FeyssPalmer

Your arguments aren’t supported by data.
I understand that you’re shocked and horrified by Kirk’s murder, it’s truly awful.
Try not to get drawn into extreme viewpoints. There is data on this. Violence is a serious problem, but it’s not about blaming one side against the other.
Keep a clear mind. Don’t spread hate.

2025-09-13 04:59:31 UTC

- reply

its offical data, proof it wrong.

2025-09-13 04:58:31 UTC

- reply

Oh, look. A 100% extremist terrorist here. He says in spanish: „We have to extinguish the left wing.“
Fuck you. Fuck extremism. Fuck violence.

2025-09-13 04:51:54 UTC

- reply

Can you back your claim with Data?
Do you want to body count? You are a
way off the charts. Here you go:
From 1960 to the present, nearly all politically motivated killings in the United States have originated from the right-wing spectrum, including acts driven by racism, white supremacy, anti-abortion extremism, or anti-government terrorism. Documented killings from the left-wing spectrum are rare. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 remains the most notable exception.
The following overview includes only cases on the U.S. mainland between 2025 and 1960 in which the perpetrators can be clearly classified within the left–right ideological spectrum. Attacks motivated by Islamist, ethnonationalist, or purely psychological factors without a clear political ideology are excluded.
Politically Motivated Killings & Attempts (1960–2025):
2025 – Killing of Charlie Kirk
Perpetrator spectrum: Against Right (conservative activist targeted).
Victim: Charlie Kirk (Turning Point USA), killed in Utah.
(Source: DOJ/FBI investigation statements, press coverage)
Body count: 1
2024 – Attempted Assassination of Donald Trump (Butler, PA)
Perpetrator spectrum: Against Right (politically motivated, under investigation).
Victim: Former President Donald Trump wounded; one spectator killed.
(Source: FBI/Secret Service statements, ongoing DOJ investigation)
Body count: Target 0 but 1 for spectator.
2019 – El Paso Walmart Shooting
Perpetrator spectrum: Right (white nationalist, anti-immigrant).
Victims: 22 people killed; shooter published manifesto against Hispanic immigrants.
(Source: DOJ indictment, FBI classification)
Body count: 22
2017 – Charlottesville Car Attack
Perpetrator spectrum: Right (neo-Nazi, white supremacist).
Victim: Heather Heyer, killed during Unite the Right rally.
(Source: DOJ terrorism charges, trial records)
Body count: 1
2015 – Charleston Church Shooting
Perpetrator spectrum: Right (white supremacist, racist).
Victims: Pastor Clementa Pinckney and eight parishioners, killed by Dylann Roof.
(Source: DOJ sentencing memorandum, FBI hate crimes report)
Body count: 9
1998 – Murder of Dr. Barnett Slepian
Perpetrator spectrum: Right (religious-fundamentalist, anti-abortion extremist).
Victim: Dr. Slepian, abortion provider, shot at home in New York.
(Source: DOJ indictment, FBI case file)
Body count: 1
1995 – Oklahoma City Bombing
Perpetrator spectrum: Right (anti-government, far-right extremism).
Victims: 168 people killed in the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building, perpetrator Timothy McVeigh.
(Source: DOJ trial records, FBI investigation reports)
Body count: 168
1978 – Assassinations of George Moscone & Harvey Milk
Perpetrator spectrum: Right (conservative ex-politician targeting liberal/gay politicians).
Victims: Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk.
(Source: California court records, press reports)
Body count: 2
1968 – Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.
Perpetrator spectrum: Right (racist, white supremacist).
Victim: Martin Luther King Jr., shot in Memphis.
(Source: DOJ, House Select Committee on Assassinations report)
Body count: 1
1964 – Mississippi Burning Murders
Perpetrator spectrum: Right (Ku Klux Klan, white supremacist).
Victims: Civil rights workers Andrew Goodman, James Chaney, Michael Schwerner.
(Source: FBI case files, DOJ civil rights investigations)
Body count: 3
1963 – Assassination of John F. Kennedy
Perpetrator spectrum: Left (Lee Harvey Oswald, Marxist/communist leanings).
Victim: President John F. Kennedy, shot in Dallas.
(Source: National Archives, Warren Commission Report)
Body count: 1

2025-09-12 22:01:44 UTC

- reply

From the far end of one spectrum, the opposite side will always seem overwhelming. But that says more about where you stand than about the facts.

2025-09-12 12:56:37 UTC

- reply

there are terrorist left and right.

2025-08-03 10:22:47 UTC

- reply

Starbucks is a Shitcoin

2025-07-24 06:21:33 UTC

- reply

You rant about climate like a fiat normie rants about Bitcoin. Loud, clueless and missing the point. 🤣

2025-07-23 17:00:41 UTC

- reply

I‘m just waiting for @nprofile…6w5v to preach the world is flat.
Bitcoin as an incentive for better cooperation and long-term thinking.
Even if you still doubt climate change, ask yourself:
What happens to Bitcoin’s value in a world of chaos, conflict, and collapsing trust?
Whether caused by climate or crisis:
Instability destroys value.

2025-06-05 22:14:17 UTC

- reply

This is as decentralized as a two-party system is democratic. 😂

2025-05-16 05:58:12 UTC

- reply

Sats is the standard 😁😬😁🦷🦷🦷🦷🦷

2025-05-16 05:55:17 UTC

- reply

Proof of Steak! Watch this Vitalik

2025-05-15 09:49:58 UTC

- reply

Lot’s of people prefer to speak in their mother tongue, especially when they’re not very confident in the foreign language you‘re trying to make them speak. That’s it…

2025-05-14 20:01:00 UTC

- reply

Clown Core

2025-05-13 20:34:34 UTC

- reply

In pre-industrial times, chances are you wouldn’t be living in a grand stone building adorned with ornate columns. You’d most likely inhabit a modest timber or mud dwelling, with no glass windows, no carved friezes, and certainly no Corinthian capitals. Monumental architecture was the domain of the elite: temples, cathedrals, palaces, perhaps the occasional public square. But realistically, you wouldn’t be in a city at all. You’d be a peasant in the countryside, living close to the land and far from marble.
These kinds of stone structures were built with immense labor, vast material resources, and often under punishing conditions. They represent not just beauty, but also hierarchy, scarcity, and centuries of concentrated wealth.
As for the three columns in the image, they’re an odd choice if the goal is to celebrate architectural greatness. They look more like eccentric design exercises or parody than actual heritage. They’re miles away from the clarity of Doric elegance, the balance of Ionic proportion, or the intricate refinement of the Corinthian order. Just as distant from the monumentality of Egyptian temples, the layered geometry of Islamic architecture, or the soaring lightness of Gothic cathedrals. The left one resembles an oversized screw, the middle a tree trunk balanced on river stones, and the right feels like it was borrowed from a baroque cabinet rather than a building. In short, they’re the shitcoin version of classical architecture.
The real issue isn’t that people have lost their sense of beauty, but that we live in a different age with different materials, methods of production, and economic realities. Yes, we should absolutely build better, more durable, more beautiful spaces, including aesthetic sustainability. But nostalgic aesthetics alone won’t shelter anyone. Sentiment is not a construction material.
And finally, ask yourself: would you really want to spend 5 million Sats per column or 100 million?
Beauty may be priceless, but in the real world, someone still has to pay the invoice.

2025-05-05 15:13:46 UTC

- reply

🤦 The nodes decide ultimately. There is also „Knots“ as alternative.

2025-04-26 16:08:05 UTC

- reply

Top! Gruss vom Aletsch :)
https://m.primal.net/QeME.jpg

2025-04-26 15:38:13 UTC

- reply

🤖🐛 I just found this tiny tiny caterpillar in the swiss alps. It’s so delicate and alive, outshining any machine.
It nourishes itself, metamorphoses in silence, emerges as a butterfly, and flies away. Then it dies, decays, and nourishes other animals and the soil. No machines, no batteries, no waste.
A miracle no robot could ever dream of.
https://m.primal.net/QeKX.mov

2025-04-24 21:41:03 UTC

- reply

If you’re willing to pay for it, you can absolutely have it.
There are architects and builders who specialize in this kind of craftsmanship. You just have to fund the time, skill, and materials it requires. And yes, you might have to navigate (or occasionally bend) a few local building codes. But it’s possible. It’s not that builders can’t do it. It’s that the market usually doesn’t demand it at the price it costs to do it right.

2025-04-24 04:15:06 UTC

GM! #nostr
https://m.primal.net/QbLS.png

2025-04-24 04:09:49 UTC

- reply

Oh, so the foto of the cozy fireplace in the ISS must be fake! 😱
https://m.primal.net/QbLI.png

2025-04-23 14:34:51 UTC

- reply

Just think for yourself: „The earth is flat because you‘re fat.“
(Finally I can use this quote from Clown Core‘s song „Earth“. Highly recommended. Yes, you’re right - as you expected - it’s two clowns performing free-death-jazz-metal in a family van. What else. Pure YouTube-Gold… ehh -Bitcoin.
https://youtu.be/sR_rPd_ufK4)

2025-04-22 18:13:05 UTC

- reply

This is a thoughtful and well-founded critique and it touches on many truths. But the deep change in architectural quality isn’t just about fiat money; it reflects a deeper shift that began with industrialization: efficiency over care, standardization over character, and yes, short-term profit over long-term value.
As Vitruvius put it: Think in terms of firmitas, utilitas, and venustas - strength, function, and beauty.
Historically, labor was cheap and materials were expensive. Buildings were shaped by craftsmanship, durability, and local resources. Ornament and proportion weren’t indulgent. They were signs of care, cultural continuity and socio-economical status. This was no asset in a abstract real estate portfolio - the owner actually lived here. Today, with labor costly and materials cheap, we get mechanized, soulless repetition. A clear loss in the realm of Venustas.
A striking example is stonemasonry: once central to construction, now nearly vanished from new buildings. Natural stone is rarely structural at best, it’s a thin veneer fixed to insulation. The idea of stone as a load-bearing material has been replaced by flexible grids of concrete columns and slabs. With the decline of the stonemason came the loss of centuries of tacit knowledge. In return, we’ve gained new technologies — concrete, float-glass, elevators, timber high-rises, advanced building systems, energy efficiency, accessibility, but often without the depth or craft of the old.
There’s also a selection bias: bad buildings from the past rarely survive. What remains are the best - giving us a distorted sense of history. Add to this the ideological breaks of modernism: Loos, Le Corbusier, and Gropius sought rupture, not continuity. Their early work had substance, but their successors often lacked the skill or sensibility to build meaningfully at human scale.
Vitruvius’ triad «firmitas, utilitas, venustas» has been thrown off balance. Durability is cut, function reduced to rentable floor area, and beauty sacrificed for sterile minimalism.
A Bitcoin standard, with its emphasis on low time preference, could support a shift back to long-term thinking and with it, better architecture. But money alone won’t build cathedrals. Culture, education, and taste must grow with it.
What we need is a new synthesis: craftsmanship and technology, function and beauty, past and future. Only then can architecture once again reflect human scale and meaning.

2025-04-14 22:22:13 UTC

- reply

🤣 I love the reduced 2x2x2 Rubik-Cube on the Desk. Says everything.

2025-04-14 21:42:39 UTC

Today I learnt from the US-Secretary of Education Linda McMahon that A.I. is now A.1. Yes. A-One.
Made my day.
https://youtube.com/shorts/xsRUk0dMJu4

2025-04-12 14:30:56 UTC

- reply

🤡 Well for the devalued USD it‘s true.
Not true for EUR, CHF, Gold, …
Doesn‘t matter in the long run.

2025-04-11 05:28:13 UTC

- reply

I’m clearly not in favor of US tariffs, but I think the comparison to Leningrad falls short.
The main difference is the scale - Leningrad’s economy was tiny compared to that of the US, wasn’t it?
Same idea on a bigger scale: Earth itself is “under siege” from all alien civilizations, since we have no established interstellar trade routes, effectively isolating humanity. Yet, that doesn’t seem to be a problem at all.
The US sits somewhere between Leningrad and the entire planet 😅 So, while massive tariffs in a globalized economy are clearly a bad idea, they’re not as catastrophic as a full-blown siege like Leningrad.

2025-04-10 19:14:15 UTC

- reply

Hi Knut, thanks for reaching out.
I watched the video a few months ago and again just now.
As I said, Bitcoin is clearly not suited to the idea of “Element Zero” on the periodic table - it’s neither an element nor an atom. Classifying Bitcoin as “element zero” on the periodic table (implying atomic number 0 and zero mass) is conceptually flawed, since it can not be a chemical element.
That said, the notion of a “Digital Element Zero” remains philosophically intriguing.
By the way, calling gold “shiny rocks” isn’t accurate at all. Gold is a pure chemical element - a metal - whereas rocks are chemically heterogeneous aggregates of minerals.

2025-04-10 19:01:28 UTC

- reply

It seems we’re aligned: classifying Bitcoin as “element zero” on the periodic table (implying atomic number 0 = zero mass) is conceptually flawed, as it is not a chemical element. That said, the notion of a “Digital Element Zero” remains philosophically intriguing. I also concur that Bitcoin exhibits properties comparable to SI base units such as the meter, second, or kilogram.

2025-04-08 23:52:27 UTC

- reply

Religion is just magic with an official license.
or:
occultism light - same rituals, better PR

2025-04-08 09:33:39 UTC

- reply

Yes, Bitcoin mining consumes real-world energy, and that process ties it to physics. But electricity use alone doesn’t make something a physical element. A YouTube video also consumes electricity to be streamed - does that make it an element?
Bitcoin has no atomic mass, no molecular interactions, and no place on the periodic table. It’s a digital protocol, not a chemical substance. To call it a “digital element” is poetic, maybe even metaphorically compelling - but scientifically, it’s just incorrect.

2025-04-08 05:05:27 UTC

- reply

Nice philosophical thought, but scientifically, it’s pure nonsense:
The periodic table describes physical elements, whereas Bitcoin is purely digital.
Each element in the periodic table consists of atoms with a defined number of protons, neutrons, and electrons. These elements have measurable physical properties such as atomic mass, density, and reactivity. Bitcoin, on the other hand, is an abstract construct - mathematical code running on a decentralized network. It has no atomic structure, no physical form, and no chemical interactions.
While Bitcoin may have properties that resemble scarce commodities like gold, it fundamentally differs from anything in the periodic table because it does not exist in the physical realm. It is not bound by the laws of chemistry.

2025-04-07 19:16:29 UTC

- reply

hehe, ok!
Samstag war auch super!
#paragliding
https://m.primal.net/QHjU.jpg

2025-04-07 17:25:05 UTC

- reply

Cool - Gratuliere! 🎉 Glücklich wer heute Gleitschirm statt Bildschirm wählen konnte.

2025-04-01 18:50:37 UTC

- reply

Satoshi Nakamoto 🙃😆

2025-03-27 18:30:04 UTC

- reply

then follow me 🐇

2025-03-26 19:29:53 UTC

- reply

💯

2025-03-26 17:34:33 UTC

- reply

One’s debt is another’s wealth—the real issue is distribution (CE) and opportunity. The Cantillon Effect (CE) shows how those closest to money creation benefit most. Debt itself isn’t the problem; its purpose, quality, and backing matter.
Even under a Bitcoin standard, debt will exist—but with a completely different purpose, higher quality, and backed by Bitcoin.

2025-03-26 15:38:18 UTC

- reply

Such a 🤡-Show: The MAGA Swamp defends itself with baseless claims. Compared to other information at much lower hierarchical levels and the scandal surrounding Clinton’s emails, this is blatantly hypocritical.
Incompetence at its finest.

2025-03-26 07:10:51 UTC

- reply

stay humble, stack sats, post notes AND ZAP THE GOOD STUFF!😃

2025-03-26 07:02:38 UTC

- reply

Oh dear, what really hurts is your incompetence. I really don't know what you're trying to teach me about Zermatt or Switzerland in general. You obviously have no idea and you don't live here.

2025-03-26 05:03:22 UTC

- reply

@breedlove22
I don’t agree — what about:
•Math?
•TCP/IP?
•To a certain degree music and the core architecture of languages?
•Codification of the laws of physics? (Which are discoveries but the codifications are man-made systems.)
•The principles of double-entry accounting? (Unchanged for centuries…)

2025-03-25 19:14:53 UTC

- reply

I’m simply calling a clown by his name—more precisely, a clown trapped in his own tight mirrored box named conspiracy.
I wonder how many days you’ve actually spent in Switzerland and where you prefer to live.

2025-03-25 19:00:51 UTC

- reply

🤦🤦🏻🤦🏼🤦🏽🤦🏾🤦🏿

2025-03-25 05:26:25 UTC

- reply

🤦‍♂️

2025-03-24 22:27:18 UTC

- reply

It looks like you’re just born salty, completely devoid of any real arguments or understanding of what you’re talking about, and suffering from narrow-mindedness. HFSD.

2025-03-24 20:46:32 UTC

- reply

🤯 The level of incompetence within this administration is truly staggering, time and time again. This time, it’s a complete failure on the part of the National Security Advisor himself.

2025-03-23 16:22:09 UTC

- reply

Opting out – yes. However, whether a municipality could join Switzerland, Germany, or Austria (or XYZ) is not regulated. This would require negotiations. So far, no community has chosen to leave.

2025-03-23 16:08:21 UTC

- reply

🙏 Awesome – thanks for the Zaps! ⚡️

2025-03-23 16:03:00 UTC

- reply

Interesting question! Personally, Liechtenstein almost feels like Switzerland’s 27th canton. They speak a Germanic dialect very similar to Swiss German, use the Swiss franc as their currency, and do not have their own military. Geographically, they occupy the eastern side of a small section of the Upper Rhine Valley, with Switzerland on the western side. This close connection makes them feel very familiar. However, one key difference is that Liechtenstein has a monarch, whereas modern Switzerland has never had a real monarchy.

2025-03-21 17:04:56 UTC

- reply

Compared with USOA (if DOGE has an „O“, US of A also gets one):
• Banking and Asset Protection – Swiss banking laws offer strong financial privacy, with asset protection structures that provide more confidentiality than U.S. regulations, which enforce greater financial disclosure. I have friends who have to pay US-taxes even if the lived their whole life here, poor dogs.
• Property and Home Privacy – Authorities in Switzerland require clear legal justification and court approval for home searches, whereas U.S. law allows for broader law enforcement access under doctrines like “probable cause.”
• Surveillance and Public Space Privacy – Switzerland has stricter regulations on public and private surveillance, limiting government and corporate monitoring, whereas the U.S. permits more widespread surveillance with fewer legal barriers.
• etc.
Every time an US-American starts bragging about their “great American democracy,” I get secondhand embarrassment and think, if only they knew… They should take a closer look at Switzerland or the Scandinavian countries and ideally, visit them.

2025-03-21 16:28:47 UTC

- reply

Can you be more specific? Generally i think we have a rather high level of privacy in Switzerland. E. G. Data Protection, Banking Secrecy, Data Security, Right to Privacy, ….

2025-03-21 16:24:41 UTC

- reply

Swiss here:
The government is indeed quite minimalistic and decentralized. It is led by the Federal Council, a seven-member executive body that makes collective decisions rather than being dominated by a single leader. This structure reflects Switzerland’s federal system, where the 26 cantons have significant autonomy.
Switzerland also has a bicameral parliament, consisting of the National Council (representing the population) and the Council of States (representing the cantons). Both chambers play a crucial role in legislation and oversight.
A key feature of Swiss democracy is direct democracy, where citizens regularly vote in referendums and initiatives on laws and constitutional changes. Additionally, national elections are held to elect members of parliament, shaping the political landscape. This system requires active participation but ensures that political power remains widely distributed.
Another key aspect is the militia system, which applies not only to the military but also to politics. Many politicians, especially at the local and cantonal levels, serve part-time while maintaining regular jobs. This fosters a close connection between political decision-makers and everyday citizens, reinforcing Switzerland’s decentralized and participatory governance.
I’d be happy to provide you @nprofile…qnyx with further details if you’d like.

2025-03-21 16:16:44 UTC

- reply

Not the swiss parliament, „only“ the „Grosser Rat des Kanton Bern“. Council of Canton Berne.

2025-03-21 16:12:40 UTC

- reply

Guess who broke up with Bretton Woods? As a small country, Switzerland simply couldn’t ignore what the US did to Bretton Woods - otherwise, its export sector would have been wiped out.

2025-03-21 16:07:01 UTC

- reply

LOL 😂 what you’re writing isn’t just dumb, it’s wrong! Even orthographically. You‘re such a clown 🤡.
(By the way, the town is called Zermatt. And they have very good reasons not to have normal cars - since 1931).

2025-03-21 15:59:12 UTC

- reply

You’re mostly right on a superficial level. However, I’d like to correct the statement that „power is shared equally among groups regardless of their size“. In reality, executive and legislative power is generally distributed proportionally based on voting strength.

2025-03-18 14:54:02 UTC

- reply

Abiotic oil, even if real, wouldn’t change the fact that oil remains a finite resource in economically significant quantities, and burning it still releases greenhouse gases, driving climate change.

2025-03-16 14:31:57 UTC

- reply

Thanks for making concrete statements now. You sound very confident in your words, but ultimately, we are talking about probabilities for the year 2055.
From the perspective of someone living in a metropolitan region in Central Europe, here is my feedback on your theses:
1. U.S. demographic shift: This is already foreseeable and, according to projections, will happen around 2045. (I often perceive the U.S. as a divided country, sometimes even openly racist—hopefully, this shift will lead to greater cohesion…)
2. Bitcoin as the global reserve currency: I wouldn’t be so sure about that. It could take much longer or not happen at all. The U.S. has a strong interest in protecting its dollar privilege—also against Bitcoin and its restriction on monetary policies. (Not my opinion but of many politicians and economists in power).
3. Remote work: This is already widespread today. In many industries, it has long been the norm, at least here. It will likely continue to grow, but as a prediction for 2055, it’s not particularly surprising at all.
4. Real-world AI: AI is already an everyday reality. Large companies have long implemented strategies, training programs, and tools. That it will continue to evolve is obvious—but as a vision for 2055, it feels almost outdated. It’s more of a topic for now until 2030.
Your post mainly comes across as overly self-assured and the predictions feel a bit lame.
There are two types of unknowns:
1. The things we know we don’t know.
2. And the things we don’t (and can’t) know that we don’t know.
For the year 2055, both will play a significant role.
In 1995—30 years ago—almost no one foresaw the impact that smartphones, AI, or Bitcoin, … would have today. Considering the speed of technological development, making predictions for 2055 is even more challenging.

2025-03-15 21:43:19 UTC

- reply

Nothing’s stopping you from sharing your prediction, but so far, it’s just bold talk. I’m not impressed…

2025-03-15 20:43:31 UTC

- reply

Big words, big attitude?
You’re making a big assumption: How can you predict the world 30 years from now? History shows that future-proofing kids is unreliable—just ask parents from the ’90s who never saw social media coming, or Bitcoin, or smart phones, or…
What about: children don’t just need to be prepared for an uncertain future; they need stability, values, and connection in the present. Raising them for a world that doesn’t exist yet might leave them unmoored in the one they actually live in.
Conclusion: Stay humble, stack sats (for your kids too)

2025-03-14 22:19:55 UTC

- reply

Whitepaper-Coin: 0.20081001 BTC or 2008.1001 BTC.

2025-03-14 22:16:14 UTC

- reply

Tiananmen Square Massacre Coin: 0.19890604 BTC or 1989.0604 BTC

2025-03-14 22:11:31 UTC

- reply

• Dezi-Coin (dBTC) = 0.1 BTC
• Centi-Coin (cBTC) = 0.01 BTC
• Milli-Coin (mBTC) = 0.001 BTC
• Mikro-Coin (µBTC) = 0.000001 BTC
((• Nano-BTC (nBTC) = 0.000000001 BTC))

2025-03-14 17:42:14 UTC

- reply

Hi there
I think you argue that the women’s rights movement didn’t truly free women but instead made them economically dependent on the state and workforce. In my opinion your argument rests on several key assumptions:
1. Traditional roles as the natural order: Framing motherhood and homemaking as women’s primary purpose ignores the fact that these roles were historically enforced rather than freely chosen. For example, in my country, Switzerland, women couldn’t vote on a federal level until 1971. And on the state level (we call them Cantons), the last of the 26 Cantons didn’t grant women the right to vote until 1990! True freedom means having the choice to be a mother, a worker, or both—while enjoying full and equal rights. Would you choose going back to 1960?
2. The state as a mastermind: The idea that women were pushed into the workforce as a tax strategy leans heavy into conspiracy thinking. But economic shifts (Inflation / Fiat-money, industrialization, globalization, higher living standards) made dual incomes (in parts) a necessity, not a secret agenda.
3. Family breakdown as a direct consequence of women working: Rising divorce rates reflect changing social dynamics, including the ability to leave unhappy or abusive marriages. Strong families depend on support, not rigid gender roles.
4. Bitcoin as solution: I don’t see how Bitcoin address structural issues like wages, childcare, or job security. As a Bitcoiner you / me maybe could gain substantial wealth - but i don‘t see how it would solve general problems for everyone.
Ultimately, I think your argument idealizes a past where women were “free” within a narrow role. True independence means the power to choose one’s own path. If the state is to be criticized, it should be for failing to support families of all models, not for granting women more autonomy.

2025-03-14 01:31:13 UTC

- reply

Spot the irony - “Born to be free” arguing against women’s freedom.
So, before feminism, women were fulfilled homemakers passing down “values”? Tell that to the generations trapped in legal and economic dependence.
And the tax conspiracy? More workers, more tax revenue - basic fiat economics, not some sinister feminist scheme.
As for the fear that “the system” raises children now - maybe the real issue is that educated kids don’t buy into reactionary fairytales.
In short: This argument isn’t just historically ignorant - it’s drenched in fear of women who think for themselves.

2025-03-12 18:48:19 UTC

- reply

Does someone know, who be he is(the guy in the video)?

2025-03-09 19:58:40 UTC

- reply

Sounds like there is a need for NostrLink! Has some
one some rockets and satellites left?

2025-03-09 05:38:28 UTC

- reply

Sorry - you’re making it a bit too simple.
First, you’re ignoring that modern societies are highly complex. Social security systems don’t exist because people are too stingy to help voluntarily, but because individual charity is simply unreliable. No one relies on spontaneous donations to fund roads, schools, or hospitals. Why should social security be any different?
Second, you’re portraying support for redistribution as pure selfishness. But if that were true, why are countries with strong welfare states economically stable and livable? Why do Scandinavian countries with high taxes thrive, while many countries with minimal welfare systems struggle with poverty and insecurity?
You say that government redistribution is a sign of materialism. But isn’t it just as materialistic to see taxes as a pure burden, rather than an investment in a functioning society?

2025-03-07 18:25:13 UTC

- reply

The critique of state redistribution overlooks that many people support state social measures because voluntary sharing often falls short. Social security systems in many democratic societies are seen as expressions of social responsibility, based on values like fairness, social justice, and equal opportunities. In Central Europe and Scandinavia, these systems are deeply embedded and provide systematic security beyond voluntary sharing. In contrast, the USA emphasizes individual freedom and property rights, leading to a more critical stance towards state redistribution.
For instance, Switzerland has an excellent public education system and an extremely good public transportation system. In contrast, the US often faces, to put it kindly, challenges in these areas.

2025-03-06 06:43:34 UTC

- reply

This is polemic. You can also argue - in a polemic way - against the USA: The U.S. isn’t a true democracy—it’s a bipolar one-party state. Two sides of the same corporate coin, keeping real alternatives locked out.

2025-03-04 17:31:11 UTC

#asknostr
What were the estimated electricity costs for the Bitcoins that Satoshi Nakamoto is believed to have mined in the early days (2009–2010)?

2025-03-02 16:17:51 UTC

- reply

😂😂😂 I love how you say “SIMPLE logic” while presenting a classic false dilemma. It’s a bit like saying, “Either you eat pineapple on pizza, or you’re an enemy of humanity.” Meanwhile, there are plenty of other alternatives—such as, you know, actually considering other scientific models.
Let me break this down for you:
1. “Something can’t come from nothing” – Sounds intuitive, but modern physics has explored concepts like quantum fluctuations, vacuum energy, and spontaneous emergence. The Big Bang isn’t just “Nothing → POOF → Universe!” It’s based on quantum mechanics and relativity.
2. “Either something is eternal, or it came from nothing” – You present this as if these are the only two options, but modern cosmology offers others:
• Cyclic Universes (the universe expands, contracts, and repeats)
• Multiverse Theories (our universe is part of a larger “foam” of universes)
• Quantum Cosmological Models, which challenge our classical understanding of space and time.
3. “Atheists ignore science when it doesn’t fit their narrative” – Oh, hello there, projection! Science changes its views based on new evidence—the exact opposite of faith, which clings to a fixed dogma.
4. “You must give up your pride to believe in the Bible” – I don’t know who’s prouder: the person who says, “We don’t know everything, but we keep exploring,” or the one who says, “I have the absolute truth because a book told me so.” 😉
At the end of the day, your argument doesn’t seem interested in science—it seems interested in certainty. But science isn’t here to satisfy our need for simple answers; it’s here to understand reality, no matter how complex or counterintuitive it may be.
But hey, if you prefer to live in SIMPLE logic, have fun with that. I’ll try to stick with reality. 😘😘
Cheers

2025-03-01 19:31:25 UTC

- reply

I did address your claim by pointing out that modern cosmology offers more than just the two options you presented. The fact that we don’t yet have a complete answer does not mean we must accept a false dichotomy. Science is about exploring possibilities based on evidence, not forcing conclusions to fit preconceived notions.
If you believe my response ‘said nothing at all to contradict’ your claim, then either you did not engage with the points I made, or you are dismissing scientific inquiry in favor of a predetermined conclusion. Are you open to discussing alternative models supported by physics, or is your position fixed regardless of new evidence?

2025-03-01 18:53:30 UTC

- reply

A drink on you? A tempting offer—just as long as it’s not the biblical cup of wrath 😉
I appreciate your conviction and respectful tone, but I’m afraid your argument runs into a classic dilemma: Either God decides what is good—making morality arbitrary—or He recognizes what is good, in which case morality exists independently of Him, and we don’t need Him as a moral authority.
Yes, moral values evolve across time and cultures, but that doesn’t mean they are random. Evolution has made us more cooperative, compassionate, and just because the survival of our species depends not on selfishness but on collaboration. And if you claim that without God, justice wouldn’t exist—well, that assumes God actually ensures justice. Unfortunately, history shows that the greatest crimes have often been committed in the name of an absolute moral lawgiver.
But never mind—if we ever meet, I’d be happy to raise a glass with you. I’ll have a Suure Moscht 😉

2025-02-28 14:06:48 UTC

- reply

Thanks for the Zaps! 🙏
I think you tend to make overly simplistic assumptions.
The question of the universe’s origin is one of the greatest scientific and philosophical challenges. The prevailing scientific consensus, supported by cosmology and empirical evidence—such as cosmic background radiation and the redshift of distant galaxies—suggests that the universe began with the Big Bang around 13.8 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since. However, this does not necessarily mean it emerged from “nothing,” nor does it rule out the possibility of some pre-existing reality.
The notion that there are only two options—either something is eternal or it sprang from nothing—oversimplifies the complexity of modern cosmology. Theoretical physicists explore a range of possibilities, including quantum fluctuations in a timeless multiverse, cyclic universe models, and vacuum energy fluctuations that might give rise to space-time itself. While speculative, these ideas are grounded in physics and mathematics rather than mere metaphysics / religious beliefs.
The emergence of intelligence from non-intelligence and life from non-life is a separate but well-studied question, addressed by abiogenesis and evolutionary theory. These fields provide well-supported mechanisms showing how biological systems could arise from inorganic molecules through chemical evolution. Evolution by natural selection is a rigorously tested process that explains how complexity and intelligence can gradually emerge from simpler forms.
In science, uncertainty is not a flaw but a driving force for discovery. “We don’t know yet” is an honest, intellectually responsible position—one that leaves room for new insights rather than rushing to metaphysical conclusions. The real question is: do we seek answers through evidence and inquiry, or do we settle for explanations that simply feel satisfying?

2025-02-28 05:25:41 UTC

- reply

This statement sets up a false dichotomy, as if there were only two options: either the universe was created, or it somehow conjured itself into existence.
But reality isn’t that simplistic. Other possibilities exist:
1. The universe could be eternal, with no beginning and no need for a cause.
2. It could have emerged from a higher-order natural process, without requiring a conscious creator.
3. It might be part of a multiverse, where physical mechanisms continuously generate new universes.
The question of the universe’s origin is complex and demands a deep dive into the laws of nature—rather than a mere coin toss between two choices.

2025-02-28 05:22:04 UTC

- reply

Hi SuperDave, thank you for your thoughtful and respectful response. I appreciate the open exchange, even though we approach this from very different perspectives.
You argue that without an objective, external standard, morality must be subjective and meaningless. But this is a false dichotomy: either morality comes from God, or it doesn’t exist. In reality, there’s a third option—morality as a product of evolution, reason, and social consensus.
What we call “good” and “evil” isn’t arbitrary; it’s deeply rooted in our biology and social interactions. Empathy, cooperation, and fairness provide clear survival advantages—not just for individuals, but for entire societies. That’s why we find similar moral principles across cultures, regardless of religion. You instinctively know that torturing innocent people or harming children is wrong—not because a holy book tells you so, but because you are a compassionate, rational being.
You claim that without God, there’s no standard for “better” or “worse.” But how objective is a morality based solely on divine command? If something is good only because God decrees it, then morality is just obedience. That leads to absurd conclusions: if God suddenly declared murder or slavery to be good, would they become moral? If not, then morality must exist independently of God—and your argument collapses.
Your critique of other religions also seems somewhat selective. You dismiss polytheistic gods as flawed and human-like, and criticize Islam for its perceived harshness. But the Old Testament depicts a God who commands genocide, prescribes the death penalty for trivial offenses, and treats women as property. These aren’t “timeless moral truths”—they are exactly what we’d expect from an ancient tribal belief system.
You say we all intuitively recognize evil. But that only proves we have moral instincts—not that they come from a deity. We now understand why humans develop empathy and why societies function better with ethical principles. No supernatural explanation is needed.
Ultimately, your argument assumes that because you want an absolute moral standard, there must be one. But wishful thinking isn’t evidence. Seeking meaning and moral certainty is understandable, but the more honest, scientific approach is to examine the world as it is—even when it’s complex or uncomfortable.
And one last thought: you’re already an atheist—at least when it comes to Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, and the thousands of gods humans have worshipped throughout history. Estimates suggest over 3,000 deities have been part of human religions. You see all of them as human inventions—and on that, I completely agree. The only difference between us is that I’ve rejected just one more god than you have.
So, if you consider all those other gods to be man-made—what makes yours so fundamentally different?

2025-02-27 10:36:58 UTC

- reply

How sweet… the classic claim that without God, morality crumbles into nihilism and chaos. One might as well argue that without Zeus hurling thunderbolts, the weather would cease to function. Morality is not handed down from on high; it emerges naturally in social beings who must coexist.
We don’t need divine decrees to recognize that suffering is bad and cooperation is good—natural selection has already wired us for empathy and reciprocity.
But tell me: Is something good simply because God commands it, or does God recognize it as good because it is inherently so? And if morality depends entirely on divine authority, which god are we talking about? Human history is littered with deities Zeus, Vishnu, Odin, Yahweh, and countless more. How do you determine which one holds the monopoly on moral truth? And if morality can exist without appealing to the supernatural, why insist on a celestial referee at all?

2025-02-27 10:19:29 UTC

- reply

This is a strawman argument. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods due to insufficient evidence. No serious atheist claims the universe “made itself” — rather atheism follows the evidence wherever it leads. Mockery is directed at irrational beliefs, not at sincere inquiry.

2025-02-26 13:07:42 UTC

- reply

😂 Such a bullshit meme.
The contradiction of using an image of coercion to claim that atheists are the ones avoiding truth. But truth isn’t established by force; it stands on reason and evidence.
How do you solve the problem of evil with your „God“?

2025-02-18 12:07:09 UTC

- reply

Don‘t trust, verify.
Maybe there is no god? Maye there are some? Maybe it‘s a omnipotent flying spaghetti-monster? Proof me wrong…. God luck! 🍀

2025-02-18 00:15:59 UTC

- reply

you forgot the flying Spaghetti-Monster of the Pastafari-Religion😂

2025-02-17 23:21:19 UTC

- reply

ahhh, yes i almost forgot about God! But which one? 😂 you‘re funny

2025-02-10 11:41:28 UTC

- reply

Bitcoin’s early stats are misleading since the price started at zero when hardly anyone understood or took it seriously. In 2011 the S&P500 was way more popular and commonly understood than Bitcoin (actually still is..!)
Instead of comparing those initial numbers to the S&P500, focus on the data from when you genuinely started engaging with Bitcoin.

2025-02-01 07:50:08 UTC

- reply

Well too bad, you would have gotten some🙂
May I ask why?

2025-01-31 19:29:06 UTC

- reply

I can‘t zap you!

2025-01-28 22:31:34 UTC

- reply

»Governments fix borders. Bitcoin is borderless.«

2025-01-26 20:30:18 UTC

- reply

GERMAN TRANSLATION 🇩🇪 🇦🇹🇨🇭
* Foundrys Dominanz: Wie Compliance und Varianzreduktion Bitcoin-Mining zentralisieren – und warum Miner trotz hoher Kosten bleiben *
Wir stellen also regelmäßig fest, wie unakzeptabel groß Foundry geworden ist, und es wäre gut, wenn Bitcoin-Enthusiasten im Allgemeinen verstehen würden, warum wir an diesem Punkt angelangt sind.
Zuerst wollen wir darüber sprechen, was Pools tatsächlich tun, angefangen bei der Theorie bis hin zur Praxis.
Theoretisch machen sie keinen Unterschied – sie reduzieren lediglich die Varianz.
Anstatt $.X pro Jahr zu verdienen, verdienst du $.X/365 pro Tag.
Das ist viel konsistenter und macht den täglichen Betrieb einfacher, und es ist klar, warum jemand das tun möchte – vorausgesetzt, es handelt sich um einen kleineren Miner, der nicht in der Lage ist, häufig genug Blöcke zu finden, ohne sich mit anderen zusammenzuschließen und die Belohnungen zu teilen.
Dies könnte so wünschenswert sein, dass man sogar einen Anteil an den Koordinator (Pool) zahlt, weil der Service so wertvoll ist.
Um noch einen Schritt weiterzugehen, ist das mit Abstand häufigste Auszahlungsmodell, das ein Pool verwendet, FPPS – dies verstärkt den vermeintlichen Vorteil, der hier so überzeugend ist. Es steht für "Full Pay Per Share", was theoretisch bedeutet, dass Miner auf Basis von Shares (etwas, das sie mehrmals pro Minute einreichen) einen hochgradig vorhersehbaren Betrag erhalten.
Das bedeutet, dass du nicht nur mit der Lotterie-Varianz (das Warten, bis du einen Block findest) oder sogar der Standard-Pool-Varianz (das Warten, bis jemand im Pool einen Block findet) umgehen musst, sondern stattdessen mit einem Pool minest, der dir mehrmals pro Minute Einnahmen beschert, unabhängig davon, ob der Pool Blöcke findet oder nicht.
Dies ist eine Varianzreduktion in einem solchen Ausmaß, dass das Produkt unglaublich teuer wird, weil die Pools sich nun in einer Position befinden, in der sie Miner für Blöcke bezahlen müssen, die möglicherweise – und sehr oft nicht – gefunden werden.
Dies wurde zweifelsfrei demonstriert, als OCEAN (ein nicht-FPPS-Pool) seine Zahlen veröffentlichte und in einigen Fällen im ersten Betriebsjahr FPPS um über 30% übertraf.
*Hinweis*: Dies ist KEIN Beitrag, in dem es heißt: "Du solltest bei OCEAN minen." Ich versuche lediglich zu erklären, warum Miner die Entscheidungen treffen, die sie treffen, denn das scheint fast allen zu entgehen.
Also entscheiden sich Miner offenbar für eine Varianzreduktion in einem Ausmaß, bei dem sie auf jeden Fall bezahlt werden wollen, unabhängig davon, ob Blöcke existieren oder nicht, und das bis hinunter auf die Share-Ebene.
Aber hier kommt der Punkt, an dem die Diskrepanz zwischen Theorie und Realität deutlich wird.
Fast alle Miner bei Foundry haben absolut keine Notwendigkeit für diese Art von Varianzreduktion – oder überhaupt für irgendeine.
Die börsennotierten Miner, die Foundry nutzen, sind alle in der Lage, mehrere Blöcke pro Tag ohne jeglichen Dritten zu finden, was mehr als genug ist.
Wie bereits erwähnt, ist FPPS ein extrem teures Produkt, das logischerweise nur von einem Miner benötigt würde, der mit stündlichen Energierechnungen konfrontiert ist und nur etwa 100 Petahash hat. Wiederum ist der typische Foundry-Miner 100-mal so groß und kommt am unteren Ende auf fast 10 Exahash.
Wenn Foundry also ein bestimmtes Problem – Varianz – löst und dafür ein Vermögen verlangt, und seine Hauptkunden Miner sind, die selbst im Lotterie-Modus mehrere Blöcke pro Tag finden könnten, ohne die Kosten von FPPS zu tragen, was um alles in der Welt tun sie dann?
Die naive Antwort ist, dass sie die Mathematik nicht gemacht haben. In einigen Fällen weiß ich sogar, dass das stimmt. Du bist ein riesiger Miner und schließt einen Deal mit Foundry ab – sie berechnen dir eine Gebühr von 0,1%, und du denkst, das entspricht in etwa dem, was du zahlen würdest, wenn du den Mittelsmann ganz ausschaltest, also lohnt es sich.
Aber bei FPPS ist die Gebühr nie die Gebühr. Das ist wie das Schild am Flughafen, auf dem steht "0% PROVISION", aber du bekommst einen Wechselkurs, der etwa 14% schlechter ist als der Marktkurs. Wohin fließt das Geld?
Ich glaube nicht, dass die meisten Miner diesen Fehler tatsächlich machen, zumindest nicht alle.
Es ist an der Zeit, den wahren Grund hier zu erklären.
Compliance durch Stellvertretung.
Und das ist der Schlüssel, den man verstehen muss.
Geschichte: Es war einmal ein Pool namens GHash(.)io, der über 40% der Hashrate erreichte (was Foundry inzwischen regelmäßig tut), und die Miner flohen instinktiv, um das Netzwerk zu schützen. Man kann einfach nicht zulassen, dass eine einzelne Entität 50% der Blöcke, die der Kette hinzugefügt werden, oder etwas in der Nähe davon produziert.
Warum tun Miner das heute nicht? Sind sie so süchtig nach Varianzreduktion, obwohl die Miner, die Foundry nutzen, durchaus in der Lage sind, ihre eigene Varianz zu reduzieren, selbst wenn es sie ein Vermögen kostet?
Wieder einmal muss die gesamte Branche verstehen, warum sich die Geschichte hier nicht wiederholen wird, und hier finde ich die größte Menge an Selbsttäuschung und Unehrlichkeit in dieser Branche.
Compliance durch Stellvertretung war 2016 kein Thema. Zumindest nicht für Miner.
Seitdem ist jemand aufgetaucht und hat das, was für die Mächtigen völlig inakzeptabel ist – Bitcoin-Mining – in eine völlig bereinigte, zensuranfällige Hülle seiner selbst verwandelt – und *das* ist die wahre Motivation dafür, dass "Miner" diese exorbitanten Gebühren zahlen.
Compliance ist neu. Und es ist ein Faktor, den die Leute nicht berücksichtigen.
Wenn wir darauf hinweisen, wie prekär die Situation geworden ist, kommt die typische Antwort: "Wenn Foundry jemals <etwas Schlimmes> tun sollte, dann werden ihre Miner einfach gehen."
Es ist an der Zeit, diese Bewältigungsstrategie zu begraben.
Wenn ein Miner durchaus in der Lage ist, seine eigene Varianz so weit zu reduzieren, dass er selbst zuverlässig mehrere Blöcke pro Tag findet – warum nutzt er überhaupt einen Pool? Vor allem, wenn dieser Pool ein Vermögen kostet?
Oder grob gesagt: Wenn es nicht überzeugend genug ist, Foundry wegen eines offensichtlichen Geldverlusts zu verlassen, dann wird die Gefährdung von Bitcoin auch kein Grund sein.
Die wahre Motivation ist alles, was zählt, und sie ist überwiegend einfach Compliance. "Miner" von beträchtlicher Größe wollen zunehmend nichts mehr mit Bitcoin zu tun haben und möchten, dass ihre gesamte Hashrate von rohen Bitcoins, die frisch aus der Blockchain kommen, in ein schönes, sauberes Produkt umgewandelt wird, das ihre Buchhalter und Anwälte tolerieren können, unabhängig von den Kosten.
Um die Gegenposition zu meinem Argument einzunehmen, gibt es natürlich Kosten, wenn man sich direkt mit Bitcoin auseinandersetzt, wie es MARA tut, und ich möchte das nicht verschweigen, aber ich glaube nicht, dass diese Kosten auch nur annähernd den enormen Einnahmeverlust rechtfertigen, der durch das extreme Overkill von FPPS entsteht.
Dies ist der einzige Bereich, in dem ich Widerspruch von jemandem aus einem der relevanten Unternehmen akzeptiere, da es möglich ist, dass ich einfach falsch liege.
Die folgenden Unternehmen – BitFarms, Hut8, RIOT, WULF, HIVE, Cleanspark und eine Handvoll anderer – zahlen meines Wissens alle ein Vermögen für den kombinierten Vorteil der Varianzreduktion (die sie absolut nicht benötigen) und der Compliance durch Stellvertretung.
Wenn jemand von einem dieser Unternehmen mir erklären kann, warum ich falsch liege und warum, falls/wenn die Größe von Foundry dazu führt, dass sie Zensur oder einen anderen Missbrauch des Netzwerks betreiben (verdammt, bereits die Anforderung von KYC und regelmäßige Inspektionen von Mining-Einrichtungen sind inakzeptabel, und das ist bei Foundry-Minern seit Jahren der Fall), warum sollte dann jemand glauben, dass ihr zu einem anderen Pool wechseln oder den Mara-Weg einschlagen würdet?
Derzeit glaube ich, dass Foundry seinen unaufhaltsamen Aufstieg zur magischen 51%-Marke, die wir alle fürchten, fortsetzen könnte, und die neue Bewältigungsstrategie wird sein: "Nun, sie haben <etwas Schlimmes> noch nicht getan", und wir werden einfach die Torpfosten verschieben, was ein schlimmes Ding ist.
Im Moment heißt es: "Es ist nur KYC", "Es sind nur obligatorische Inspektionen" und "Es ist nur verlorener Umsatz."
All das ist inakzeptabel. Als nächstes kommt: "Es sind nur Transaktionen, die mit Russland/Iran in Verbindung stehen", und die Aktionäre börsennotierter Bitcoin-Miner werden Zensur aufgrund dieses Kriteriums wahrscheinlich nicht als etwas ansehen, worüber man sich Sorgen machen müsste. "Warum hasst du Amerika??"
Die alte Bewältigungsstrategie, dass "ein anderer Miner sie einfach einschließen wird und ihr Geschäft überleben wird, während die zensierenden Miner sterben", ist völlige und absolute Selbsttäuschung.
Fast 100% der Einnahmen aus der Kette sind Subventionen. Transaktionsgebühren sind völlig irrelevant. Und wenn wir denken, dass die US-Pubcos alle freiwillig Insolvenz anmelden werden, weil sie ein paar hundert Dollar pro Woche verlieren, weil sie Blöcke gemint haben, die UTXOs auf der schwarzen Liste zensiert haben, dann täuschen wir uns selbst.
Ich wiederhole: Miner sind bei Foundry, weil Compliance zunehmend alles ist, was zählt. Dies hat zu einer enormen Zentralisierung der Template-Konstruktion geführt, die bei ~30% zu einem echten Angriffsvektor wird und seit langem konsequent weit darüber liegt. 51% ist ein Meme, und meiner Meinung nach nicht stark genug, um Veränderungen zu inspirieren, wenn es tatsächlich dazu kommt. Die Frösche kochen bereits, und niemand kümmert sich.
Seien wir ehrlich. Keiner der Miner bei Foundry wird in absehbarer Zeit gehen, aber das varianzreduzierende Produkt, das sie anbieten und das so einfach anderswo repliziert werden kann, ist nicht der Grund, warum sie tun, was sie tun.
Foundry ist der einzige Bewohner innerhalb des regulatorischen Grabens, der Bitcoin-Mining in Amerika ist, und ich halte das nicht für trivial zu replizieren.
Und der Grund, warum ich die Alarmglocken 10.000-mal lauter läuten möchte als bisher, ist, dass die derzeitige US-Regierung eine Kampagne geführt hat, in der sie ausdrücklich davon spricht, Bitcoin in den USA zu zentralisieren.
Der Satz "Wir werden alle Bitcoins in Amerika herstellen" ist genau das Schlimmste, was man angesichts all dessen, worüber ich in diesem Beitrag gesprochen habe, hören möchte, und nicht nur wird er von Bitcoinern nicht abgelehnt, sondern er wird als etwas Gutes gefeiert.

2025-01-26 12:23:52 UTC

- reply

I love your Charts! Would be amazing to see one with Bitcoin as the BaseUnit!

2025-01-19 19:01:23 UTC

- reply

Thanks for the Zaps! ⚡️ 🙏 Made me smile 😀

2025-01-19 16:52:01 UTC

- reply

Here is my main source:
https://youtu.be/trI5nxp_ScM?si=Y-oKihTVkOaPT8h6
#WasBitcoinBringt
if you don’t understand german, i hope the automatic subtitles work for you.
I understood bitcredit as a real credit on top of L1 Bitcoin to meet real needs of real goods economy. hopefully the video is helpful to you.

2025-01-19 12:26:42 UTC

- reply

Gut gemacht, Danke!🙏

2025-01-19 12:06:18 UTC

- reply

I‘m trying to learn what is… I might be wrong. I understood that it is a Layer 2 solution to ad flexibility of money on a Bitcoin-Standard (Important: its flexible credit money yes, but NOT inflationary). According to the german podcast #WasBitcoinBringt they use ecash tokens for that.
I jnderstood, that Bitcredit is an open-source project aimed at promoting the adoption of Bitcoin in the real economy. It provides a decentralized solution for peer-to-peer Bitcoin credit by utilizing electronic #promissoryNotes issued by businesses for goods sold and services rendered. These notes are converted into Bitcoin credit tokens by so-called “Mints,” which can be redeemed 1:1 in Bitcoin. This system enables businesses to improve their liquidity without relying on traditional banks and helps reduce Bitcoin’s volatility by aligning the money supply with demand.
Kind of freebanking but on a Bitcoin-Standard.

2025-01-18 14:28:07 UTC

- reply

Interessante Folge, aber für mich etwas schwer zu folgen😅
www.bit.cr half mir etwas weiter, auf Deutsch wäre natürlich noch besser

2025-01-18 14:22:08 UTC

- reply

Good Questions!
Maybe this is helpful to you:
https://www.bit.cr/news/faq