The green candle we deserve

Let it be for the bees. They love my clover and dandelion "weeds." Local bunnies eat the clovers too

By zapping them? Sounds like a good deal

Dollar billionaires or peso billionaires?

I tried using bitchat at a concert over the weekend with thousands of people

Zero bitchatters found 😢

Closest thing I can think of is the pegasus spyware

128269

Zap if you're gay

What was his dumb take?

I have a pixel with calyx I'd like to switch to graphene. It seems my USB c port is not working for data transfer and I have tried multiple cables. Is it possible to install without the port?

DDOS initiated

I have that dog bowl

How do you defend against this? #asknostr

50m sat = 35k? More like 52k!

Excellent work team. Free samourai

I think square chose a B symbol with a single line to differentiate between little bitcoins and big bitcoins.

Personally, sats ftw

#asknostr 🙏

nostr:nevent1qqsv7zpzqr8shvjw2xs5a3mhs4rszk2f5j3v0dnguxwtpdks6sdmpvcpz4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wchsygxc858h0fdc7y3q9ssva9uf27hhmtu85zzpaf27e9jvwdy38t4sf5psgqqqqqqscu28gv

How do I use my cashu.me wallet to send zaps on amethyst? When I try to zap, it prompts to open Zeus, phoenix, or strike.

#asknostr

This one? Account suspended allegedly

Did somebody say RHR?

IF YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION, YOU PROBABLY SHOULD BE

Red is dead, firearm style

I like brave

Grok steelmanning X:

To steelman the case that X (the social media platform) will never match the free speech and censorship-resistant capabilities of Nostr, we must construct the strongest possible argument by emphasizing Nostr’s inherent structural advantages and X’s fundamental limitations, while assuming both operate at their best. Here’s the case:

Nostr is a decentralized protocol, not a platform, built from the ground up to prioritize user sovereignty and resilience against censorship. It operates on a network of independently run relays—servers that store and distribute user content—where anyone can publish to any relay willing to host them, and followers can retrieve that content from any relay that has it. This design eliminates a central point of control. If one relay censors or shuts down, users can simply move to another, or even host their own, without losing their identity or audience, thanks to public-key cryptography tying content to users rather than servers. This makes Nostr inherently resistant to suppression: no single entity can silence a voice unless every relay globally refuses it, an improbable feat given the open and distributed nature of the system. Furthermore, Nostr’s simplicity—using standard JSON events and WebSockets—encourages a diversity of clients and relays, reducing reliance on any one implementation and fostering an ecosystem where censorship resistance is baked into the architecture.

X, by contrast, is a centralized platform, owned and operated by a single company. Even under the most free-speech-friendly leadership, its structure imposes unavoidable vulnerabilities. As a private entity, X must comply with legal pressures from governments worldwide—whether through direct regulations like the EU’s Digital Services Act or indirect threats like the arrest of executives (e.g., Telegram’s Pavel Durov). A government can lean on X to remove content or ban users, and X, with its centralized servers and singular decision-making authority, has no technical means to resist indefinitely without risking its entire operation. Even if X’s current leadership champions free expression, future changes in ownership, policy, or external coercion could shift its stance overnight. Centralized systems are brittle: one court order, one shift in corporate priorities, or one infrastructure takedown can throttle speech across the platform.

Moreover, X’s design prioritizes engagement and monetization over absolute speech freedom. Its algorithms can subtly censor by downranking content, as seen in past throttling controversies, without users ever knowing. Nostr, lacking a central algorithm or profit motive, doesn’t manipulate visibility—content either exists on a relay or it doesn’t, and users control what they see through their choice of clients and relays. X’s reliance on a single domain and infrastructure also makes it a ripe target for DNS blocking or DDoS attacks by hostile actors, whereas Nostr’s distributed relay model shrugs off such threats by spreading the load across countless nodes.

The steelman argument isn’t that X doesn’t value free speech—it might, under ideal conditions—but that it cannot match Nostr’s resistance due to its centralized nature. X is a walled garden with a gatekeeper, however benevolent, while Nostr is an open field where no one holds the keys. Even if X fights valiantly for speech, it’s constrained by its own architecture and the realities of operating as a corporate entity in a world of state power. Nostr, as a protocol, sidesteps these battles entirely, offering a structural purity that X can never replicate without ceasing to be what it is. Thus, X will always fall short of Nostr’s censorship-resistant ideal, not for lack of intent, but for lack of capability.

Grok steelmanning nostr:

To steelman the case that X (the social media platform) will never match the free speech and censorship-resistant capabilities of Nostr, we must construct the strongest possible argument by emphasizing Nostr’s inherent structural advantages and X’s fundamental limitations, while assuming both operate at their best. Here’s the case:

Nostr is a decentralized protocol, not a platform, built from the ground up to prioritize user sovereignty and resilience against censorship. It operates on a network of independently run relays—servers that store and distribute user content—where anyone can publish to any relay willing to host them, and followers can retrieve that content from any relay that has it. This design eliminates a central point of control. If one relay censors or shuts down, users can simply move to another, or even host their own, without losing their identity or audience, thanks to public-key cryptography tying content to users rather than servers. This makes Nostr inherently resistant to suppression: no single entity can silence a voice unless every relay globally refuses it, an improbable feat given the open and distributed nature of the system. Furthermore, Nostr’s simplicity—using standard JSON events and WebSockets—encourages a diversity of clients and relays, reducing reliance on any one implementation and fostering an ecosystem where censorship resistance is baked into the architecture.

X, by contrast, is a centralized platform, owned and operated by a single company. Even under the most free-speech-friendly leadership, its structure imposes unavoidable vulnerabilities. As a private entity, X must comply with legal pressures from governments worldwide—whether through direct regulations like the EU’s Digital Services Act or indirect threats like the arrest of executives (e.g., Telegram’s Pavel Durov). A government can lean on X to remove content or ban users, and X, with its centralized servers and singular decision-making authority, has no technical means to resist indefinitely without risking its entire operation. Even if X’s current leadership champions free expression, future changes in ownership, policy, or external coercion could shift its stance overnight. Centralized systems are brittle: one court order, one shift in corporate priorities, or one infrastructure takedown can throttle speech across the platform.

Moreover, X’s design prioritizes engagement and monetization over absolute speech freedom. Its algorithms can subtly censor by downranking content, as seen in past throttling controversies, without users ever knowing. Nostr, lacking a central algorithm or profit motive, doesn’t manipulate visibility—content either exists on a relay or it doesn’t, and users control what they see through their choice of clients and relays. X’s reliance on a single domain and infrastructure also makes it a ripe target for DNS blocking or DDoS attacks by hostile actors, whereas Nostr’s distributed relay model shrugs off such threats by spreading the load across countless nodes.

The steelman argument isn’t that X doesn’t value free speech—it might, under ideal conditions—but that it cannot match Nostr’s resistance due to its centralized nature. X is a walled garden with a gatekeeper, however benevolent, while Nostr is an open field where no one holds the keys. Even if X fights valiantly for speech, it’s constrained by its own architecture and the realities of operating as a corporate entity in a world of state power. Nostr, as a protocol, sidesteps these battles entirely, offering a structural purity that X can never replicate without ceasing to be what it is. Thus, X will always fall short of Nostr’s censorship-resistant ideal, not for lack of intent, but for lack of capability.

Need to practice more one-handed blasting

Only 85% more to go

Around 310k sats with today's difficulty

insights.braiins.com has some great tools for this kind of question

Check kaboomracks telegram for some decent used prices:

1 qty Bitmain Antminer S21 188T 17.5 J/T for Sale

Used in Good Condition, B

— $3189 each —

ㄴwhich includes shipping to the USA

ㄴadd hosting for $0.079/kwh

ㄴCurrently Operating

minimum order qty of 1 unit

ships from Kaboomracks Hosting TX02 within 2 weeks of payment

Buy Hardware Now ➪ Click Here

Buy Hosting Now ➪ Click Here

Contact Sales ➪ @kaboomracksAlex

Contact Sales ➪ @kaboomracksNick

Contact Sales ➪ @kaboomracksSales

#kb02342 #used #sha256 #usa | February 7th, 2025

🇺🇸 Miners for Sale ➪ @kaboomracks

Replace all electric heating with miners

My coworker is a boomer who likes to listen to the radio at his desk as he works.

It's a conservative talk station. I'll often hear political sound bytes that I heard or saw the night before on X or nostr.

Legacy media can't keep up

Best joker