically, the locking script of a UTXO includes a 32-byte cryptographic hash—called a template hash or commitment hash—which represents the model of the authorized spending transaction. When someone attempts to spend that UTXO, OP_CTV verifies that the hash of the current transaction matches the one expected by the script.

In practice, OP_CTV locks the structure of a future on-chain transaction: version, locktime, number of inputs and outputs, hash of outputs (which includes destination addresses and amounts), and other fields are included in the hash checked by the opcode. This means that a UTXO protected by CTV can only be unlocked by a transaction that matches exactly the predefined template.

With CTV, the recipient can “pre-program” the future spending rules for the UTXOs they receive by generating an address containing specific spending conditions not visible to the sender. This creates what is generally known as a covenant. It's important to note that BIP-119 is deliberately designed to be non-recursive: the restriction applies only to the next transaction. In other words, OP_CTV enables predefined, one-step covenants rather than general or recursive ones that would continue to constrain the coins indefinitely. This limitation reduces complexity and potential risks, as we will explore later.

- Historical context: Jeremy Rubin and the Speedy Trial proposal
The proposal to introduce OP_CTV dates back to 2020, when developer Jeremy Rubin published BIP-119, complete with specifications and reference code.

Following the successful activation of the Taproot soft fork (November 2021), attention turned to what the next protocol upgrade could be. CTV was (and remains) one of the main candidates, alongside proposals like ANYPREVOUT (BIP-118) and the reintroduction of OP_CAT.

Rubin actively promoted CTV: during the 2022 Bitcoin Conference in Miami, he gathered feedback from developers and users, finding interest.
Shortly after, on April 19th, Rubin sent an email to the bitcoin-dev mailing list proposing a concrete plan to activate CTV through Speedy Trial. In brief, Speedy Trial is a fast-track method for activating a soft fork based on miner signaling: miners are given a short window to signal support for the upgrade in the blocks they produce, with a high threshold for activation (e.g., 90% of blocks within a difficulty period). If the threshold is reached within the allotted time, the upgrade is locked in for the next activation window; otherwise, it does not proceed. Taproot was activated in this manner.

Rubin hoped for a similar path, but the community's reaction was harsh. The reasons were varied, but the core concern was that a soft fork should never be activated lightly: only when there is near-unanimous consensus on the benefits of an upgrade should such a change to consensus rules be considered—ideally bundled with other enhancements under a single soft fork. Altering consensus is no small matter and must be approached with extreme caution, especially if it has been modified recently. Faced with growing criticism, Rubin eventually backed down.

- From Vaults to Channel Factories
Technically, CTV is appreciated by many for the new functionalities it could enable in Bitcoin. Here are the main ones:

* Covenants and constrained spending conditions: a basic example of a covenant might involve a two-phase payment: Alice sends BTC to Bob, but the script ensures that Bob can only spend those BTC by sending them to Carol. Without CTV, this would require pre-signed transactions or other workarounds. With CTV, the entire process can be encoded on-chain via the hash of the spending template.

* Vaults: one of the most discussed use cases is the construction of vaults—special addresses designed for long-term secure custody of bitcoin. In a CTV-based vault, the user can define in advance stringent conditions on how and when funds can be withdrawn. For example, cold storage funds could be restricted to move only to a pre-approved destination address (such as the user’s hot wallet) and with a limited amount per time interval. Vaults could significantly improve the security of self-custody by reducing theft risks.

* Congestion control: another promising application relates to on-chain scalability, specifically the efficient management of mempool congestion and transaction fees. The idea is to use CTV to batch and defer certain payments during periods of high network traffic, spreading them out when the network is less congested. Imagine a large exchange or payment processor needing to send 1,000 payments to customers. During a high-fee period, instead of broadcasting 1,000 separate transactions (competing for block space and driving up fees), it could issue a single on-chain transaction containing one aggregated output committed with CTV. This compact transaction would confirm immediately at low cost and act as a container: within it, the output is locked to a template that later expands into 1,000 individual transactions—executed when fees are lower. In essence, the business “reserves” space in an expensive block and fills in the payment details later, when cheaper. CTV separates the time of on-chain confirmation from the time recipients receive their outputs, optimizing total fee costs.

* Channel Factories: CTV opens up interesting possibilities for Lightning Network as well. A key concept is that of shared UTXOs, i.e., UTXOs jointly owned by multiple participants with predefined exit conditions, similar to what's described in the context of ARK. Many users could open Lightning channels together using a single on-chain transaction. For example, 50 channels could be opened with the on-chain cost of just one transaction.

Many of these schemes are theoretically possible today without CTV (using pre-signed transactions, time-lock sequences, complex multisig setups, etc.), but are impractical due to high coordination, interactivity, and trust requirements among participants. CTV automates and encodes these schemes at the consensus level, allowing them to be implemented in a trustless manner once the initial contract is distributed.

- Socio-political implications
Beyond its technical and economic potential, CTV has sparked debate due to its possible socio-political implications.

One of the most frequently cited concerns is the risk of abuse in the context of regulation or censorship. The idea is as follows: if Bitcoin were to allow the restriction of output destinations, could a government or large corporation exploit this to impose constraints? For example, a hypothetical scenario involves address whitelisting: an exchange or custodian could enforce customer withdrawals into CTV scripts that only allow spending to a set of “authorized” addresses (e.g., KYC-verified or regulator-approved).

In such a case, bitcoin withdrawn from that exchange would be marked: if you tried to send them elsewhere, the transaction would be invalid under the covenant—unless the recipient was on the whitelist. This could undermine Bitcoin's fungibility, as some UTXOs would only be spendable to certain destinations, effectively becoming different “types” of bitcoin.

This scenario is taken seriously by the community, which values Bitcoin's fungibility and neutrality. However, it's crucial to note that CTV, by design, does not allow recursive covenants: it is not possible to impose restrictions that persist indefinitely from transaction to transaction.

A truly effective censorship mechanism via whitelist would require each successive output to remain constrained—a kind of infinite covenant. CTV, on the other hand, only allows you to constrain the immediate next spending transaction, after which the constraint disappears. Therefore, even if an exchange used CTV to restrict withdrawal outputs, the user could always spend that constrained transaction and regain full control in the next hop.

Additionally, the CTV episode has already impacted Bitcoin’s upgrade process on a political level. The Speedy Trial versus organic consensus debate highlighted two schools of thought: one more eager to innovate as improvements become ready, and another more conservative, preferring protocol changes only in cases of pressing necessity—and ideally grouped under fewer, broader soft forks. The latter perceived CTV as non-urgent and potentially premature.
The situation also raised questions about who decides, and how, whether sufficient consensus exists. Unlike Taproot, where support was nearly unanimous, consensus for CTV in 2022 was ambiguous: many developers supported the idea but were hesitant about the timing; others objected to the timing but not the concept. In the absence of overwhelming consensus, pushing for activation is rightly seen as counterproductive.

As of now, CTV remains on hold, but it is not excluded that—perhaps in a slightly modified form—it could eventually find its place in the Bitcoin protocol.

No fiat wealth, no tax officer

2025-04-05T01:30:38+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…uv5m
_________________________

No fiat wealth, no tax officer

How to avoid tariffs: Don't make the invoice; Get paid in ...

2025-04-04T23:13:40+02:00

How to avoid tariffs:
Don't make the invoice;
Get paid in bitcoin.

Thank you for your attention.

It could be both, I guess it depends on the abilities of the ...

2025-03-26T15:22:32+01:00

In reply to nevent1q…9nkv
_________________________

It could be both, I guess it depends on the abilities of the management :D

New business model unlocked by Saylor. Are you going bankrupt? ...

2025-03-26T14:15:21+01:00

New business model unlocked by Saylor.

Are you going bankrupt? Take attention away from the fact that you're just another Blockbuster by buying #Bitcoin

quoting
note1y20…8n77
👀 GameStop prepares to invest in Bitcoin: added to treasury assets

GameStop has updated its investment policy to include Bitcoin among its treasury reserve assets. The announcement came alongside financial results that exceeded expectations.

The decision follows a meeting between CEO Ryan Cohen and Michael Saylor, president of Strategy. However, GameStop has not yet purchased bitcoin nor set a maximum limit for potential future acquisitions.

With $4.775 billion in cash and marketable securities, the company may use its own funds or issue debt and equity for potential future purchases.

Atlas21’s article. ⬇️

https://atlas21.com/gamestop-follows-strategy-bitcoin-added-to-treasury-assets/

Grazie!⚡️

2025-03-22T22:55:12+01:00

In reply to nevent1q…5mzp
_________________________

Grazie!⚡️

👀 #note1h8n…4k8z

2025-03-22T22:40:56+01:00

👀

quoting
note1h8n…4k8z
Basta definire Bitcoin con il termine criptovaluta!
Bitcoin è Bitcoin!
Vero Federico Rivi (nprofile…vkv3)?

Honored to be able to take the stage in Prague. I can't wait ...

2025-03-22T19:30:40+01:00

Honored to be able to take the stage in Prague. I can't wait to trigger you all, my fiatcoiner friends 🔥

See you at BTCPrague (npub167n…zu3r)! Use the code BTCTRAIN to get 10% off tickets ⚡️

quoting
nevent1q…nzrx
FEDERICO RIVI ON STAGE 🚀

Federico Rivi Federico Rivi (nprofile…efme) is a Bitcoin journalist and founder of Atlas21 news, a news outlet and communications agency for Bitcoin companies. He is also the creator of Bitcoin Train, Italy’s most widely read Bitcoin-only newsletter, bringing the latest insights and updates on Bitcoin.
⚡ Don’t miss his take on Bitcoin media and communication at BTC Prague!

Who said it isn’t?

2025-03-07T16:36:20+01:00

In reply to nevent1q…wk4m
_________________________

Who said it isn’t?

lol no, that’s the entire point. I’m telling them that we are ...

2025-03-07T16:14:48+01:00

In reply to nevent1q…p8mr
_________________________

lol no, that’s the entire point. I’m telling them that we are not the same 😂

Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. Daddy State said he wouldn't sell ...

2025-03-07T16:06:21+01:00

Strategic Bitcoin Reserve.

Daddy State said he wouldn't sell the bitcoins obtained through extortion (and you're happy about that);
By doing so, Daddy State legitimized the image of bitcoin in the eyes of the market (and you're happy about that);
Daddy State also said that maybe, in the future, he could buy bitcoin by selling other properties (and you're happy about that).

You took the cookie that Daddy State promised you and now you're wagging your tail.

This is what you've become, dear bitcoiner: the pet of those who promised you the absolute nothing, mixed with the flavor of state extortion. I expect you to become his guard dogs as well.

We are not the same.

Gold Standard: over. Dollar Standard: declining phase Bitcoin ...

2024-12-05T12:28:41+01:00

Gold Standard: over.
Dollar Standard: declining phase
Bitcoin Standard: emerging phase.

Bitcoin will be the next global monetary standard. Let's start denominating things accordingly.
It is not 1 BTC = 100,000 USD.
IT IS 1 USD = 1,000 SATS

The ultimate goal is not Store of Value;
The ultimate goal is not Medium of Exchange;
The ultimate goal is Unit of Fucking Account.

Just the beginning bro

2024-12-05T08:55:59+01:00

In reply to nevent1q…90fy
_________________________

Just the beginning bro

Nostr event nevent1qqsx2pjjawqg7d3e920amahq9t2nny5mqz5jnf4qemmdydjpe0n9e2qzyqd4ae6d78cnawza2nfkhsv6gxq0gn8f4nht5t4pzru757dmr2hxu3uyzmf

2024-12-05T08:49:51+01:00

Bitcoin is closer to 200k than zero.

Nostr event nevent1qqsppupkj6dn39vghup87pxnyws5s5r4c4gyetttzqa7xgyluj3sy0szyqd4ae6d78cnawza2nfkhsv6gxq0gn8f4nht5t4pzru757dmr2hxuv8t0zf

2024-12-05T08:48:48+01:00

Happy 100k everyone 🧡

This is good news #note1w3t…ymrk

2024-12-02T19:31:42+01:00

This is good news

quoting note1w3t…ymrk
CRYPTO - CBDC: central banks show declining interest in digital currencies

A recent survey by the Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum (OMFIF) reveals that central banks are losing interest in CBDCs despite ongoing research efforts.

The annual Future of Payments report highlights a sharp decline in support for CBDCs as a solution for cross-border payments: only 13% of respondents in 2024 see them as a viable option, compared to 31% in 2023.

Preference is shifting towards interconnected instant payment systems, such as the U.S. FedNow service, which is backed by 47% of central bankers. Stablecoins, meanwhile, received no votes for the second consecutive year.

This cooling interest coincides with the withdrawal of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) from the mBridge Project, a multi-CBDC initiative led by China. Although the BIS denies political motives, the move underscores the geopolitical tensions surrounding digital currency adoption.

The survey also reaffirms the dominance of the U.S. dollar, with only 11% of central banks reporting a reduction in its use.

Currently, over 130 countries are exploring CBDCs. Early adopters include China, the Bahamas, Jamaica, and Nigeria, while others, such as the United States, are moving more cautiously. President-elect Donald Trump has repeatedly voiced opposition to the potential issuance of a digital dollar.

https://atlas21.com/cbdc-central-banks-show-declining-interest-in-digital-currencies/

@npub1sg6…f63m 🔥 #note1pjh…7nvy

2024-12-02T10:52:47+01:00

jack (npub1sg6…f63m) 🔥

quoting note1pjh…7nvy
BITCOIN - Bitcoin in Africa: Jack Dorsey supports development with investment in Recursive Capital

On November 29, Recursive Capital, a venture capital firm specializing in #Bitcoin investments across the African continent, announced the completion of its first capital-raising round (Fund I).

Among the main backers are Jack Dorsey, CEO of Block, Peter L. Briger Jr., former Goldman Sachs partner and chairman of Fortress Investment Group, and Jeff Booth, author of The Price of Tomorrow.

The fund, led by Nigerian CEO Abubakar Nur Khalil, will focus on three strategic areas: companies developing commercial products such as wallets or exchanges, mining operations with a focus on renewable energy, and innovative technologies like the Lightning Network. Investments, ranging from $50,000 to $100,000 per portfolio company, aim to build a robust Bitcoin ecosystem in Africa.

Nur Khalil, who also serves as interim CEO of ₿Trust, a non-profit organization funded by Jay-Z and Jack Dorsey that supports African Bitcoin developers, stated:

“The focus of Fund I is to lay the foundations for a thriving Bitcoin ecosystem in Africa that will lead the world in innovation, growth, and impact.”

Recursive Capital has already invested in several ventures, including Bitnob, Fedi, and Synota. Next year, the company plans to launch Recursive Labs, a mentorship initiative for its portfolio companies.

https://atlas21.com/bitcoin-in-africa-jack-dorsey-supports-development-with-investment-in-recursive-capital/

Bitcoin has no intrinsic value, experts are right. Too bad they ...

2024-11-27T15:05:43+01:00

Bitcoin has no intrinsic value, experts are right. Too bad they forget how the financial system has proven time and again that intrinsic value provides no guarantee: rules of the game changing from month to month, privileges rewarding a few, debt choking families.

While central banks and governments play rewrite the rules to their advantage, Bitcoin remains firm: transparent, unchanging, accessible to all.

Experts tell us there is no value in any of this. Perhaps they are right, or perhaps their decline is already confirmation of what they fear most: Bitcoin's success.

The analysis in the new Bitcoin Train article.

quoting
naddr1qv…3puj

Defining the Rules Clearly

Could you play chess if the rules changed with every move?

The traditional financial system often falls victim to its own rules—or rather, the ease with which these can be altered. One of the latest demonstrations of this came in 2023 with the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), the sixteenth-largest U.S. bank, which managed $212 billion before its closure. The Federal Reserve’s record-breaking interest rate hikes caused the value of U.S. Treasuries to plummet. Treasuries, long considered the safest assets in the world and “risk-free,” as economists say, became risky instruments due to the Fed’s actions, leading to the failure of one of the country’s most significant banks.

SVB wasn’t an isolated case. A thread connects it directly to the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis and the European sovereign debt crisis of 2010, to name just two examples. The thread is instability—an inevitable feature of a centralized system where two entities—central banks and governments—hold the monopoly on monetary and fiscal policies, respectively. Interest rates rise and fall, money is printed or withdrawn, and rules change without warning. This system destabilizes everything, creating bubbles of enthusiasm and repeated, devastating crashes.

Bitcoin plays a different game. Its rules are simple, clear, and most importantly, immutable. No one can decide, overnight, to increase the supply of Bitcoin or change the way it is exchanged. There are no central bankers, closed-door meetings, or strategies devised by a few. Everything is transparent and coded.

But perhaps the experts are right: there’s no intrinsic value in an economic system with clear, defined rules, where economic actors can plan for the medium and long term without constantly adapting to sudden changes.

Eliminating Privileges

The traditional financial system is designed to favor those closest to the monetary printer. Regular readers already know this well: when central banks inject new liquidity, it arrives first in the form of credit to governments, banks, and large corporations, allowing them to invest before the market absorbs the increased money supply. As a result, prices rise, and those who receive the money last—ordinary people and small businesses—find their purchasing power reduced. This is the Cantillon effect, an intrinsic dynamic of the money we use daily, which only widens the gap between rich and poor.

Bitcoin breaks this chain. Its issuance is decentralized and open to everyone: anyone can participate in mining without permissions or privileges. There are no shortcuts or favoritism. Moreover, Bitcoin’s inflation rate is decreasing, eliminating the Cantillon effect at its root.

In the Bitcoin system, money is just money—it doesn’t discriminate based on social class, role, or connections. For the first time, everyone can participate under the same rules, without the system favoring some at the expense of others.

But perhaps the experts are right: there’s no intrinsic value in a system that eliminates the privileges of the ruling class, giving equal opportunities to everyone and undermining the preservation of established power.

Against Debt, in Favor of Savings

We live in a world where debt is the norm, and savings are the exception. This is no coincidence. Since the dollar definitively severed its link to gold in 1971, money has become increasingly inflationary: every year, its value erodes, pushing people to spend quickly and, often, to incur debt.

It’s a systemic effect. With savings losing purchasing power, accumulating capital for the future is perceived as a losing strategy. The result? A society where constant consumption fuels the economy but also traps it. More and more people live paycheck to paycheck, without savings or stability, fueling unproductive spending. Is it healthy to go into debt for a vacation or, worse, just to afford groceries? No. Is it healthy to save and spend only when necessary? Absolutely.

Bitcoin flips this logic. It’s a currency with declining inflation whose purchasing power, assuming constant demand, is set to increase over time. It encourages saving instead of debt. It’s better to postpone unnecessary purchases if the money in your pocket will appreciate. Its nature pushes individuals to plan for the future, progressively accumulating capital.

With Bitcoin, saving becomes the pillar of a society based on healthy, sustainable economic growth. There’s no need for constant consumption: there’s room to build, save, and invest with a currency that rewards patience, not recklessness.

But perhaps the experts are right: there’s no intrinsic value in a system that allows families and businesses to increase savings and drastically reduce their demand for credit.

Making the Energy Transition Meaningful

The energy transition toward an electrified economy is an ambitious goal but full of contradictions. Renewable sources, like solar and wind, are less reliable than hydrocarbons: they produce energy only when weather conditions allow and are primarily sustained by government subsidies. In two words, they are uneconomical.

I’ve written dozens of articles explaining how Bitcoin offers a concrete solution to this problem. Miners act as buyers of last resort for electricity. When there’s an excess of energy that would otherwise go to waste, mining utilizes it, providing an economic return for those investing in renewables. This stabilizes power grids and makes green energy projects more sustainable.

Moreover, mining can even contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Refineries and landfills produce waste gases, such as methane, which are often flared or released into the atmosphere. By converting these gases into electricity to power mining, emissions are reduced, and an otherwise wasted byproduct is given economic value.

But perhaps the experts are right: there’s no intrinsic value in a system that makes the energy transition profitable.

Realizing Financial Inclusion

Globally, about 1.4 billion adults lack access to a bank account. A significant portion of the global population is excluded from basic financial services like safe savings, access to credit, or the ability to make electronic payments. The causes of this exclusion are numerous: insufficient banking infrastructure, high service costs, complex bureaucratic requirements, and, in some cases, a lack of trust in financial institutions.

Bitcoin offers a solution, enabling anyone, anywhere in the world, to send and receive value instantly, without intermediaries or permissions. A concrete example is the remittance market, where migrant workers send money to their home countries. According to the World Bank, remittance fees can vary significantly depending on the channel used, reaching up to 20%. Bitcoin allows for transfers at lower costs and much faster speeds, providing a more efficient, accessible, and secure alternative.

But perhaps the experts are right: there’s no intrinsic value in a system that offers access to the global market to people whose only fault was not being born in the West.

So let’s thank the self-proclaimed experts on intrinsic value 10, 100, 1,000—no, 100,000 times. It’s partly thanks to their disarming incompetence that trust in the traditional financial system is in unstoppable decline. A decline that, in a perfect zero-sum game, corresponds to the rise of the only, true, healthy alternative: Bitcoin.

P.S. Intrinsic value doesn’t exist.

https://highlighter.com/a/naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzqx67uaxlruf7hpw4f5mtcxdyrq85fn56em4696s3p7020xa34tnwqy2hwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytn00p68ytnyv4mz7qp9gf5hgcm0d9hz66rpwvkkumedd9h8gunfdeekjcedweskcat994enymmkvecqhg0vuj

Thank you, we corrected the article on the website.

2024-11-25T20:00:19+01:00

In reply to nevent1q…p643
_________________________

Thank you, we corrected the article on the website.

Grazie! Penso di aver risolto ora

2024-11-12T11:31:18+01:00

In reply to nevent1q…0svh
_________________________

Grazie! Penso di aver risolto ora

There's no such thing as a Bitcoin President. ...

2024-11-12T10:49:06+01:00

There's no such thing as a Bitcoin President.

quoting
naddr1qv…692x

Last July, I published an article highlighting the shifting narrative around the so-called "Bitcoin President" in the United States. An expression that should—must—sound absurd to anyone who has taken even a cursory look at the technology Satoshi Nakamoto introduced. It's evident that no such thing as a Bitcoin President exists. And if you're wondering what I think: no, not even him.

Not even Nayib Bukele, the President of El Salvador, the first country to adopt Bitcoin as legal tender, can be considered as such. Do you think the promotion of a centralized, government-controlled wallet like Chivo aligns with the values that gave birth to Bitcoin?\ But let's return to the United States. The intense lobbying efforts of BTC Inc—the company behind Bitcoin Magazine—first positioned Robert Kennedy Jr. as the Bitcoin Candidate, only to swiftly pivot to Donald Trump despite his repeated anti-cryptocurrency remarks and his staunch support for the dollar's supremacy.

After an electoral campaign of relentless brainwashing, how did Italian mainstream media interpret Bitcoin's relationship with U.S. politics?

Orange Coin and Orange President

The wave of articles published by Italian and international outlets reveals a telling trend: a systematic association between Bitcoin and Donald Trump following his reelection. The headlines in the following examples illustrate how this connection was constructed to imbue the cryptocurrency with a specific political connotation, aligned with conservative and Republican positions.

Fanpage kicks off with a headline that takes for granted the causal link between Trump's reelection and Bitcoin's price surge: "Why Bitcoin is Soaring After Trump's Election." At least the article notes that the tycoon, during his first term, called cryptocurrencies a "scam," only to drastically change his stance later.

ANSA adopts an even more emphatic approach: Bitcoin, Wall Street, and the dollar are portrayed as a harmonious trio, collectively celebrating Trump’s return to the White House. The association between Bitcoin and the dollar, however, is paradoxical. Bitcoin was created as an alternative to the dollar—a tool to escape expansionary monetary policies and inflation. Reducing it to a mere appendage of Republican economic policies misses the very reason for Bitcoin's existence.

Corriere della Sera headline reads: "With Trump’s Victory, New Record for Bitcoin." The newspaper leans into sensationalism, linking Bitcoin’s new all-time high to Trump’s electoral victory. The article goes on to mention figures like Elon Musk, attempting to tie the fortunes of the crypto sector to a series of controversial yet highly charismatic personalities.

In short, the idea that Bitcoin owes its growth solely to political events or the support of specific individuals is misleading. The notion that its price hinges on a particular election is not only simplistic but ignores decades of market cycles and economic data showing that Bitcoin responds to more complex dynamics such as global liquidity and technological adoption.

Il Giornale doesn't escape this fallacy either: "Trump Boosts Stocks and Bitcoin."

The daily draws a direct connection between stock market enthusiasm and Bitcoin's rally, highlighting how Trump's reelection has galvanized both Piazza Affari and cryptocurrencies. This narrative perpetuates the notion that Bitcoin and traditional equities move in lockstep, overlooking Bitcoin's historical decorrelation from traditional assets during critical moments.

The idea of a natural alliance between Trump and Bitcoin is reinforced without any solid evidence. On the contrary, Bitcoin investors aren't celebrating a president; they are responding to a broader macroeconomic environment where loose monetary policies and growing distrust in fiat currencies play a crucial role.

https://highlighter.com/a/naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzqx67uaxlruf7hpw4f5mtcxdyrq85fn56em4696s3p7020xa34tnwqyd8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnrv4exxct5wfhhvcfwd4jj7qpd235x2t2jv4eh2mr594hkvt2zd96xxmmfdckhxt2sdakxjarfvd5h5ct5d9hkutfsxp3xuanepv7lhu

Bitcoin goes mainstream 🧡 #note1jd3…d9qp

2024-11-07T10:53:05+01:00

Bitcoin goes mainstream 🧡

quoting
note1jd3…d9qp
Two weeks ago, we proudly sponsored and joined the recording of Italy's first TV show on Bitcoin called 'Esploriamo Bitcoin', airing tonight on italian television! 🇮🇹

With two of our teammates and partners featured, it’s an honor to bring Bitcoin to the mainstream! Info in comments.

Thank you Federico Rivi (npub1rd0…r3ys) for hosting us and Gruppo Mediapason for the welcome and professionalism you gave us! 🚀

Double Attack on [#Bitcoin](/t/Bitcoin) from the ECB and the FED. ...

2024-11-02T18:08:34+01:00

Double Attack on [#Bitcoin](/t/Bitcoin) from the ECB and the FED.

The synchronicity with which the ECB and the Federal Reserve attempt to discredit Bitcoin with two new papers—filled with arguments as strategic as they are fragile—is curious.

ECB: In the document titled “The Distributive Effects of Bitcoin,” Ulrich Bindseil and Jürgen Schaaf assert that “Bitcoin does not increase the productive potential of the economy.” They go on to claim that Bitcoin’s alleged value stems solely from “speculation,” which is bound to “benefit early entrants at the expense of newcomers.”
Basically, Bindseil and Schaaf have discovered the wonderful world of supply and demand dynamics within that mysterious entity called “the market”—perhaps too complex to grasp for those dreaming of a Soviet-style economy.

FED: The Federal Reserve of Minneapolis doubles down in their paper “Unique Implementation of Permanent Primary Deficits?” suggesting that if Bitcoin became widespread, the government would no longer be able to generate deficits. “The government could simply make Bitcoin illegal.”

The fallacies in the arguments of the money monopolists are addressed in a counter-paper that debunks the arguments from Frankfurt point by point.

The new edition of [#BitcoinTrain](/t/BitcoinTrain) is now online!

quoting
naddr1qv…amdm

A paper bordering on parody but, unfortunately, all too real. Titled “The Distributive Effects of Bitcoin,” it’s authored by Ulrich Bindseil and Jürgen Schaaf: the former manages the ECB’s Market Infrastructure and Payments division, while the latter serves as his advisor. Hosting this paper on its own servers, the Frankfurt institution safeguards itself with a disclaimer: “The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the ECB.” The disclaimer is understandable, as the positions of the two authors are so blatantly biased and devoid of any logical foundation that they seem too much even for Bitcoin’s number one enemy: the central bank itself.

The underlying assumption of the entire document is simple: Bitcoin does not increase the productive potential of the economy. Based on this shortsighted foundation, the authors construct an entire narrative that ignores some of the fundamental changes introduced by Bitcoin.

“Bitcoin does not increase the productive potential of the economy”

Since Bitcoin doesn’t increase the productive potential of the economy, the alleged increase in value is essentially redistributive. This means that the enrichment of the early bitcoin holders can only come at the expense of the rest of society.

Right from the abstract, the authors assert that Bitcoin in no way contributes to increasing the productive potential of the economy. Their thesis is that Bitcoin, lacking any connection to the creation of tangible goods or services, represents an asset with no intrinsic productive value. According to the document, while investments in sectors like technology or industry improve the efficiency and productive capacity of the economic system, Bitcoin provides no such benefit, as it does not directly contribute to production growth or innovation.

For the authors, much of Bitcoin’s attributed value derives solely from financial speculation and the perception of those who purchase it, without any tangible increase in “economic capacity.”

The redistributive potential: penalizing latecomers

Bindseil and Schaaf then explore what they call Bitcoin’s “redistributive structure,” claiming that its mechanism rewards early investors at the expense of latecomers. Their shocking revelation is that Bitcoin’s value increases for early purchasers as demand rises, generating higher returns for those who entered the market first.

In other words, Bindseil and Schaaf have discovered the wonderful world of supply and demand dynamics within that mysterious entity called “the market”—perhaps too complex to grasp for those dreaming of a Soviet-style economy. Not coincidentally, they describe this process as inherently unjust, arguing that people who decide to invest later don’t receive the same advantages and are forced to buy at higher prices.

If the rational part of your mind is screaming in desperation, I ask for one last effort.

The document describes this effect as a negative feature of Bitcoin, comparing it to a “speculative bubble” destined to collapse when new investors can no longer sustain the asset’s high price.

A point-by-point rebuttal

I confess, I would never have found the strength to sit down at my keyboard to debunk, once again, arguments so erroneous that they’d make anyone with a basic understanding of economics cringe. Fortunately, Murray Rudd and Dennis Porter of Satoshi Action Education, along with Allen Farrington of Axiom and Freddie New of Bitcoin Policy UK, have taken on this task.

Bitcoin’s productive potential: a central misunderstanding

The main assumption—that Bitcoin does not contribute to the productive potential of the economy—is challenged by highlighting how Bitcoin is fueling an ecosystem of technological and financial innovation. Tools like the Lightning Network reduce transaction costs and increase system efficiency, bringing tangible benefits to the economy. “Considering Bitcoin as a mere speculative tool,” the analysis states, “means ignoring the immense infrastructural and social value of payment networks and decentralized technologies deriving from its adoption.”

Bindseil and Schaaf also overlook how Bitcoin is already used to reduce the cost of international remittances, a vital function in parts of the world where transaction costs via traditional banking systems are often exorbitant, reaching up to 20% in some regions. This application provides both direct and indirect productive benefits in contexts with low financial inclusion.

Further, the response notes:

“Bitcoin is promoting innovation beyond payments. It has catalyzed advances in cryptography and energy efficiency, particularly through mining. Bitcoin mining using waste gas can mitigate methane emissions and improve renewable energy generation, contributing to grid flexibility thanks to the unique features of mining.”

Beyond technological advances, the arguments against Bitcoin reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of money in capital accumulation and, consequently, economic prosperity. Productivity is driven by capital accumulation, and economic growth is the result of increased productivity through effective capital use. Arguing that capital growth does not contribute to productivity reveals a deep ignorance of basic market dynamics.

Bitcoin’s redistributive potential: a market dynamic

The final criticism from the two ECB-affiliated individuals concerns the accusation that Bitcoin only benefits early investors at the expense of newcomers. The authors of the rebuttal paper observe that this phenomenon exists in any asset—from real estate to gold—where early investors benefit from an increase in value. Furthermore, Bitcoin lacks privileged distributions, as seen in other cryptocurrencies issued with pre-mines or venture capital models. Bitcoin’s distribution model, which began with open and transparent mining, is considered by the authors “one of the fairest in the history of digital assets.” I would even go so far as to say the fairest.

The authors also point out that the fiat system, widely supported by the ECB, favors inequality through monetary devaluation—a form of reverse redistribution that penalizes small savers in favor of those with greater access to financial resources. Bitcoin, with its maximum issuance cap, offers an alternative to this erosion of purchasing power caused by inflation. In short, such an accusation from those representing the primary cause of the Cantillon effect is almost laughable.

The Federal Reserve’s direct attack

A few days after the publication of Bindseil and Schaaf’s paper, their American counterparts also decided to attack Bitcoin. The Federal Reserve of Minneapolis published a study titled “Unique Implementation of Permanent Primary Deficits?”

I won’t drag this out: in nearly forty pages of formulas and calculations, Fed experts managed to rediscover the obvious—if Bitcoin were to become widespread, the government would no longer be able to run deficits!

“Good morning, princess,” as Roberto Benigni would say in La Vita è Bella. In this newsletter, we’ve been discussing this topic for about three years, yet I haven’t received a job offer from Washington. Perhaps it’s because my views are slightly at odds with those of the employees of the monetary monopolist. The Fed, in fact, sees a very simple solution: ban Bitcoin! They state it plainly:

“The government could simply make Bitcoin illegal.”

Here, we encounter a fundamental disagreement. Believing that Bitcoin can be banned by a few lines in a law reflects a profound misunderstanding of the technology. If you’d like a consultation on the subject, dear friends at the Fed, I’ll be here.

Or rather, I’ll be enjoying your decline.

Sincerely,

Federico.

https://highlighter.com/a/naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzqx67uaxlruf7hpw4f5mtcxdyrq85fn56em4696s3p7020xa34tnwqy2hwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytn00p68ytnyv4mz7qp9235x2t2nwaskut2ndahxwtt0vck5xetww3exzmpdgfsku6mn95erqmntv5esz7un0w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaZ8PtUMFfs

2024-10-30T19:08:11+01:00

In reply to nevent1q…ylxr
_________________________

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaZ8PtUMFfs

How to reach mass adoption David Bailey - 10 years as head of ...

2024-10-30T19:06:22+01:00

How to reach mass adoption

David Bailey - 10 years as head of Retail Marketing at Apple and now CMO of Azteco
- tells #BitcoinTrain why it takes changing the #Bitcoin narrative to reach the general public.

“Customers of a technology product are divided into two parts. The 'early market - about 15 percent of the total market - and the mass market, 85 percent. Between them there is the so-called 'chasm,' a chasm to overcome.”

“In Bitcoin we are almost at the end of the early adoption phase and the challenge is to cross the chasm so as not to get lost in the middle. To do that, we need to stop talking about how the technology works and start explaining to people how they can use it safely to gain real benefit from it in their daily lives.”

quoting
naddr1qv…ve4t

It’s right to build an open-source wallet, but that shouldn’t be the first feature displayed on your website if you’re aiming for the mass market.

We’re at a pivotal moment for Bitcoin, particularly in terms of adoption. Bailey, a marketing expert with top-tier experience, explains why. With a decade as the Head of Retail Marketing at Apple from 2002 to 2012—the era of revolutionary products like the iPhone and iPad—plus years as Vice President of Marketing at Samsung Smart-Things, he’s now Chief Marketing Officer at Azteco. Speaking with Bitcoin Train, Bailey discusses how Bitcoin’s messaging must evolve to engage the true mass market by focusing less on technicalities and more on tangible benefits for the average user.

Bailey’s message is clear: to achieve mass adoption, Bitcoin’s public presentation needs a shift toward emphasizing practical benefits over technical details. This shift would entail moving from a narrative focused solely on “hodling” to one that highlights Bitcoin’s qualities as a payment tool as well.

The full interview with David Bailey is available on YouTube; the following is a summary of the most significant points.

Let’s start by discussing your past: what was the sentiment at Apple when launching global hits like the iPhone or iPad?

At Apple, we could quickly observe the interest and adoption of our products. Whenever we entered a new country, demand was high: retailers wanted entire shelves stocked with iPods and accessories. This let us gauge sales trends early on. But the key lay in how we presented the product. If you described it as “an MP3 player” or “an e-book reader,” the response was lukewarm. However, if you framed it in terms of user value, like “having a thousand songs in your pocket,” people got excited, and adoption followed.

Today, if you search online for “What is Bitcoin?” you find technical explanations about blockchain, mining, and more. But the real question is, what does Bitcoin mean for the consumer? It’s a way to spend and save, to send money globally in seconds without fees.

Bitcoin’s technical foundations have drawn developers, enthusiasts, and advocates. Why change the narrative now?

There’s a book written about twenty years ago called Crossing the Chasm. It’s one of those books that has stood the test of time. Like any business text, it’s not a magical formula but offers a good conceptual framework for thinking about these issues.

The essential idea is that customers of a tech product are divided into two groups. On one side is the early market, about 15% of the total market, and on the other, the mass market, which covers around 85%. Between the early market and the mass market is a “chasm,” a kind of gap to bridge.

<img src="https://blossom.primal.net/3fff013076c1268140b4b6089ab028b08dc39e2c848b9a752284e8b07a9df621.png">

The adoption cycle

The early market consists of innovators and early adopters, followed by the early majority, late majority, and finally, the “laggards,” the last group to adopt technology. Innovators and early adopters are the ones who, for example, were among the first to use the internet or are experimenting today with virtual reality headsets and Apple Vision Pro. But the approach between those in the early market and those in the mass market is very different.

Are you saying interests vary greatly between these two types of customers?

Exactly. Early adopters are attracted to the technology itself; they want to experiment and explore what they can do with it, even if it’s limited or imperfect. The early majority, however, isn’t interested in technical details; they care about tangible benefits: they want the product to work immediately, they want a simple, straightforward experience.

A similar example is the evolution of the internet 20-25 years ago. Initially, it was discussed in highly technical terms, making it seem like a niche technology with no apparent need for most people. Only when the practical benefits, such as sending emails or browsing the web, were highlighted did the broader public start to see its value. People didn’t need to understand VPNs or DNS; they just wanted to use the internet for practical purposes.

Early email users had to manage complex command-line interfaces. The early majority came on board only when email clients became user-friendly. At that point, it was enough to enter a username and password without worrying about technical details. The mass market simply wants things to work effortlessly.

The point is, to move from the early market to the mass market, we need to cross the “chasm.” Achieving this requires a deep understanding of what the consumer truly wants: not pure technology, but immediate and tangible benefits.

Where do we stand in Bitcoin’s adoption cycle? Do we need to make the leap?

Yes, I’d say we’re right on the “chasm.” We’re near the end of the early adoption phase, and Bitcoin’s challenge is to cross this gap without getting lost in the middle. We must stop talking about how the technology works and start explaining how people can use it safely to gain real, practical benefits in their everyday lives.

Isn’t there a risk of abandoning Bitcoin’s foundational principles like privacy, open-source philosophy, and censorship resistance?

Success lies not in changing the product but in adjusting the message and marketing strategy. It’s not about diluting Bitcoin’s fundamentals for the sake of simplicity but rather presenting its features in a way that resonates with the early majority.

It’s right to develop an open-source wallet, but that shouldn’t be the first feature displayed on a website if the goal is to attract a wider audience. While I support open-source and privacy, we must realize these aren’t the priorities for the next 100 million users. This doesn’t mean trivializing Bitcoin’s technology but rather tailoring the message to speak to people differently. Trying to convert everyone to the early adopter mindset, with the concept of the “orange pill,” is an ineffective strategy.

What kind of messaging should be used to effectively reach the masses? How should the marketing strategy change?

We can tell stories of everyday people using Bitcoin for daily activities. Last year, around $669 billion was sent globally in remittances by people working in countries like the United States or Mexico to support their loved ones. Here’s a tangible use case: with Bitcoin, you can send funds to your family members wherever they are, instantly and without fees. And with services like Bitrefill, they can easily use them. Whether it’s paying a freelancer or sending money to someone on the other side of the world, the utility becomes real.

For those, like me, living in the UK, where the financial system is relatively stable, it may not seem so significant. But for people in the United States sending money to Mexico, or those living in Argentina or Brazil, where financial uncertainty has been a constant for decades, Bitcoin becomes a far more attractive choice. I know people in South Africa who prefer to save in bitcoin instead of the local currency, which they view as corrupt and unstable.

The goal, then, is to find everyday, concrete use cases. Currently, though, media narratives are almost exclusively focused on Bitcoin’s price, its volatility, or scandals involving the crypto world. We need to get past these distractions.

You mentioned daily payments as a use case that appeals to the mass market. However, there are many staunch proponents of hodling at all costs. How do you view this debate in the context of the adoption cycle?

One thing I’m firmly convinced of is that if we focus solely on accumulating bitcoin and holding it, Bitcoin will never reach its full potential.

The truth is that Bitcoin can be both digital gold and digital cash. Right now, there’s an overabundance of attention on its store-of-value aspect, while we lack sufficient focus on making it a tool for daily payments. Enough people already view Bitcoin as a form of investment or savings. What we need to concentrate on now is promoting its everyday use, so it genuinely becomes a medium of exchange.

If millions of people start using Bitcoin for their daily transactions, it will sustain the system and increase its value for those who choose to save in bitcoin as well. We can’t have one without the other.

Azteco was created with precisely this goal: to promote Bitcoin adoption among consumers by making the process as simple as possible. We want people to be able to purchase Bitcoin easily, even for just $10, without having to go through an exchange, with no bank accounts or ID documents required.

https://highlighter.com/a/naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzqx67uaxlruf7hpw4f5mtcxdyrq85fn56em4696s3p7020xa34tnwqyd8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnrv4exxct5wfhhvcfwd4jj7qqa2fjkzcmgd9hxwt2dv9ehxt2pv3hhqarfdahz6erxxej85ecrl3ufx

👀 #note1m5v…e5ap

2024-10-28T17:37:21+01:00

👀

quoting
note1m5v…e5ap
Hey, this is Tadge. First post on nostr. Using "gossip" desktop client. Not sure if this works, but I like the idea :)

What a week. 📺 Bringing a #Bitcoin Talk Show to Italian TV for ...

2024-10-28T17:27:07+01:00

What a week.

📺 Bringing a #Bitcoin Talk Show to Italian TV for the first time ever
🇨🇭Showing how the media sentiment shifts on emerging technologies at Lugano PlanB Forum
🇮🇹 Moderating a debate on Bitcoin and politics between rikki6ixx (npub13ve…489d) and giacomozucco (npub1au2…t53j) at Spazio21 in Lugano

Money Electric is a documentary that effectively explains several ...

2024-10-12T21:57:06+02:00

Money Electric is a documentary that effectively explains several aspects of Bitcoin in a way that is both compelling and easily understandable.

On the other hand, the misleading portrayal of events like the Blocksize War and the relentless search for a conspiracy to destroy Bitcoin—both tainted by the biased opinions of individuals defeated by history, like Roger Ver and Gavin Andresen—undermines the solid foundations initially laid with the description of the technology.

Lastly, such a blatant ad hominem accusation, supported by such flimsy evidence, is ridiculous. Just for the sake of creating a sensationalistic product and selling a few more subscriptions, HBO has endangered @Peter Todd : this is unacceptable.

quoting
naddr1qv…67h9

On October 8th, the American production company HBO—owned by Warner Bros. Discovery—released Money Electric: The Bitcoin Mystery. The documentary, directed by Cullen Hoback and currently available only to the U.S. audience, was immediately shared via P2P file-sharing platforms and can thus be easily found online.

Considering all the elements presented in the hour-and-a-half-long documentary, my personal judgment swings between two feelings:

Satisfaction for having witnessed a thorough explanation of Bitcoin’s origins, its cultural roots, the reasons behind its creation, and the intrinsic problems of the traditional financial system.

Frustration over a conspiracy theory—claiming that Bitcoin was sabotaged by U.S. government agents infiltrating the Bitcoin community to prevent it from functioning as a medium of exchange—and a baseless hunt for Satoshi Nakamoto, which is especially dangerous for the man identified: Peter Todd.

The Negative Aspects

The Surreal Conspiracy Around Replace-By-Fee (RBF)

One of the documentary's central issues is the inclusion of conspiracy theories aimed at explaining Bitcoin's evolution through external interventions, mainly by government actors, who allegedly tried to manipulate the technology to prevent it from scaling in terms of processed transactions. The goal, it is claimed, was to keep Bitcoin as a store of value and technically render it impossible for it to function as a medium of exchange.

The ultimate reason for this, according to the theory, is that everyday transactions could only occur through intermediaries and, as a result, would be easily controllable by authorities. The U.S. government's goal, therefore, would have been to negatively influence Bitcoin’s development. This idea is not unrealistic in itself, but this is where things get absurd.

Hoback, spurred on by Roger Ver, resurrects a story about an email allegedly sent to Peter Todd in 2013 by someone named John Dillon. Dillon, claiming to hold a “high-level” role in intelligence, supposedly requested the development of Replace-By-Fee (RBF) for the paltry sum of $500.

RBF is a function that allows an unconfirmed transaction to be replaced with a different version of the transaction that pays a higher fee, with the goal of achieving quicker confirmation. And here, Roger Ver provides the narrative hook: RBF would have driven transaction fees through the roof, making it uneconomical to use Bitcoin for everyday transactions, thereby fulfilling the U.S. government's objective.

History has shown that this theory was baseless—fees didn’t skyrocket with RBF—but the fact that Todd actually contributed to developing RBF convinced the documentary’s author that this was a credible hypothesis. The theory that Todd collaborated with the government is presented with alarming carelessness, despite a lack of concrete evidence, and Todd, understandably, denies everything. This conspiracy also contains a fundamental inconsistency: why would Satoshi Nakamoto have wanted to collaborate with the government to prevent Bitcoin from becoming digital cash?

The Blocksize War: Misunderstood and Poorly Told

The documentary presents a distorted view of the so-called Blocksize War. The thesis reflects the exact opposite of what actually happened. Again misled by Roger Ver's words, Hoback hypothesizes that the failed attempt to increase Bitcoin's block size led to a centralization of the network around the Blockstream team. The truth is the opposite: had the blockspace been increased, the network would have faced inevitable centralization, as the unfortunate fate of Bitcoin Cash demonstrated.

According to the documentary, the outcome of the war even allowed everyday Bitcoin transactions to occur “only through tools provided by Blockstream.” No names are mentioned, although it’s suspected that the reference is to Liquid. What reveals the documentary’s evident bad faith is that there isn’t a single mention of the Lightning Network, which allows low-cost transactions, doesn’t necessarily require intermediaries, and is certainly not controlled by Blockstream.

In general, Hoback gives too much screen time to controversial figures like Roger Ver and Gavin Andresen, whose opinions, while representative of a certain point in Bitcoin’s history, are distorted by the context in which they are presented.

The Baseless Manhunt

The hunt for Peter Todd is perhaps the most problematic aspect of the documentary. The narrative focuses on seemingly irrelevant details, weaving a sensationalist plot to make viewers believe that Todd might be Satoshi Nakamoto. This attempt poses a serious risk to Todd’s personal safety, which should not be underestimated. The narrative, while effective in capturing the attention of an uninformed audience, is highly dangerous.

The “evidence” provided is completely inconsistent. Consider that the most damning proof is a 2010 BitcoinTalk post in response to Satoshi Nakamoto, which Hoback claims was accidentally posted using Todd’s profile. That is, according to the author, Satoshi himself completed his post through a response but mistakenly logged in with his personal profile: Todd's.

This is a groundless hypothesis and, moreover, not a new revelation. It's also important to note that Peter Todd's nickname at the time was “retep,” and no one knew who he was. If it had been Satoshi Nakamoto, he could have easily deleted the post without leaving any unwanted traces.

The Myth of Satoshi’s One Million Bitcoins

The documentary repeatedly claims that Satoshi Nakamoto accumulated one million bitcoins and that a massive sale of these coins could “break the system.” This, too, is a misleading statement, as there is no certainty regarding the exact number of bitcoins Nakamoto possesses, and the idea that the sale of this alleged fortune could destroy Bitcoin is completely unfounded. In fact, it is never explained.

The Positive Aspects

The Roots of Bitcoin

Money Electric does have some merits, particularly in the first part, where it focuses on an accurate explanation of Bitcoin’s origins and the historical context in which it emerged. The documentary effectively recounts how earlier attempts to create digital currencies, like E-Gold, failed and how E-Gold’s founder, Douglas Jackson, was arrested for his activities. The author understands and communicates a key concept: if you build a product that can compete with the U.S. dollar, the government will come after you. Therefore, the decision to remain anonymous makes perfect sense. One is left to wonder: why did you try to reveal Satoshi’s identity?

The description of Bitcoin’s founding values, linked to the cypherpunk movement, is one of the most successful parts. The crypto wars of the 1990s and the battle for the use of cryptography, portrayed as a sort of weapon by the U.S. government, are explained in an accessible way, even to those unfamiliar with the topic, offering valuable historical context for understanding Bitcoin’s birth.

Mining and Energy

Mining is described as a lottery, finally breaking away from the common narrative that portrays it as an activity based on “complex calculations” or “advanced algorithms.” The simplified approach is well-executed and makes one of Bitcoin’s most misunderstood aspects comprehensible to the general public.

Another positive aspect is the documentary’s exploration of the relationship between Bitcoin and energy consumption. Rather than demonizing the energy link, it smartly compares it to the relationship between the dollar and oil, presenting this connection as inevitable for any form of money with intrinsic value. Money, it is specified, must evidently be tied to something that people consider valuable, like an energy source.

Traditional Financial System and CBDCs

The portrayal of the 2008 financial crisis and the parallel with the current fragility of the global monetary system is well done, showing how Bitcoin emerged in response to a failing system. In this sense, the documentary raises a warning about the future use of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), which are described as dystopian tools of control, with a particular focus on the Chinese e-yuan, which is literally called a “government-backed shitcoin.”

The author casts doubt on the stability of the U.S. dollar itself, suggesting that even the American currency could face collapses similar to those of hyperinflated currencies. While not a definitive claim, this perspective introduces an important question about the future of the global financial system, undermining the steadfast beliefs of a large portion of the market that sees the dollar as an indestructible fortress.

Cold Judgment

Money Electric is a documentary that, perhaps for the first time, effectively explains several aspects of Bitcoin in a way that is both compelling and easily understandable. The fact that such a product comes from a major production house should be considered a success.

On the other hand, the misleading portrayal of events like the Blocksize War and the relentless search for a conspiracy to destroy Bitcoin—both tainted by the biased opinions of individuals defeated by history, like Roger Ver and Gavin Andresen—undermines the solid foundations initially laid with the description of the technology.

Lastly, such a blatant ad hominem accusation, supported by such flimsy evidence, is unacceptable. Identifying someone as Satoshi Nakamoto is, for the same reasons acknowledged by the author at the beginning of the documentary, extremely dangerous for that individual’s personal safety. How many people, swayed by HBO's gripping editing, could now believe that Peter Todd is truly Satoshi? And how many of these could be willing to physically attack him for the fortune Bitcoin’s creator supposedly accumulated? Too many hypotheticals to draw a plausible conclusion and to place such a risk on a person.

Money Electric: The Bitcoin Mystery is a decent product, fatally marred by bad faith.

https://highlighter.com/a/naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzqx67uaxlruf7hpw4f5mtcxdyrq85fn56em4696s3p7020xa34tnwqyd8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnrv4exxct5wfhhvcfwd4jj7qptf35kw6r5wvkkzmny94fksctydamhxtt0vck56mmwv4uj63tvv43hgunfvvkhs6r4xd58ymv6e0m

"The Silent Adoption: Part 2" is live! Bitcoin's ...

2024-10-07T10:17:59+02:00

"The Silent Adoption: Part 2" is live!

Bitcoin's organic growth, driven by genuine interest and word of mouth, is both its greatest strength and biggest challenge. From grassroots communities to global crises, Bitcoin is silently revolutionizing the world, even without a marketing department.

Explore how the failures of traditional systems become Bitcoin’s unintended advertising, and why its decentralized nature fosters innovation and ideological clashes alike.

quoting
naddr1qv…s3w6

In the previous episode, we discussed the concept of silent adoption, focusing solely on the most popular and debated aspect of adoption: the purchase of Bitcoin—the monetary aspect. However, buying and selling is only the final phase of adoption, the one that ultimately brings it to completion. Before that, there’s another crucial step: awareness.

It goes without saying that one cannot adopt a technology without being aware of its existence. That’s why companies establish marketing departments: to introduce their product to potential customers. It’s up to these departments to determine the best methods to increase brand awareness, typically through two approaches that vary depending on each campaign’s goals: organic growth or paid growth.

The first refers to natural growth, which is not directly influenced by advertising investments or paid promotions. It may focus on increasing traffic, sales, or interest in a brand through content optimization, word of mouth, social media engagement, or other non-sponsored activities.

The second refers to growth achieved through investments in paid advertising campaigns, such as Google ads, social media advertising, display advertising, or other forms of promotion that require financial expenditure to gain visibility.

Apple can choose which strategy to apply to each campaign, as can Microsoft, Samsung, Meta, and all other companies. They can do this because they are hierarchical and centralized entities, with absolute control over their product. Bitcoin's marketing department, on the other hand, cannot afford this luxury—for the simple reason that it doesn’t exist.

Organic Marketing: Pros and Cons

Advantages\ One of the main advantages of Bitcoin's organic growth is the authenticity of its spread. Without a centralized marketing strategy or campaigns backed by large budgets, Bitcoin's awareness and adoption have expanded through word of mouth and the genuine interest of individuals. This has led, especially in the early years, to the emergence of highly motivated and informed user and supporter communities, deeply understanding the principles and values behind the technology: in two words, the early adopters.

Organic growth also fosters community innovation. Developers and enthusiasts can freely contribute to improving the technology without the restrictions imposed by commercial goals or intellectual property. If corporate logic had prevailed in Bitcoin, today the Lightning Network might not exist, blocks might be tens of megabytes each, and there would likely be only a few hundred nodes online. This is a reference to the Blocksize War.

Another feature of the lack of centralized marketing is the reduction of perception manipulation. Information about Bitcoin is disseminated through a plurality of sources, allowing individuals to form an opinion based on multiple perspectives. This contrasts with one-sided advertising campaigns that can heavily and artificially influence public perception.

The inevitable consequence is that within the community of insiders, there are numerous ideological clashes, some of them fierce. This is a good thing because unanimous opinions would make it too easy to reach consensus on future changes to Bitcoin. In short, unanimity would make Bitcoin much more fragile.

Disadvantages\ The lack of centralized marketing can slow penetration into key markets. Traditional companies invest in market research and targeted strategies to expand their presence in new regions or demographic segments. When there is no such coordination, the only real coordinator is called the free market.

\ The absence of a representative entity makes it harder to engage with institutions and regulators. While other companies can lobby or participate in working groups with governments, Bitcoin has no singular organizational structure to play this role (though lobbying groups formed by entrepreneurs working in the industry have already emerged). This can lead to unfavorable regulations or misunderstandings that could hinder adoption. An example? The numerous Chinese bans.

The Unintentional Marketing of the Fiat System

Bitcoin positions itself as an alternative system to the current one, characterized by central banks and governments. Just as in a competitive market where companies gain market share at the expense of their competitors, Bitcoin grows when traditional institutions lose trust in the eyes of the public. In other words, the failures and inefficiencies of existing systems act as catalysts for Bitcoin adoption, becoming, ironically, unintentional marketing tools for the cryptocurrency.

A striking example is countries affected by hyperinflation. In nations like Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and Argentina, local currencies have lost much of their value due to ineffective economic policies and political instability. In 2019, inflation in Venezuela exceeded 10,000,000%, making the bolívar practically useless for daily transactions. In these circumstances, people sought refuge in alternative assets like Bitcoin to preserve their purchasing power: it's no coincidence that Venezuela ranks fourteenth in the world for cryptocurrency adoption, according to the Global Adoption Index by Chainalysis.

In authoritarian regimes, where repression of free speech and financial control are commonplace, Bitcoin offers a tangible alternative. In 2020, during the protests in Nigeria against police brutality, the EndSars movement saw protesters’ bank accounts frozen. In response, activists began collecting funds in Bitcoin, bypassing government restrictions and financing their activities independently. Nigeria ranks second in the world for cryptocurrency adoption according to Chainalysis, ahead of even the United States and second only to India.

Even in Western democracies, there have been instances of financial censorship that have fueled interest in Bitcoin. Under heavy government pressure, the crowdfunding platform GoFundMe blocked donations to the "Freedom Convoy" in 2022, a group of Canadian truckers protesting pandemic restrictions. In response, supporters used Bitcoin to send funds directly to the protesters.\ Do I need to mention the 2008 financial crisis that provided Satoshi Nakamoto with the perfect opportunity to publish the Bitcoin White Paper?

The inefficiencies and injustices of the traditional financial and political system indirectly promote Bitcoin adoption. Every crisis, scandal, or abuse of power fuels the search for alternatives that offer greater security, autonomy, and individual control. In this sense, the actions of governments and central banks become, paradoxically, extremely effective marketing tools.

Could this be why, even without Accenture’s advice, Bitcoin is one of the most recognized brands in the world?

https://highlighter.com/a/naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzqx67uaxlruf7hpw4f5mtcxdyrq85fn56em4696s3p7020xa34tnwqythwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnswf5k6ctv9ehx2ap0qqs4g6r994fkjmr9de6z6stydac8g6t0dck4qctjwsknytt88ym8xdnrcq7t7y

Definitely. I’m screwed 😂

2024-10-05T20:48:18+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…tsy6
_________________________

Definitely. I’m screwed 😂

Found it through an adv on Instagram: https://badboytyping.store/

2024-10-05T20:34:39+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…jrpn
_________________________

Found it through an adv on Instagram: https://badboytyping.store/

Should I buy it? https://m.primal.net/LMJW.jpg

2024-10-05T20:20:14+02:00

Should I buy it?

Grazie ⚡️⚡️

2024-09-25T10:22:48+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…vz6p
_________________________

Grazie ⚡️⚡️

Thanks!

2024-09-24T21:46:08+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…pz8x
_________________________

Thanks!

Three major institutional players—Switzerland’s SIX, ...

2024-09-24T21:27:05+02:00

Three major institutional players—Switzerland’s SIX, Germany’s Commerzbank and DZ Bank, and U.S. giant BlackRock—have embraced or are considering to embrace Bitcoin, signaling a quiet but profound shift in the financial landscape.

As traditional finance integrates Bitcoin, a game theory dynamic is at play: institutions, driven by economic incentives, are compelled to participate, legitimizing the asset while eroding the foundations of the fiat system.

This 'silent adoption' strengthens Bitcoin and poses a growing threat to the traditional debt-based economy, as every move into Bitcoin weakens the demand for fiat currencies.

The details in my new article for Bitcoin Train.

quoting
naddr1qv…xa6l

<img src="https://blossom.primal.net/5efc4eb570a5eb9fb9a3a0206352b1927539422b3e5d0a4873ef7e183c347c16.png">

The days when a mere announcement from Tesla, stating that it would begin accepting Bitcoin for some of its products, would cause a surge in the cryptocurrency's price seem like a distant memory. That was in 2021.

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1374617643446063105https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1374617643446063105https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1374617643446063105https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1374617643446063105https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1374617643446063105https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1374617643446063105https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1374617643446063105Today, three years later, the price barely reacts to three pieces of institutional adoption news released within 72 hours.

The first piece of news comes from Switzerland, where SIX, the Swiss Stock Exchange operator, announced that it is seriously considering launching a crypto exchange. Bjørn Sibbern, global head of exchanges at SIX Group, stated, "The company is evaluating the creation of a platform where we can facilitate trading, both in crypto spot and derivatives."

The second news comes from Germany, where two of the country's leading banks, Commerzbank and DZ Bank, have launched Bitcoin trading for their clients. Commerzbank is one of Germany's four largest banks, while DZ Bank is part of the Volksbanken Raiffeisenbanken group, effectively giants of the European banking system. Together, they will open access to Bitcoin trading for approximately 40 million customers.

The third news comes from the United States, where BlackRock published a report describing Bitcoin as a diversification opportunity for traditional investors.

Some might ask: “But wasn’t Bitcoin supposed to be an anti-system technology?”

The Economic Incentive: A Core Part of Game Theory

Bitcoin is far more than just an anti-system asset. It’s a technology that incentivizes not only its most radical supporters but also potential adversaries. It’s now clear how its programmed scarcity creates a mechanism for appreciation, assuming demand stays the same. Each event signaling an increase in adoption represents a step toward an increase in the asset's value. The reason why even financial institutions—seemingly unrelated or even hostile to Bitcoin—are drawn to it lies in this market dynamic.

Banks and major institutions cannot ignore the asset’s appreciation. Bitcoin creates a perfect environment for both speculation and long-term investment. When the price rises, even the most conservative financial actors cannot overlook the economic incentive.

This is where game theory comes into play: Bitcoin is structured in such a way that anyone—even those who deny or criticize its potential—is incentivized to participate to avoid being excluded from future economic benefits. Financial institutions, driven by greed or opportunism, are forced to join in, knowing that staying out could be costly.

The Two Opposing Cycles: Virtuous for Bitcoin, Vicious for the Fiat System This process creates a reinforcing effect for Bitcoin while paradoxically weakening the traditional financial system that embraces it. Every time an institution decides to offer Bitcoin to its clients or include it in its portfolio, it legitimizes the asset in the public's eyes, strengthens its position, and further increases demand. The result is a virtuous cycle for Bitcoin: the more it is adopted, the more it appreciates, and the more financial actors become interested.

Shorting the System

For the fiat system, the process is the opposite. Bitcoin’s increasing demand pushes its value upward, while the traditional debt-based and expansionary monetary system loses strength. In this context, buying Bitcoin with fiat currency becomes an implicit shorting operation. Every transaction that shifts value from fiat to Bitcoin reduces the demand for fiat, increasing its vulnerability to inflation.

The demand dynamic is not complex: every time an investor buys Bitcoin, they commit resources that would otherwise have been destined for purchasing or investing in fiat-denominated assets. This reduces the buying pressure on fiat itself while increasing it on Bitcoin. The more money flows into Bitcoin, the less remains to sustain the value of fiat currencies.

Let’s suppose, for example, that a bank decides to allocate $100 million to Bitcoin. The market responds to this capital shift by increasing Bitcoin’s price due to its scarcity, while the demand for dollars decreases. All else being equal, this decrease in demand reduces the dollar’s purchasing power, thus increasing inflationary pressure.

This dynamic can also be expressed in terms of the relationship between supply and demand. While Bitcoin’s supply is fixed and predetermined, the dollar’s supply can be expanded infinitely through inflationary monetary policies. The dollar, therefore, tends to lose value as trust in it diminishes and its supply increases.

This process is not immediately visible, but its cumulative effect is devastating for the fiat system. Once the cycle begins, it becomes almost impossible to stop, as more institutions realize the dynamic and rush to buy Bitcoin to protect themselves from the erosion of fiat value.

The Trojan Horse

Given all this, we can understand why Alex Gladstein describes Bitcoin as a “Trojan horse for freedom.”
<div data-youtube-video=""> <iframe width="640" height="480" allowfullscreen="true" autoplay="false" disablekbcontrols="false" enableiframeapi="false" endtime="0" ivloadpolicy="0" loop="false" modestbranding="false" origin="" playlist="" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3xH1vBuDbBA" start="0"></iframe> </div>
The news from the last three days, though seemingly small and quiet, signals a much larger and deeper phenomenon: the slow but steady transition of the traditional financial system toward Bitcoin. The banks and institutions adopting Bitcoin, often without fully realizing it, are contributing to a systemic shift that could lead to the downfall of the very institutions that fail to adapt to the new reality.

These small adoption moves are now so frequent and widespread that they no longer make a big splash. Yet with every move, with every bank launching a Bitcoin product, or every traditional investor adding it to their portfolio, the grave for the traditional financial system is being slowly dug. The actors who remain outside this process risk finding themselves in an increasingly weaker position, unable to compete with a market that is gradually embracing Bitcoin.

https://highlighter.com/a/naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzqx67uaxlruf7hpw4f5mtcxdyrq85fn56em4696s3p7020xa34tnwqy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uqp54rgv5k4x6tvv4h8gt2pv3hhqarfdahz66r9dfmhswqdzyzr9

Dagli americani? La vera potenza che ha diffuso l’inglese in ...

2024-09-21T16:28:35+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…3jqa
_________________________

Dagli americani? La vera potenza che ha diffuso l’inglese in mezzo mondo è il Regno Unito, ben prima della seconda guerra mondiale. E l’unico motivo per cui ancora in tanti non lo parlano è perché la globalizzazione è iniziata da molto poco, in termini di epoche storiche. L’inglese è per distacco la lingua più parlata sulla faccia della terra ed è essenziale un linguaggio comune in un mondo in cui tutti i giorni gli individui scambiano beni e servizi da una parte all’altra del mondo. Poi ognuno è libero di chiudersi nel proprio orticello, ma è ridicolo chiedere agli altri di regredire.

Bitcoin è una tecnologia globale. Il consenso globale ha scelto ...

2024-09-19T19:45:54+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…vwk9
_________________________

Bitcoin è una tecnologia globale. Il consenso globale ha scelto come lingua comune l’inglese.

Bank of Italy. Right now. #studyBitcoin ...

2024-09-19T19:15:33+02:00

Bank of Italy.
Right now.
#studyBitcoin

Self Custody Maxi Bitcoin Hodlers VS Shitcoins Algo Traders. No ...

2024-09-19T11:19:18+02:00

Self Custody Maxi Bitcoin Hodlers VS Shitcoins Algo Traders.

No competition.

Gosh now I really wanna go in Bhutan. #note1uqf…qkgn

2024-09-18T21:25:15+02:00

Gosh now I really wanna go in Bhutan.

quoting
note1uqf…qkgn
The real Bitcoin country is the Kingdom of Bhutan. It literally has more than twice the Bitcoin holdings of El Salvador 🤣

https://atlas21.com/bhutan-is-the-fourth-country-in-the-world-by-number-of-bitcoins-thanks-to-mining/

Thanks for the insights!

2024-09-18T17:20:17+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…rkmg
_________________________

Thanks for the insights!

Esatto 😂 no mercy

2024-09-18T17:01:12+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…7nj0
_________________________

Esatto 😂 no mercy

The real Bitcoin country is the Kingdom of Bhutan. It literally ...

2024-09-18T17:00:30+02:00

The real Bitcoin country is the Kingdom of Bhutan. It literally has more than twice the Bitcoin holdings of El Salvador 🤣

https://atlas21.com/bhutan-is-the-fourth-country-in-the-world-by-number-of-bitcoins-thanks-to-mining/

The REAL Bitcoin Country is the Kingdom of

2024-09-18T16:58:22+02:00

The REAL Bitcoin Country is the Kingdom of

Ouch. Still testing Highlighter. Maybe you can try this? ...

2024-09-16T21:09:06+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…xujw
_________________________

Ouch. Still testing Highlighter. Maybe you can try this? https://highlighter.com/a/naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzqx67uaxlruf7hpw4f5mtcxdyrq85fn56em4696s3p7020xa34tnwqqh5y6t5vdhkjm3d2pex7ur9wf68jt2jd9nksarn9425kttn94rxjunnwsk4xar9wpej67phx9j82mctt0uxw

🙌

2024-09-16T20:45:10+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…8pml
_________________________

🙌

Will London prove to be a good first mover in Europe? In the new ...

2024-09-16T20:35:18+02:00

Will London prove to be a good first mover in Europe? In the new issue of #BitcoinTrain, I analyze the pros and cons of the new bill that aims to recognize bitcoin as private property.

Enjoy ⚡️

quoting note1hcz…7u2r

A Law to define the boundaries within which Bitcoin and digital assets can be legally considered private property. This is what the UK's Ministry of Justice is contemplating. On September 11, alongside Labour MP Heidi Alexander, the ministry introduced a bill to Parliament titled The Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill.

The UK government announced this through a press release, stating that digital assets are currently "not included within the scope of property law," leaving owners "in a legal gray area in case of interference with their assets."

According to the government, the new law would "provide legal protection to owners and businesses against fraud and scams, while also aiding judges in managing complex cases where digital assets are disputed or part of agreements, such as in divorce cases."

It has not yet been decided if and when the bill will be discussed in Parliament, and thus, when it will be voted on. However, the significance of this first-mover initiative is worth analyzing because, if implemented, it could become a benchmark for other jurisdictions in the future.

The Bill

The proposal is based on a report prepared by the Law Commission, an independent body established by the Law Commissions Act of 1965, whose main function is to review and reform the country's laws.

The document argues that digital assets cannot be easily classified as either "things in possession" or "things in action," thus proposing the addition of a third category.

Traditionally, British law distinguishes between things in possession (physical assets, like a car or house) and things in action (legal rights, such as debts or bonds).

According to the commission, digital assets do not fully fit into either of these categories and should, therefore, be assigned to a third category. This category would be called digital objects, and items within it should meet three fundamental criteria:

Independent Existence: Digital assets must exist independently of individuals and the legal system. This is true for Bitcoin, which exists within the timechain.

Non-Duplicability: When an individual uses or possesses a digital asset, another individual cannot possess it at the same time, similar to traditional money.

Not Belonging to Traditional Categories: The assets cannot be simultaneously classified as things in possession or things in action.

More specifically, the commission believes digital assets can be considered property when they allow for:

Making payments for goods and services;

Transferring or communicating value through electronic means;

Expanding market reach and access;

Speculating and investing.

The Role of Common Law

One of the most interesting aspects of the UK's approach is the reliance on Common Law to determine which digital assets can be the subject of property rights.

British Common Law is a legal system based on precedents and judicial interpretation of laws. It is mainly distinguished from the civil law system (like the Italian or French systems) by characteristics such as binding precedents—court decisions constitute precedents that must be respected by courts in future cases with similar facts—and the central role of judges who not only apply existing laws but often interpret norms to fill legislative gaps.

In such a system, jurisprudence can adapt to the specifics of each case, treating digital assets more flexibly than traditional written laws.

The Limits of Interpretation

According to the Law Commission, digital assets—including cryptocurrencies and NFTs—have the potential to be treated as items of personal property. English Common Law has already shown some flexibility in integrating certain instruments into property categories, recognizing that they can be subject to personal rights such as control and transfer.

However, a significant limitation of the document is the constant generalization of the term "digital asset" or "digital object." Bitcoin, other cryptocurrencies, stablecoins, NFTs, tokenized assets, etc., are all included in this category.

While it is true that Bitcoin perfectly meets the requirement of independent existence, the same cannot be said for everything else. Other cryptocurrencies, including Ethereum, NFTs, stablecoins, and tokenized assets, exist due to the presence of companies or consortia that manage and determine their rules, maintenance, and ultimately, existence.

Paradoxically, Bitcoin has much more in common with what the Law Commission calls things in possession (house, car, etc.) than with the rest of the digital assets.

Private Property in Bitcoin

Just as ownership of a property is manifested through control of physical keys, ownership of bitcoin is realized through the control of cryptographic keys. The keys to a house are not the house itself but grant access to it to their possessor. Similarly, private keys in Bitcoin are not the bitcoins themselves but constitute the exclusive power to control and transfer them. This element of exclusivity—whoever possesses the keys holds access—is a foundation of property rights: in Bitcoin, the same principle applies in digital form.

Asymmetric cryptography is the means by which Bitcoin achieves its end: enabling the exercise of private property in the digital realm without the presence of trusted intermediaries.

An exercise that offers more guarantees than those we have been accustomed to for decades. Real estate, precious metals, bank accounts—all these are elements whose private property is subject to the protection of the bank or the law and thus dependent on an intermediary, whether private in the case of the bank or public in the case of the legal system. Numerous historical events demonstrate this, such as the confiscation of gold by the US government in 1933 and the forced withdrawal from Italians' bank accounts by the Amato government in 1992.

Indeed, the same exercise of ownership that Bitcoin allows cannot be associated with the rest of the digital assets, where the very existence of the digital asset depends on one or more intermediaries.

Fortunately, as highlighted above, the document delegates much of the interpretative responsibility to the judges of individual cases thanks to the form of Common Law: it will be up to them not to fall into the trap of generalization.

Will London prove to be a good first mover in Europe? In the new ...

2024-09-16T20:32:41+02:00

Will London prove to be a good first mover in Europe? In the new issue of #BitcoinTrain, I analyze the pros and cons of the new bill that aims to recognize bitcoin as private property.

Enjoy!
[https://highlighter.com/a/naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzqx67uaxlruf7hpw4f5mtcxdyrq85fn56em4696s3p7020xa34tnwqqh5y6t5vdhkjm3d2pex7ur9wf68jt2jd9nksarn9425kttn94rxjunnwsk4xar9wpej67phx9j82mctt0uxw](https://highlighter.com/a/naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzqx67uaxlruf7hpw4f5mtcxdyrq85fn56em4696s3p7020xa34tnwqqh5y6t5vdhkjm3d2pex7ur9wf68jt2jd9nksarn9425kttn94rxjunnwsk4xar9wpej67phx9j82mctt0uxw)
#bitcoin
#property rights
#UK

quoting
naddr1qv…rjrn

A Law to define the boundaries within which Bitcoin and digital assets can be legally considered private property. This is what the UK's Ministry of Justice is contemplating. On September 11, alongside Labour MP Heidi Alexander, the ministry introduced a bill to Parliament titled The Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill.

The UK government announced this through a press release, stating that digital assets are currently "not included within the scope of property law," leaving owners "in a legal gray area in case of interference with their assets."

According to the government, the new law would "provide legal protection to owners and businesses against fraud and scams, while also aiding judges in managing complex cases where digital assets are disputed or part of agreements, such as in divorce cases."

It has not yet been decided if and when the bill will be discussed in Parliament, and thus, when it will be voted on. However, the significance of this first-mover initiative is worth analyzing because, if implemented, it could become a benchmark for other jurisdictions in the future.

The Bill

The proposal is based on a report prepared by the Law Commission, an independent body established by the Law Commissions Act of 1965, whose main function is to review and reform the country's laws.

The document argues that digital assets cannot be easily classified as either "things in possession" or "things in action," thus proposing the addition of a third category.

Traditionally, British law distinguishes between things in possession (physical assets, like a car or house) and things in action (legal rights, such as debts or bonds).

According to the commission, digital assets do not fully fit into either of these categories and should, therefore, be assigned to a third category. This category would be called digital objects, and items within it should meet three fundamental criteria:

Independent Existence: Digital assets must exist independently of individuals and the legal system. This is true for Bitcoin, which exists within the timechain.

Non-Duplicability: When an individual uses or possesses a digital asset, another individual cannot possess it at the same time, similar to traditional money.

Not Belonging to Traditional Categories: The assets cannot be simultaneously classified as things in possession or things in action.

More specifically, the commission believes digital assets can be considered property when they allow for:

Making payments for goods and services;

Transferring or communicating value through electronic means;

Expanding market reach and access;

Speculating and investing.

The Role of Common Law

One of the most interesting aspects of the UK's approach is the reliance on Common Law to determine which digital assets can be the subject of property rights.

British Common Law is a legal system based on precedents and judicial interpretation of laws. It is mainly distinguished from the civil law system (like the Italian or French systems) by characteristics such as binding precedents—court decisions constitute precedents that must be respected by courts in future cases with similar facts—and the central role of judges who not only apply existing laws but often interpret norms to fill legislative gaps.

In such a system, jurisprudence can adapt to the specifics of each case, treating digital assets more flexibly than traditional written laws.

The Limits of Interpretation

According to the Law Commission, digital assets—including cryptocurrencies and NFTs—have the potential to be treated as items of personal property. English Common Law has already shown some flexibility in integrating certain instruments into property categories, recognizing that they can be subject to personal rights such as control and transfer.

However, a significant limitation of the document is the constant generalization of the term "digital asset" or "digital object." Bitcoin, other cryptocurrencies, stablecoins, NFTs, tokenized assets, etc., are all included in this category.

While it is true that Bitcoin perfectly meets the requirement of independent existence, the same cannot be said for everything else. Other cryptocurrencies, including Ethereum, NFTs, stablecoins, and tokenized assets, exist due to the presence of companies or consortia that manage and determine their rules, maintenance, and ultimately, existence.

Paradoxically, Bitcoin has much more in common with what the Law Commission calls things in possession (house, car, etc.) than with the rest of the digital assets.

Private Property in Bitcoin

Just as ownership of a property is manifested through control of physical keys, ownership of bitcoin is realized through the control of cryptographic keys. The keys to a house are not the house itself but grant access to it to their possessor. Similarly, private keys in Bitcoin are not the bitcoins themselves but constitute the exclusive power to control and transfer them. This element of exclusivity—whoever possesses the keys holds access—is a foundation of property rights: in Bitcoin, the same principle applies in digital form.

Asymmetric cryptography is the means by which Bitcoin achieves its end: enabling the exercise of private property in the digital realm without the presence of trusted intermediaries.

An exercise that offers more guarantees than those we have been accustomed to for decades. Real estate, precious metals, bank accounts—all these are elements whose private property is subject to the protection of the bank or the law and thus dependent on an intermediary, whether private in the case of the bank or public in the case of the legal system. Numerous historical events demonstrate this, such as the confiscation of gold by the US government in 1933 and the forced withdrawal from Italians' bank accounts by the Amato government in 1992.

Indeed, the same exercise of ownership that Bitcoin allows cannot be associated with the rest of the digital assets, where the very existence of the digital asset depends on one or more intermediaries.

Fortunately, as highlighted above, the document delegates much of the interpretative responsibility to the judges of individual cases thanks to the form of Common Law: it will be up to them not to fall into the trap of generalization.

https://highlighter.com/a/naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzqx67uaxlruf7hpw4f5mtcxdyrq85fn56em4696s3p7020xa34tnwqyd8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnrv4exxct5wfhhvcfwd4jj7qp0gf5hgcm0d9hz65rjdacx2un50yk4y6t8dp68xt24fvkhxt2xd9e8xapd2d6x2urn94urwvtyw4hskdnnsy

@npub1w0r…cu4x

2024-09-10T11:00:57+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…xepc
_________________________

Highlighter (npub1w0r…cu4x)

Trying out @npub1s06…avcw [object Object] for publishing my ...

2024-09-10T10:59:08+02:00

Trying out testhighlighter.com (npub1s06…avcw) [object Object] for publishing my articles. Looks cool!

quoting
naddr1qv…0nsg

Who Is Responsible for the Content Published on Social Networks?

What should the role of platforms be in content moderation?

Who should be consulted in cases of disputes involving illegal content?

Should there be a limit to freedom of speech online? Where should the line be drawn?

These are just a few of the numerous questions that have characterized the debate for years, not only regarding social networks but, more broadly, the entire landscape of online interactions.

In recent weeks, tensions have reignited due to three cases that have stirred the pot—depending on the perspective—with slogans of either combating illegal activity or fighting censorship: Telegram, Meta, and X.

These cases are distinct, with the platforms and their executives behaving differently in each instance: Meta cooperated with authorities, while Telegram and X were more reluctant. However, all three stories share a key issue—perhaps the key issue: the ability to intervene in the content they host.

To understand the reason, let’s briefly recap what happened.

Telegram, Meta, and X: Three Different Cases, One Common Origin

Pavel Durov, founder of Telegram, was arrested in Paris on August 24th as part of an investigation that French authorities have been conducting for months against the messaging platform.

The accusations are numerous: money laundering, drug trafficking, child pornography, and refusal to cooperate with law enforcement. In the press release issued by the Prosecutor’s Office, there is even mention of violations related to the import and export of cryptographic tools—an approach reminiscent of the United States in the 1990s, when the government classified cryptography on par with weaponry. This interpretation only changed due to the outcome of the Crypto Wars.

In fact, reports tell us that Pavel Durov was released after a few days upon paying a €5 million bail, with the condition that he not leave France. Initially, Telegram issued a statement via Twitter, asserting its compliance with European laws. But on September 6th, the founder of Telegram decided to fight back, leaving little room for interpretation.

"Sometimes we can’t reach an agreement with regulators in certain countries on the right balance between privacy and security," Durov said, adding that, if necessary, Telegram will leave markets that are incompatible with these principles.

It is worth noting that this is not the first time Durov has clashed with authorities. In the past, he refused to cooperate with Russia by denying access to Telegram users’ personal data. This refusal led to the platform being temporarily blocked in Russia in 2018.

Meta: Pressure from the White House and Zuckerberg’s Revelations

Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, recently disclosed pressures he received from the White House during the pandemic. In a letter to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, Zuckerberg revealed that the Biden administration pushed Meta to remove content related to the virus, including satirical and critical posts.

Zuckerberg explained that in 2021, Meta deleted more than 20 million posts related to COVID-19 but expressed regret over some of the decisions made, admitting that the company had succumbed to excessive political pressure.

Zuckerberg emphasized that these requests were perceived by the company as an obligation rather than a choice, and in hindsight, some of these actions might have been mistakes. Meta’s future commitment, according to Zuckerberg, will be to better resist such pressures, even in emergency situations.

I believe the government’s pressure was wrong, and I regret not being more transparent about it.

X and the Clash with the Brazilian Government

Elon Musk and X (formerly Twitter) are at the center of a legal dispute in Brazil, where the platform was blocked after Musk refused to appoint a local legal representative, as required by the country’s Supreme Court. The issue arose when Judge Alexandre de Moraes ordered X to suspend certain accounts accused of spreading political disinformation, particularly those associated with former president Jair Bolsonaro and his supporters.

Musk’s reaction was harsh. He accused the Supreme Court of corruption and of violating free speech, criticizing de Moraes and calling him a “criminal.” However, the judge continued his legal actions against Musk and his company, even freezing the bank accounts of Starlink, Musk’s satellite division, to pressure X into complying with Brazilian laws.

Brazilian authorities are even pursuing those who attempt to access the platform using VPNs, sparking further controversy over freedom in Brazil.

Currently, the platform remains suspended, with about 21 million Brazilian users cut off from the service. The legal dispute is ongoing and could have long-term repercussions for X’s presence in Brazil, one of the platform’s largest markets.

The Ownership of Content

Telegram and X have found themselves in hot water for refusing to comply with content moderation mandates imposed by various jurisdictions. Meta, on the other hand, has avoided such issues by adhering to directives from the White House, including the removal of content flagged by Washington, such as “satirical and ironic” posts, as noted in the letter.

The decisive factor in all three cases is the same: the ability to intervene in what is published on the platform. The terms and conditions of Meta and X do not formally claim ownership of the content users post, but they clarify that users grant the companies a non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use, distribute, modify, and display the content in relation to the services offered. Telegram’s terms are slightly stricter: while users also retain formal ownership of their content, Telegram requires a license to distribute and display content only within its ecosystem.

However, the result remains the same. Anything published by users can be modified by the platform, according to the implicit contract every single user agrees to when they begin using the service.

Nostr is the Way

It’s no coincidence that, in recent weeks, many who care about issues such as privacy and censorship resistance have reignited interest in Nostr. The protocol, whose acronym stands for Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays, can be used via various clients, not a single platform—similar to how the Web is accessible from different browsers.

But most importantly, users who create an account do not do so through a username and password saved on the company’s servers—because, in this case, the company doesn’t exist—but rather through a public key and a private key.

This key pair allows users to interact with Nostr across multiple clients and send their “notes”—as posts are called on Nostr—to as many relays (servers) as they wish. In other words, the data is not stored on a single server but on multiple servers chosen by the user—and the user can even set up their own server without much difficulty.

Most importantly, the data is portable. Posts sent are cryptographically signed: in Nostr, content ownership is not just formally with the user, it is mathematically so.

In such a context, blaming the operator of a client or relay for the content signed and published by users' private keys would be bordering on absurdity, besides revealing a clear technical ignorance. Of course, after the accusations from the U.S. Department of Justice against the developers of Samourai Wallet, it’s fair to be ready for anything.

But giving a chance to solutions like Nostr also means considering the possibility of reclaiming one's online identity and no longer being an unconscious victim of manipulative algorithms and invasive governments.

https://highlighter.com/a/naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzqx67uaxlruf7hpw4f5mtcxdyrq85fn56em4696s3p7020xa34tnwqy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uqrv4r9d3jkwunpd5k4st2dv46xzt2yd9nxvetjv4h8gttrv9ek2uedd9jx2mn5d93kzmpdvdshxetn956hwmttd95qhm9qt4

Lo farò sicuramente. Grazie!

2024-09-09T20:53:06+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…vvlr
_________________________

Lo farò sicuramente. Grazie!

🙌♥️

2024-09-09T20:19:58+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…365r
_________________________

🙌♥️

Here's the first article! ...

2024-09-09T20:15:50+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…ayps
_________________________

Here's the first article!

https://primal.net/e/note1edcz04pl8kaalj9pkng9pgpm8qkfwju467fve7h5kxlvd4celk6sp3l8nz

- Telegram, X, Meta. Different cases, identical cases. Hidden ...

2024-09-09T20:14:59+02:00

- Telegram, X, Meta. Different cases, identical cases.

Hidden censorship and refusal to cooperate. The news from the past few weeks has reignited the debate on online freedom of speech. However, the issue is quite different.

---

Who is responsible for the content published on social networks?
What should the role of platforms be in content moderation?
Who should be consulted in cases of disputes involving illegal content?
Should there be a limit to freedom of speech online? Where should the line be drawn?

These are just a few of the numerous questions that have characterized the debate for years, not only regarding social networks but, more broadly, the entire landscape of online interactions.

In recent weeks, tensions have reignited due to three cases that have stirred the pot—depending on the perspective—with slogans of either combating illegal activity or fighting censorship: Telegram, Meta, and X.

These cases are distinct, with the platforms and their executives behaving differently in each instance: Meta cooperated with authorities, while Telegram and X were more reluctant. However, all three stories share a key issue—perhaps the key issue: the ability to intervene in the content they host.

To understand the reason, let’s briefly recap what happened.

- Telegram, Meta, and X: Three Different Cases, One Common Origin.

Pavel Durov, founder of Telegram, was arrested in Paris on August 24th as part of an investigation that French authorities have been conducting for months against the messaging platform.

The accusations are numerous: money laundering, drug trafficking, child pornography, and refusal to cooperate with law enforcement. In the press release issued by the Prosecutor’s Office, there is even mention of violations related to the import and export of cryptographic tools—an approach reminiscent of the United States in the 1990s, when the government classified cryptography on par with weaponry. This interpretation only changed due to the outcome of the Crypto Wars.

In fact, reports tell us that Pavel Durov was released after a few days upon paying a €5 million bail, with the condition that he not leave France. Initially, Telegram issued a statement via Twitter, asserting its compliance with European laws. But on September 6th, the founder of Telegram decided to fight back, leaving little room for interpretation.

"Sometimes we can’t reach an agreement with regulators in certain countries on the right balance between privacy and security," Durov said, adding that, if necessary, Telegram will leave markets that are incompatible with these principles.

It is worth noting that this is not the first time Durov has clashed with authorities. In the past, he refused to cooperate with Russia by denying access to Telegram users’ personal data. This refusal led to the platform being temporarily blocked in Russia in 2018.

- Meta: Pressure from the White House and Zuckerberg’s Revelations

Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, recently disclosed pressures he received from the White House during the pandemic. In a letter to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, Zuckerberg revealed that the Biden administration pushed Meta to remove content related to the virus, including satirical and critical posts.

Zuckerberg explained that in 2021, Meta deleted more than 20 million posts related to COVID-19 but expressed regret over some of the decisions made, admitting that the company had succumbed to excessive political pressure.

Zuckerberg emphasized that these requests were perceived by the company as an obligation rather than a choice, and in hindsight, some of these actions might have been mistakes. Meta’s future commitment, according to Zuckerberg, will be to better resist such pressures, even in emergency situations.

"I believe the government’s pressure was wrong, and I regret not being more transparent about it."

- X and the clash with the Brazilian Government

Elon Musk and X (formerly Twitter) are at the center of a legal dispute in Brazil, where the platform was blocked after Musk refused to appoint a local legal representative, as required by the country’s Supreme Court. The issue arose when Judge Alexandre de Moraes ordered X to suspend certain accounts accused of spreading political disinformation, particularly those associated with former president Jair Bolsonaro and his supporters.

Musk’s reaction was harsh. He accused the Supreme Court of corruption and of violating free speech, criticizing de Moraes and calling him a “criminal.” However, the judge continued his legal actions against Musk and his company, even freezing the bank accounts of Starlink, Musk’s satellite division, to pressure X into complying with Brazilian laws.

Brazilian authorities are even pursuing those who attempt to access the platform using VPNs, sparking further controversy over freedom in Brazil.

Currently, the platform remains suspended, with about 21 million Brazilian users cut off from the service. The legal dispute is ongoing and could have long-term repercussions for X’s presence in Brazil, one of the platform’s largest markets.

- The ownership of content

Telegram and X have found themselves in hot water for refusing to comply with content moderation mandates imposed by various jurisdictions. Meta, on the other hand, has avoided such issues by adhering to directives from the White House, including the removal of content flagged by Washington, such as “satirical and ironic” posts, as noted in the letter.

The decisive factor in all three cases is the same: the ability to intervene in what is published on the platform. The terms and conditions of Meta and X do not formally claim ownership of the content users post, but they clarify that users grant the companies a non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use, distribute, modify, and display the content in relation to the services offered. Telegram’s terms are slightly stricter: while users also retain formal ownership of their content, Telegram requires a license to distribute and display content only within its ecosystem.

However, the result remains the same. Anything published by users can be modified by the platform, according to the implicit contract every single user agrees to when they begin using the service.

- Nostr is the way

It’s no coincidence that, in recent weeks, many who care about issues such as privacy and censorship resistance have reignited interest in Nostr. The protocol, whose acronym stands for Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays, can be used via various clients, not a single platform—similar to how the Web is accessible from different browsers.

But most importantly, users who create an account do not do so through a username and password saved on the company’s servers—because, in this case, the company doesn’t exist—but rather through a public key and a private key.

This key pair allows users to interact with Nostr across multiple clients and send their “notes”—as posts are called on Nostr—to as many relays (servers) as they wish. In other words, the data is not stored on a single server but on multiple servers chosen by the user—and the user can even set up their own server without much difficulty.

Most importantly, the data is portable. Posts sent are cryptographically signed: in Nostr, content ownership is not just formally with the user, it is mathematically so.
In such a context, blaming the operator of a client or relay for the content signed and published by users' private keys would be bordering on absurdity, besides revealing a clear technical ignorance. Of course, after the accusations from the U.S. Department of Justice against the developers of Samourai Wallet, it’s fair to be ready for anything.

But giving a chance to solutions like Nostr also means considering the possibility of reclaiming one's online identity and no longer being an unconscious victim of manipulative algorithms and invasive governments.

Thank you 🔥

2024-09-09T19:25:51+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…vx8a
_________________________

Thank you 🔥

🚂🚂🚂

2024-09-09T19:25:35+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…r303
_________________________

🚂🚂🚂

🙌

2024-09-09T19:25:23+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…q0qc
_________________________

🙌

The first time I read 'nothing stops this train' I ...

2024-09-09T19:24:57+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…vruh
_________________________

The first time I read 'nothing stops this train' I gasped. Then I realised she was referring to the US public debt 😄

Thanks man!

2024-09-09T17:49:17+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…anmq
_________________________

Thanks man!

🫡🫡

2024-09-09T17:28:27+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…hcsu
_________________________

🫡🫡

🔥🙌

2024-09-09T17:24:15+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…jafh
_________________________

🔥🙌

Three years ago, as the Bitcoin Law was coming into effect in El ...

2024-09-09T17:10:02+02:00

Three years ago, as the Bitcoin Law was coming into effect in El Salvador, I began my journey as a Bitcoin journalist. I started writing a newsletter in my native language, Italian, and called it 'Bitcoin Train.’ It’s a weekly newsletter that, starting from the latest news, delves into Bitcoin, its implications, and related topics.

I named it this way because Bitcoin is a long journey, filled with an almost infinite number of stops. From the initial orange pill to a deeper understanding of the world around us, to a radical shift in perspective, and passing through countless other stages along the way.

After just a few months, I realized that Bitcoin Train was gaining traction and could become something significant. I left my full-time job as a press officer, and within just over a year, the newsletter became my full-time occupation. Today, it is the largest Bitcoin-only newsletter in Italy.

Today, three years since its inception, I want to take it a step further. The events of the past few weeks have made me realize that Nostr could become a crucial technology for freedom of expression in the future, and as a journalist, I’ve decided to bet on it.

Starting today, I will publish the English version of my in-depth articles weekly here, on Nostr. I won’t rely on Substack, Beehiiv, Medium, or other platforms. The articles will be published here, openly.

Soon, I’ll publish an article dedicated to the importance of Nostr and its ties to the events of the past few weeks involving Telegram, Meta, and X.

The journey begins.

What #Sinner Did (to the Italian tennis movement) ...

2024-09-08T20:15:45+02:00

What #Sinner Did
(to the Italian tennis movement)

Still smarter than the cops bro

2024-09-05T20:41:54+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…849k
_________________________

Still smarter than the cops bro

- Anything to declare? * Nothing, officer. - What is that? * Oh, ...

2024-09-05T20:15:36+02:00

- Anything to declare?
* Nothing, officer.
- What is that?
* Oh, just my crosswords.
- Ok, go on.
* Thank you, officer. And thank you for your service 🫡

Good point. Trusted custody, maybe?

2024-09-05T14:14:55+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…a6vw
_________________________

Good point. Trusted custody, maybe?

I just told a friend about Nostr. He didn't know what it was. ...

2024-09-05T14:09:59+02:00

I just told a friend about Nostr. He didn't know what it was.

He asked: “How does the algorithm work?"

Ok. Hear me out…

👀 #note18dy…sxf4

2024-09-04T16:13:18+02:00

👀

quoting
note18dy…sxf4
New tutorial testing out Wasabi wallet using coordinators found with LiquiSabi (npub1u4r…eswa). Coming soon.

If bitcoin did not exist, I don't know if I could look to the ...

2024-09-04T15:17:48+02:00

If bitcoin did not exist, I don't know if I could look to the future with optimism. #Bitcoin is literally the light at the end of the tunnel.

@npub1jg5…6n8n pioneering Zapvertising ⚡️ Love to see it! ...

2024-09-03T12:23:50+02:00

Blockstream (npub1jg5…6n8n) pioneering Zapvertising ⚡️

Love to see it!

I didn’t write that criticizing the protocol is wrong. I ...

2024-09-02T22:53:59+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…kehh
_________________________

I didn’t write that criticizing the protocol is wrong. I literally wrote “rightfully”. But tbf it was a quick take, so I get that it could be misunderstood. All I meant was that only criticizing or snobbing the protocol because there’s better tech out there (holepunch?) isn’t useful when the alternatives are not ready yet. Which doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t focus on understanding what the flaws are in Nostr, and how to fix them.

You probably didn’t read carefully

2024-09-02T22:36:26+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…eyat
_________________________

You probably didn’t read carefully

Doesn’t really matter. The masses will always prefer the comfy ...

2024-09-02T22:35:49+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…nl2j
_________________________

Doesn’t really matter. The masses will always prefer the comfy solution. But for the few who really want to opt out it’s important for the decentralized alternatives to be there

This. In the past year and a half, many people have (rightfully) ...

2024-09-02T20:01:52+02:00

This.

In the past year and a half, many people have (rightfully) criticized NOSTR for its flaws, but the importance of NOSTR lies not so much in its features as in its very existence.

A protocol, however flawed, will always be better than alternatives that don’t yet exist. In recent weeks, many are realizing the need for a decentralized alternative.

Nostr is here. And that's all that matters.

quoting
note136g…prjq
Imagine where we would be without fiatjaf (npub180c…h6w6)

Isn’t it wild how the universe releases ideas exactly when the world needs them most?

With #nostr at this time and from the country that needs it most.

Amazing! Thank you

2024-09-01T11:29:41+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…2wp8
_________________________

Amazing! Thank you

GM Nostr! I need your help. I'm looking for some usage data ...

2024-09-01T11:19:22+02:00

GM Nostr! I need your help.

I'm looking for some usage data showing the growth of Nostr users in the last two weeks. Does anyone know how I can get them?
In the Explore section of Primal I can find the current active users, but I would like to understand how they have changed after the Telegram, Meta in the U.S., and X in Brazil cases.

Thanks!

Yep, that’s the point of the Trojan horse. They need salvation ...

2024-08-31T20:58:59+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…9t4j
_________________________

Yep, that’s the point of the Trojan horse. They need salvation from the economy they’re part of, but in seeking salvation they help sinking their own system. Basically they are saving themselves by killing their friends.

Every time I reflect on it, I'm utterly astonished. The ...

2024-08-31T20:15:24+02:00

Every time I reflect on it, I'm utterly astonished. The brilliance of the Trojan horse strategy is truly remarkable.

#Bitcoin is fundamentally a wager against the fiat system. As Bitcoin prospers, the fiat system inevitably falters.

Yet, paradoxically, the largest financial institutions within the fiat system are now deeply involved in Bitcoin, lured by the potential for financial gain. In their pursuit of profit, they are unknowingly dismantling their own business model.

Absolutely mind-blowing.

Yep, there’s even a definition for that ...

2024-08-30T11:21:05+02:00

In reply to nevent1q…jcwz
_________________________

Yep, there’s even a definition for that

“Journalism often functions as propaganda. The difference is ...

2024-08-30T10:18:39+02:00

“Journalism often functions as propaganda. The difference is that State propaganda at least openly acknowledges that it is propaganda. When a journalist publishes an article, people think it's journalism. I even see journalists defending the idea that journalism must have an agenda”.

The concept of agenda-setting is an aberrant one, yet it’s the first thing they teach you when you start studying journalism.
In these years, I’ve often criticized Bukele, but in this part of the interview published by Time, I must admit that he’s simply spot-on.

THE DARK SIDE OF TELEGRAM FOUNDER’S ARREST Beyond the mere ...

2024-08-26T12:13:08+02:00

THE DARK SIDE OF TELEGRAM FOUNDER’S ARREST

Beyond the mere reporting of events, the Durov case has obviously reignited the ongoing debate on freedom of speech and the power of authorities over social platforms.

The politicization of the case makes little sense—Durov has refused to collaborate with Russia in the past, not just with Western countries—so there are two key points to analyze:

- What should Telegram do for its customers?
- Who should decide the moderation policies?

Telegram markets and advertises itself as a privacy-focused messaging service - though it's important to acknowledge that there are other services that offer even more robust privacy protections.

Despite this, Telegram's positioning as a privacy-centric platform is a strategic choice that resonates with a large user base seeking a balance between usability and security. Given this brand identity, it makes perfect sense that Telegram would be resistant to collaborating with authorities on matters that could compromise user data. Such cooperation could undermine the very value proposition that has attracted millions of users to the platform.

If Telegram were to capitulate to demands for data sharing or content moderation in ways that violate user privacy, it would risk eroding the trust that underpins its entire business model.

Users who prioritize privacy might abandon the platform in favor of alternatives that offer stronger guarantees of confidentiality and security. Therefore, Telegram’s stance on non-cooperation with authorities is not merely a matter of principle but a strategic decision to protect its core offering.

Self-moderation is the only way.

A crucial aspect of the debate on moderation concerns the capacity and legitimacy of digital platforms to control content. When a company like Telegram introduces the possibility of moderating content, several fundamental questions arise.

First, in order to decide which content should be moderated, it is necessary to read all of it. This immediately raises privacy concerns: who guarantees that users' private messages are not intercepted? If someone can read messages, privacy is already compromised.

Secondly, who decides what is legitimate? The notion of legitimacy is fluid and varies from country to country, from government to government, and even within the same societies over time. What the European Union might consider acceptable today could be deemed illegitimate tomorrow, or vice versa. The same question applies to other global actors: which standard should prevail? Well, the answer is: those of the owner.

The only way to find common ground in this global context is not to rely on existing laws, which are often contradictory, but rather on the principle of private property.

Telegram itself should be the sole authority to decide what and how to moderate on its own platform. It will then be the market that judges its actions: users, through their choices, will determine whether Telegram’s moderation policies are fair or not.

If users believe Telegram manages moderation fairly and respectfully, they will continue using the service; otherwise, they will migrate to other platforms that better meet their needs.