neither! just subjects. i’ll type “music” or “food” or other keywords and nothing will pop up

either i just don’t know how to use it or the search function on #damus doesn’t return results following keyword input 🤔

Happy Easter Sunday Nostriches!

Looks like I the Easter Bunny delivered some goodies! 🐣🫂💜🧡

Whirpool, Wasabi and Joinmarket, criticize Bitcoin privacy.

Whirpool: They sell it to you as perfect privacy, a priori it seems to be so, but how do we know that the initial coinjoin entries are not being selected by samourai? If this is so, it is useless and it doesn't matter if we have the coordinator code, we don't know what samourai executes. Not to mention the crap they have going on with their Android client that shows the xpub to their servers, another way to trace by elimination even if you use Dojo, although this is now mitigated with Sparrow. If you run Whirpool you are left with only trusting them, I have always said they are a honeypot. There is no proof that they are acting honestly, their system is not transparent.

Wasabi: To ally with chainalysis, it is more than enough not to use it and I believe that neither they understand their new protocol, I do not know how to calculate anonymity sets with wabisabi, I do not know what it offers me and even so, and in spite of the errors of its protocol, you do not have to trust them, its operation is transparent, because you see the input queue and you observe that it is simply executed as a queue, there is no possible selection by the Wasabi team as in Whirpool.

Joinmarket: I think at this point it is the only feasible solution. It is not controlled by anyone, it is a decentralized platform in the same way that Nostr does not depend on a central server and its servers do not communicate with each other, in joinmarket the takers act as coordinators, the coordinator is not properly decentralized but everyone can act as a coordinator and in the same way as Nostr, the takers or coordinators do not communicate with each other. On the other hand, there are the makers which is the Joinmarket liquidity pool and they are selected by the takers according to an algorithm. You run your own coordinator, you can review the code, you can compile it, there is no trickery in which participants are chosen and how.

That said, there are guidelines to follow with Joinmarket. As a taker it is easy to know who you are in the mix if the rest of the makers keep remixing. That's why it's important to play both taker and maker. A simple rule of thumb is that you play the maker until mixdepth 4 and then execute a transaction as taker to a final address where you save the balance as mixed.

Bitcoin privacy sucks, let's face it, plus coinjoin breaks the fungibility of bitcoin because it's easy to mark coins as participating in a coinjoin and subsequent hops, as many as you want. We have to look for layer 2 solutions or new forms like cashu (chaumian ecash).

Any form of privacy that degrades the fungibility of Bitcoin is bad, keep this in mind.

In the meantime, Wasabi and Samourai followers can continue fighting, especially those of Samourai, believing in FIAT money and in you is the same thing, a matter of trust, and in privacy there is no place for trust and even less in a third party.

The people who are working on Chaumian eCash solutions are much more honest because they do not want your fees, they want the privacy of Bitcoin.

How do I use this feature? I’m on Damus

🧡 #bitcoin 💜 #nostr

Can anyone advise me like I am a 5 year old how to do the equivalent of a "quote tweet" on Damus?

Good morning💜☕️ #coffeechain

Where should people be buying bitcoin so they don’t get trapped in a failing exchange before they can withdraw it?

We the Cypherpunks are dedicated to building anonymous systems. We are defending our privacy with cryptography, with anonymous mail forwarding systems, with digital signatures, and with electronic money.

Cypherpunks write code. We know that someone has to write software to defend privacy, and since we can't get privacy unless we all do, we're going to write it. We publish our code so that our fellow Cypherpunks may practice and play with it. Our code is free for all to use, worldwide. We don't much care if you don't approve of the software we write. We know that software can't be destroyed and that a widely dispersed system can't be shut down.

Cypherpunks deplore regulations on cryptography, for encryption is fundamentally a private act. The act of encryption, in fact, removes information from the public realm. Even laws against cryptography reach only so far as a nation's border and the arm of its violence. Cryptography will ineluctably spread over the whole globe, and with it the anonymous transactions systems that it makes possible.

Therefore, privacy in an open society requires anonymous transaction systems. Until now, cash has been the primary such system. An anonymous transaction system is not a secret transaction system. An anonymous system empowers individuals to reveal their identity when desired and only when desired; this is the essence of privacy.

Privacy in an open society also requires cryptography. If I say something, I want it heard only by those for whom I intend it. If the content of my speech is available to the world, I have no privacy. To encrypt is to indicate the desire for privacy, and to encrypt with weak cryptography is to indicate not too much desire for privacy. Furthermore, to reveal one's identity with assurance when the default is anonymity requires the cryptographic signature.

We cannot expect governments, corporations, or other large, faceless organizations to grant us privacy out of their beneficence. It is to their advantage to speak of us, and we should expect that they will speak. To try to prevent their speech is to fight against the realities of information. Information does not just want to be free, it longs to be free. Information expands to fill the available storage space. Information is Rumor's younger, stronger cousin; Information is fleeter of foot, has more eyes, knows more, and understands less than Rumor.

We must defend our own privacy if we expect to have any. We must come together and create systems which allow anonymous transactions to take place. People have been defending their own privacy for centuries with whispers, darkness, envelopes, closed doors, secret handshakes, and couriers. The technologies of the past did not allow for strong privacy, but electronic technologies do.

A Cypherpunk's Manifesto

Eric Hughes

March 9, 1993

Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. Privacy is not secrecy. A private matter is something one doesn't want the whole world to know, but a secret matter is something one doesn't want anybody to know. Privacy is the power to selectively reveal oneself to the world.

If two parties have some sort of dealings, then each has a memory of their interaction. Each party can speak about their own memory of this; how could anyone prevent it? One could pass laws against it, but the freedom of speech, even more than privacy, is fundamental to an open society; we seek not to restrict any speech at all. If many parties speak together in the same forum, each can speak to all the others and aggregate together knowledge about individuals and other parties. The power of electronic communications has enabled such group speech, and it will not go away merely because we might want it to.

Since we desire privacy, we must ensure that each party to a transaction have knowledge only of that which is directly necessary for that transaction. Since any information can be spoken of, we must ensure that we reveal as little as possible. In most cases personal identity is not salient. When I purchase a magazine at a store and hand cash to the clerk, there is no need to know who I am. When I ask my electronic mail provider to send and receive messages, my provider need not know to whom I am speaking or what I am saying or what others are saying to me; my provider only need know how to get the message there and how much I owe them in fees. When my identity is revealed by the underlying mechanism of the transaction, I have no privacy. I cannot here selectively reveal myself; I must always reveal myself.

A Cypherpunk's Manifesto

Eric Hughes

March 9, 1993

Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. Privacy is not secrecy. A private matter is something one doesn't want the whole world to know, but a secret matter is something one doesn't want anybody to know. Privacy is the power to selectively reveal oneself to the world.

If two parties have some sort of dealings, then each has a memory of their interaction. Each party can speak about their own memory of this; how could anyone prevent it? One could pass laws against it, but the freedom of speech, even more than privacy, is fundamental to an open society; we seek not to restrict any speech at all. If many parties speak together in the same forum, each can speak to all the others and aggregate together knowledge about individuals and other parties. The power of electronic communications has enabled such group speech, and it will not go away merely because we might want it to.

Since we desire privacy, we must ensure that each party to a transaction have knowledge only of that which is directly necessary for that transaction. Since any information can be spoken of, we must ensure that we reveal as little as possible. In most cases personal identity is not salient. When I purchase a magazine at a store and hand cash to the clerk, there is no need to know who I am. When I ask my electronic mail provider to send and receive messages, my provider need not know to whom I am speaking or what I am saying or what others are saying to me; my provider only need know how to get the message there and how much I owe them in fees. When my identity is revealed by the underlying mechanism of the transaction, I have no privacy. I cannot here selectively reveal myself; I must always reveal myself.