Can you share pictures on bitchat now?

Artists and musicians (even major, mainstream ones) used to be revolutionaries. Not afraid to take risks, take a stand. Now they’re all risk averse, sheepish.

What happened?

For instance, Nina Simone was a rockstar and revolutionary. She once said

“An artist’s duty, as far as I’m concerned, is to reflect the times.” She did that, paid the price often, but kept at it.

Snow + #footstr

We are the rebellion against entropia.

Craziest stats of the year, that if you told me a year ago I would not have believed you at all.

YTD performances for the following

Bitcoin: -8% 😬

Gold: +70% 😮

Silver: +150% 🤯

The demographic graphs.

Hans Gruber WILL be falling from Nakatomi Tower tonight!

LMFAO

Personally, it's Graphene first, iOS distant second. I would not use stock Android.

I saw that yesterday and even asked Grok about it. Very sad, but X is a closed system and sooner or later any closed system gets coerced or co-opted..

Just got a notification from X about an update to their privacy policy… Interesting…

“We’ve updated our Terms to explain that in some places, for example, the EU and UK, we may need to remove not only illegal content but also content considered harmful or unsafe under local laws.”

They hate google more than Apple.

Graphene OS is not ready for day to day use yet.

Russia and Pakistan

It's a nuanced subject. Apple is superior to Google in some respects.

The moat is so wide I can’t get back out

This is what buying Bitcoin looked like in 2011.

1BTC = $3.5

Then I guess there is no way for you to understand that NAT is not a privacy tool. 🤷🫂

I guess according to Mike Brock this progressive bitcoiner guy right here is a fascist

Can’t make this shit up

> it's not about what I or you care about.

I'm asking whether you care so that I can determine whether it's worth it for me to be talking to you. If you don't care about the benefits of IPv6, then there is no point in me trying to convince you.

I asked again because you said you couldn't respond to something "that long". If you cared, I would expect you to respond to that "long" post. If you don't actually care, then there's no point talking to you about this, so if that's the case, please just say so, so that I can drop this conversation. If you do care about the topic, then please actually read the post and respond to the points if you feel that you have something to say about them.

> It's about what it's useful or not.

IPv6 is useful because it maintains the end-to-end principle in light of the fact that we have so many internet-connected devices. NAT is only useful in situations where address exhaustion would otherwise occur. NAT is not a privacy tool. NAT was not necessary in the dial-up era. NAT is is still not necessary in IPv4 environments with more addresses than devices, such as enterprise/university settings where they have had enough IPv4 addresses since the early days of the Internet that they still don't suffer address exhaustion and thus have no need to use NAT with IPv4.

> Laws require ISP to keep logs because NAT works as a privacy tool.

Those laws don't exist because of NAT. Laws require ISPs to keep equivalent logs even in contexts where NAT is not used at all.

NAT is not a privacy tool. It is not the thing giving you the privacy here. The privacy comes from two things:

1. the pseudonymous nature of the IP address, a property which is just as present without NAT; and

2. the fact that the ISP isn't giving up your identity to anyone and everyone that asks about your IP address. This is a consequence of data protection laws, not of NAT. I said this in the previous post that you said you couldn't respond to because it was "too long".

Let me provide concrete examples to hopefully make the point clear to you: the IP address that I'm sending this post from is 2a02:6b6f:fc22:4c01:211c:b02a:a4f1:266e. My ISP owns the prefix 2a02:6b6x, assigns 2a02:6b6f:fcxx to my neighbourhood, and assigns 2a02:6b6f:fc22:4cxx to my household. However, that household-level assignment is subject to change, and so e.g. tomorrow I may be given 2a02:6b6f:fc48:a9xx instead. As such, the ISP must log the fact that they assigned "22:4c" to me one day, and "48:a9" to me the next day, so that if they are served a warrant asking them to identify which household was the source of packets using address 2a02:6b6f:fc22:4c01:211c:b02a:a4f1:266e, they can actually answer that request.

This is absolutely no different from the case where the adversary's query is instead, "we saw packets coming from address 193.164.21.152 at time X. Which household did these originate from?" My ISP's use of CGNAT means that this address is used by the entire neighbourhood, just like the IPv6 prefix 2a02:6b6f:fc22:4cxx, but this doesn't affect the nature of the query, nor the nature of the information that the adversary has before making the query. The only difference is that with IPv6, the "22:4c" or "48:a9" data can also be seen publicly, but this isn't useful alone in identifying me; it doesn't compromise my privacy in any way.

The exact same is true if the ISP were not using CGNAT for IPv4, but just a single layer of NAT: the adversary can still see the pseudonym of the household in the address of packets that they received, e.g. if the ISP owns 192.0.2.16/28 and delegates 192.0.2.20 to my household, then the adversary sees packets coming from 192.0.2.20, but still doesn't know what household those packets came from until the ISP tells them. Their query to the ISP would also be identical: "we saw packets coming from address 192.0.2.20 at time X. Which household did these originate from?"

***

So please, tell me: in your view, what is the actual *practical* difference, if any, when NAT is used vs. when it isn't used? What actual aspect of your privacy is compromised without NAT, but retained or gained with NAT? How is the actual set of possible effects on you any different in either circumstance? You keep saying NAT "works as a privacy tool because you share an address with other people", but *how* do you think that address-sharing actually aids in keeping you private/unidentified compared to no NAT?

Genuinely, I want to know your reasoning here, but you haven't provided any reasoning in light of what I've told you about the nature of networks without NAT, so currently there's literally nothing for me to argue against. You're just saying "but I share a address, therefore I have more privacy." I tell you, "no, that's wrong, and here's why," but then you just repeat, "no, address sharing gives me privacy." That's a completely unfounded statement on it's own. You need to tell me what the tangible privacy benefit that you see actually is, because I don't see any.

I can only interpret this as apathy. If you just don't care about latency centralisation, etc , just say so. You're welcome to use whatever you want to use, but if you actually want to have a discussion about whether NAT provides extra privacy or not, you can respond to the points I've made.

You misunderstand my use of "distinguish" there. Even with IPv4, you can already be distinguished from other users when it comes to your identity/fingerprint, because such fingerprinting doesn't come from IP metadata, but from application-layer data. However, filtering based on this requires deeper packet inspection, which is more resource-intensive.

With IPv6, endpoints can distinguish your IP packets from those of other users/households based solely on the IP address. That doesn't increase or decrease your privacy in any way; they still don't know *who*, only *what*. The only thing an endpoint gains from this is the ability to more selectively block/filter packets based on IP address alone. That's good for both you and the endpoint, not bad.

In other words, you have no good reason to think that distinguishing household A from household B, whilst still not knowing anything more specific about A and B, such as their street addresses, is harmful to privacy. Or at least, so far, you have failed to convince me that this actually harms your privacy. Perhaps you could give a concrete example of where this would be the case?

> NAT has not stopped it to happen.

I never said that it does. But do you care about increased latency, decreased throughput, more centralised points of failure? If so, then you should prefer avoiding the use of relays to facilitate P2P traffic, because relays result in all of these things.

> Moreover, sharing an IP address has protected a P2P user from legal consequences

Such protection/anonymity does not come from address sharing due to NAT, it comes from some combination of network sharing (e.g. at a public place), proxying (e.g. using a public VPN service), and/or local laws restricting access to certain kinds of data/logs. All of these factors being the same, you have exactly the same level of anonymity with IPv6 as with IPv4.

The particular case you cited hinges on the specifics of Spanish Law 25/2007, which states that data such as NAT mappings must be retained by the relevant orgs, such as ISPs, for at least 12 months, and only shared following a judicial order:

> > imposibilidad dada por la Ley 25/2007, de 18 de Octubre, de conservación de datos relativos a las comunicaciones electrónicas y a las redes públicas de comunicaciones, que circunscribe la posibilidad de exigir la identificaci a supuestos de detección, investigación y enjuiciamiento de delitos graves

> > ***

> > impossibility given by Law 25/2007, of October 18, on the conservation of data related to electronic communications and public communications networks, which limits the possibility of requiring identification to cases of detection, investigation, and prosecution of serious crimes

In other words, the crime was not serious enough to legally compel the ISP to disclose the identifying data (the NAT mappings); it did not meet the standard of "delito grave" in Spanish law. In an IPv6 context, it would be the specific IPv6 subnet (address/network prefix) delegated/assigned to the customer by the ISP that the plaintiff would need to know. This identifying data is, again, something that only the ISP and the customer know by default, and would require legal warrant for the plaintiff to obtain. Thus, the outcome of the case should be the same in an IPv6 context.

***

Amusingly, the article highlights a negative point about NAT that I have already mentioned — one user's actions unfairly negatively affecting many other unrelated users due to a subsequent restriction of access to services by the offending IP addresses.

> > Además, aparte de a "nito75" el alcance de la sentencia perjudicará a todos aquellos que usen esa misma conexión a internet.

> > ***

> > In addition, apart from "nito75" the scope of the sentence will harm all those who use the same internet connection.

This would not happen in an IPv6 context, because the offended service can simply block traffic from the particular subnet. In other words, with IPv6 rather than NAT/CGNAT, endpoints can distinguish different households and users but still can't identify them without extra info.

> it's just a good thing to have, privacy-wise.

Please explain why you think this, bearing in mind the reasons that I have already given for why it is not.

> Wait, who said something about usability?

Separately, I am telling you why IPv6 is more useful than IPv4, because you asked what improvements IPv6 provides.

I'm not too much into this, just checked a quick ChatGPT summary of the debate.

⚔️ The Ordinals Debate in Bitcoin

What Ordinals are

A protocol that numbers individual sats and lets people inscribe arbitrary data (images, text, tokens) into Bitcoin blocks via SegWit/Taproot.

Enables Bitcoin-native NFTs, meme coins, and permanent data storage.

The Supporters’ View

Innovation & new use cases: Bitcoin isn’t just money, it can be a foundation for art, collectibles, and tokenization.

Miner revenue boost: High Ordinals activity drives up transaction fees, which helps secure Bitcoin as block subsidies shrink.

Permissionless ethos: Bitcoin is supposed to be neutral — anyone should be free to use it without gatekeeping.

The Critics’ View (e.g. Luke Dashjr / Bitcoin Knots)

Spam & bloat: Inscriptions fill blocks with non-financial data, raising fees for ordinary payments.

Against Bitcoin’s purpose: The base layer should prioritize financial transactions, not NFTs or memes.

Centralization risks: Larger blocks → bigger storage/processing requirements → fewer people can run nodes.

Policy response: Bitcoin Knots enforces stricter relay rules (e.g. 42-byte OP_RETURN) and filters some inscription transactions.

The Broader Tension

Bitcoin Core v30 (coming 2025) will loosen limits, making inscriptions easier.

Bitcoin Knots is rising in popularity (~18% of nodes) as a counterweight, keeping “anti-spam” defaults.

This creates a philosophical and technical split:

Bitcoin as neutral, general-purpose ledger (pro-Ordinals).

Bitcoin as lean, monetary-only system (anti-Ordinals).

✅ In one line:

The Ordinals debate is really about what Bitcoin should be:

A neutral, permissionless base layer for all kinds of data and innovation, or

A strictly monetary network optimized only for peer-to-peer cash and settlement.

---

That being said I'm on the side of Luke, because I think Ordinals/etc are not good for Bitcoin because of the reasons above.

Is there anything missing?

Sorry, but it really makes sense to compare both:

It's again another power grab trying to build support using same kind of arguments (FUD) against Core.

Could someone explain the semicolon thing? I'm totally lost.

lets play a game

guess the usd bitcoin price exactly a month from now

sep 26th 2025 - 0414 UTC

closest guess will be zapped 5555 sats

only guesses made within the next 24 hours qualify

(if i think you are a bot you are disqualified)

What am I doing on #Bitchat ?

Projects like #bitchat , remind me of the Arab Spring.

Of course governments will attack these ideas with all they have.

Spam will be the first attack vector.

Not even. They just use random keys. That's not privacy. That's annonimity. You can still track the keys.

There is no privacy on bitchat.

Bitchat needs Nostr's WebOfTrust. It's the only solution against spam.

Merci pour ta réponse, c'est bien le site que j'utilise. Mais je préfère valider car il y a de plus en plus de site qui se prétendent "officiel" et propose d'autres versions surment verrollées de bitchat.

nostr:npub1sg6plzptd64u62a878hep2kev88swjh3tw00gjsfl8f237lmu63q0uf63m Hi, just to clear up a doubt. Can you give us the address of the official #bitchat website?

Is the version currently available on the #playstore the official version? Are we currently on version 0.8.2?

Thank you in advance for your reply.

llms don't fear cancellation

Yes, they are NIP87 events that get enhanced with data from the mint auditor.

Wot does not yet apply, it simply collects all events. But that would be a logical next step

1. These are not mutually exclusive, not any more than DNS and IPv6 are. Your protocol should support MNS and Pkarr/Npubs ... One for throwaway accounts and one for stable identity. In fact Nostr already have Nip05 ... I just want to make that sovereign.

2. You touched on one of the two main problems my design needs to address. But it is actually the simplest of the two; you make it computationally expensive to create these Names, just enough so that a user can do it once with ease, but millions of bots break the bank, and you have trillion names so even millions of bots won't saturate it.

I will share the actual details once I have working prototype instead of just making promises.

Did you think I was counting them myself? Original post was from GPT. If you have better numbers feel free to post them.