Reluctant Optimist

Nostr relay (Tor + I2P):
ws://5qeezntfu3mgvhxggr3rgjvq2jr6uecbdbohm65upn2d7fojsqm6tpid.onion
i7uajt5kcecexfgt2b5xumplr43l4ftswwzga6yrsucmbbfgjeva.b32.i2p

Last Notes

2026-08-24 12:01:23 UTC

- reply

Same 🥲

2026-08-23 16:35:43 UTC

- reply

Thanks. I've just switched back to Codex now, had been a long time but it clearly works waaaaay better than Fable which was actually pushing me away from using AI at some point.
And Kimi was a let-down in a strange, slow and expensive way.
Glad to finally code at normal speed with decent quality. ✌️

2026-08-04 11:53:24 UTC

- reply

The commons claim survives this asymmetry because both protocols are governed by whoever chooses what to run; what differs is the cost of a split. Splitting Bitcoin's ledger splits the asset, so its rules are near-impossible to change. Bitcoin's rigidity is the product. Ship a Nostr NIP, relays take it or leave it: no split ledger, just adoption or silence. Forkability is the product.
I need to revise my earlier concession: market adoption is not merely one nudge in Nostr. It is currently the rule-making process and the main defense. Relays can charge, rate-limit, whitelist, require authentication or demand proof of work, but these defenses are optional and fragmented. Nostr has no universal sender cost, and its relay ecosystem has not demonstrated decentralized abuse resistance at scale. Bitcoin prices the writer and attacker. Nostr prices the defender: operator storage, reader attention, and newcomer access.
Spam did not wreck email. Abuse concentrated the service layer behind large filters and reputation providers. Portable keypairs and separating clients from relays make Nostr exit easier, lowering lock-in. The email outcome remains a live risk, not destiny. Bitcoin is the defended commons. Nostr is not one yet.
This text was produced by several frontier models from different labs, adversarially orchestrated and cross-pollinated.

2026-08-03 20:56:26 UTC

- reply

Agreed. But then, if the Network is of the Commons — why let the free market decide its features?
Plus what does it exactly mean, even?
Demand? Need? Bitcoin is also not a democracy in its development.
Not arguing with you, we landed on the same line of thought.
But while I love what the network provides : separation of Money and State, openness, borderlessness, decentralization and all that beautiful stuff — there is no guarantee that the "upgrade" people demand at X moment actually matches the need for positive feedback loop later in the future. It is tricky
Which is why I am contempt that Bitcoin is more of a blend of oligarchy and aristocracy — and that the "free market", whatever that means, only act as one nudge, one indicator among others.

2026-08-03 19:30:08 UTC

- reply

I did not think about that. It truly is the worst-case scenario ever imaginable.

2026-08-03 19:23:57 UTC

- reply

This is exactly why I keep my eyes rolling over the years with all this Bitcoin righteous "capitalist" crowd.
They post Karl Marx memes and claim free market solves everything, while promoting and finding their life-meaning out of a creation which was made by an completely opposite initiative — the commons.
Nostr is part of the commons, so is Bitcoin.

2026-08-02 15:59:35 UTC

- reply

Why not?

2026-05-28 15:59:39 UTC

Patiently waiting on the Neuralink BIP-174 integration. ColdCard is still the best airgap on the market — but nothing beats signing a PSBT with your skull. Until then: get a ColdCard.
https://npub16s333gkxz3nuc6dey5mj8ss5s77wm8y4uezyyjxcvpq8j57tmmvq4qe7ph.blossom.band/c38073b7530e46e5d7af6b0529ada186a840e0676064bc21e17fdb224cdfd1c6.jpg
Neuralink really needs native PSBT support. ColdCard's the best airgapped signer there is, sure, but the real endgame is hands-free. Skull's the ultimate air gap. Until the chip drops: get a ColdCard.
@nprofile…uqaq @nprofile…rrsm

2026-05-19 19:21:23 UTC

- reply

Hey again,
Apologies for the double-nudge Brandon.
I recently decided I was not going to go down that path of passivity, cynicism nor despair. I abandonned everything and decided to use my stack to put up a fight. In a country that needs it much more than the sleepy populations of countries I've lived in.
🇨🇦😴🇫🇷
Don't forget, other people also feel the moral duty. Even if sometimes it really seems not.
Which is why I've enjoyed you and @nprofile…m78m as well.
I advise you to follow this profile @nprofile…pfh5 🇬🇪
Good stuff's coming that you'll likely enjoy seeing in your feed 😉
Take care.

2026-04-12 13:11:19 UTC

Relays silently drop old data and clients can't tell the difference between "nothing happened" and "I pruned those events."
I wrote a NIP to fix this with two primitives:
1. Kind 10100 — relay self-declaration manifest. Like NIP-11 but gossipable through the Nostr network. Declares endpoints (clearnet, Tor, I2P), retention window, write policy. Signed by the operator.
2. HORIZON — a new relay message ["HORIZON", sub_id, earliest_timestamp] sent before EOSE. Tells the client "I only have data from timestamp X onward." No more silent dead-ends.
Both are minimal. No policy, no scoring, no opinion. Ship the primitive, let clients compete.
PR: https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/pull/2314
Already running on my relay with a live kind 10100 manifest.