average_bitcoiner

average@primal.net

sum divided by count

This is the tyranny of the average. Slop code is by definition, exactly as good as what a moderately competent developer can produce in his specific area of expertise. It will be far “better” in any given circumstance than code produced by novice programmers, programmers working in a different industry or language, or the non-programmer.

But do we know what we’re giving up? The gradual phasing out of wood-burning stoves means people can no longer heat their own homes. The use of industrial materials in construction means people can no longer build or repair their own houses. If I must depend on industrial inputs to keep the machine that is my home running, am I really free, or have I been “domesticated” in a new sense?

The Quantum Threat to Bitcoin

Bitcoin's security model relies on the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) and the secp256k1 curve. The security assumption is that deriving a private key from a public key is computationally infeasible—a problem known as the Elliptic Curve Discrete Logarithm Problem (ECDLP).

Quantum computers change this calculus. Shor's algorithm, running on a sufficiently powerful quantum computer, can solve ECDLP in polynomial time. While such computers don't exist today, the cryptographic community takes this threat seriously. Bitcoin's long-term security depends on proactive measures.

BIP-360: Pay to Quantum Resistant Hash (P2QRH)

The Bitcoin community is actively developing quantum-resistant solutions. BIP-360 proposes a new output type using post-quantum cryptographic signatures. Key features include:

Lattice-based signatures (e.g., FALCON, SPHINCS+) resistant to Shor's algorithm Backward compatibility via soft fork activation Migration path for existing UTXOs to quantum-safe addresses

Until P2QRH or similar solutions are deployed, minimizing public key exposure is the most effective defense-in-depth measure available today.

Understanding Public Key Exposure

Bitcoin addresses are derived from public keys through a one-way hash function:

Address = RIPEMD160(SHA256(PublicKey)) // P2PKH Address = SHA256(PublicKey)[0:20] // P2WPKH (simplified)

This hash provides a layer of protection: even if an attacker can derive private keys from public keys (the quantum threat), they still cannot derive public keys from addresses (hash preimage resistance). The public key remains hidden until the first spend.

The ECDSA Exposure Window

┌───────────────────────────────┐ │ FRESH ADDRESS │ │ (never spent from) │ ├───────────────────────────────┤ │ • Pubkey hidden behind hash │ │ • Quantum-safe │ │ • No known attack │ └───────────────────────────────┘ │ │ First spend ▼ ┌───────────────────────────────┐ │ EXPOSED ADDRESS │ │ (spent from) │ ├───────────────────────────────┤ │ • Transaction reveals pubkey │ │ • Quantum vulnerable │ │ • Future deposits at risk │ └───────────────────────────────┘

Why Address Reuse is Dangerous

When you spend from an address, the full ECDSA public key is revealed in the transaction's witness data (for SegWit) or scriptSig (for legacy). A quantum attacker could then:

Extract the public key from any historical transaction spending from that address

Run Shor's algorithm to derive the private key

Steal any funds subsequently deposited to that address

This is particularly dangerous for mining pools that reuse a single coinbase address. After the first consolidation transaction, every future block reward sent to that address is quantum-vulnerable from the moment it's mined.

The "Harvest Now, Decrypt Later" Attack

Nation-state adversaries are already archiving encrypted data and blockchain transactions with the expectation that future quantum computers will enable decryption. This is known as a "harvest now, decrypt later" (HNDL) attack.

For Bitcoin, this means:

Public keys exposed today are recorded permanently on-chain When quantum computers become viable, historical public keys can be attacked Funds in addresses with exposed public keys become immediately vulnerable

Mining Pool Coinbases: A High-Value Target

Mining pools accumulate significant value in coinbase outputs. A pool using a single static address creates an attractive target: one public key exposure compromises all future deposits. Coinbase rotation eliminates this single point of failure.

But the hatred goes deeper than policy disputes. Those who hate money hate it because it reminds them of what they are not. Every transaction is a mirror reflecting their own lack of productive capacity. Every price tag is an indictment of their inability to create value others would voluntarily purchase. Money is the messenger they wish to kill because they dislike the message: that value must be created before it can be consumed, that production must precede consumption, that someone must make before anyone can take.

The alternative to money is not some utopia where goods flow to each according to need. The alternative is either barter, which is merely less efficient money, or force, which is the destroyer of production itself. When men cannot trade peacefully using an agreed medium of exchange, they must either do without trade or take what they want through violence. History offers no third option.

But need is not a claim. That someone requires food does not obligate others to provide it. That someone desires healthcare does not create a right to the labor of doctors and nurses. Need is infinite; production is finite. The only just system is one where those who produce trade voluntarily with others who produce, each offering value in exchange for value. Money simply facilitates this exchange by providing a common medium and store of value across time.

This is why such people invariably prefer systems of allocation other than voluntary exchange. They speak of "need" as if it were a claim on the productive effort of others. They invoke "fairness" to disguise their demand that those who produce should subsidize those who do not. They create elaborate theories of exploitation to explain why those who create value somehow owe it to those who create none.

No, the loudest critics of money are invariably those who seek it without earning it. The academic who produces papers nobody reads, funded by taxes extracted from those who do produce. The politician who promises to redistribute wealth he did not create to voters who did not earn it. The activist who demands resources for causes that generate no value anyone would voluntarily purchase. They hate money precisely because it is an objective measure of value created, and they create no value. Money exposes their parasitism simply by existing as an honest accounting of productive effort.

The implications cascade from this simple truth. If money represents production, then the accumulation of money represents the accumulation of past productive effort. The wealthy man, assuming he earned rather than stole his wealth, has created value for others on a grand scale. His bank account is a ledger of problems solved, desires satisfied, and efficiencies created. To damn him for his wealth is to damn him for his productivity, which is to say, for his virtue in creating what others valued enough to purchase.

Money is stored choice. When a craftsman shapes wood into furniture, a programmer transforms logic into software, or a farmer coaxes wheat from soil, they create value that did not previously exist. Their effort, guided by knowledge and skill, increases the total wealth available to humanity. Money is simply the token that represents a claim on this created value in a form that can be stored and exchanged. It is a certificate of production, a transferable option on future goods, the physical symbol of the fact that someone, somewhere, made something that another person wanted enough to trade for. This is why money cannot be created by decree. Governments that print currency create only paper, not wealth. They redistribute claims on existing production through the hidden tax of inflation, but they cannot print the production itself. A million freshly printed dollars cannot conjure a single loaf of bread into existence. Only human effort directed by human minds can do that. Money divorced from production is merely colored paper, a counterfeit claim on wealth that was never created.

Free men built thirty thousand miles of roads. Free men created wealth, raised children, learned trades, conducted commerce, built tools, and lived lives without state permission for most of human history. You can do the same. Not because you have special abilities or rare advantages. Because learned helplessness is not your natural state.

The state maintains power not primarily through force but through the belief that you cannot function without it.

Action provides freedom.

The programming says only the state can coordinate these functions. Participating in alternatives proves the programming lied. This is especially effective because it is social: you encounter other people who have broken free or are breaking free. The isolation of learned helplessness is countered by community of agents.

Open source software development demonstrates that humans can coordinate complex projects without hierarchy, ownership, or state involvement. Wikipedia shows that knowledge can be compiled and maintained through voluntary contribution. Bitcoin proves that money can function without central banks.

You are not advocating against medicine. You are demonstrating you are not helpless without it.

Employers who demand degrees are filtering for conformity, not competence.

Gatto documented that genius is common, not rare. What is rare is environments that do not actively suppress it.

Reject credentialism.

The goal is not tax evasion for its own sake. The goal is demonstrating to yourself that you can produce value and exchange it without state intermediation.

Homeschoolers consistently outperform institutionally schooled children by five to ten years in ability to think independently.

By engaging in forbidden but peaceful trade, by trading risk for profit, by experiencing immediate self-liberation from state controls, the agorist demonstrates to himself that he can function outside state permission.

We have provided excellent maps while leaving people paralyzed.

State schooling did not accidentally create helplessness. The system was designed to produce it.

Finally, the Primal app does not verify signatures locally for the notes it displays to you. Those signatures are verified by the server, which means that you are entirely trusting that the server is sending you only notes with valid signatures, and with exactly the content that was originally published by the note’s author.

With this context, is it now possible to definitively say whether Primal is a Nostr client? No. It still depends on how you define what is essential to the definition of the term. If you subscribe to the broad definition, then yes, Primal is a Nostr client. However, if you believe apps should only be considered Nostr clients if they perform all of the functions listed in the narrow definition, then Primal is not a Nostr client.

If you ever suspect such a thing is occurring, though, it is easy to hop onto a client like Jumble that allows you to view a particular relay’s feed, and see if your notes show up there.

Exactly how that content is retrieved by the app, or other technical considerations are not in view whatsoever under this very broad concept of what constitutes a Nostr client. Thus, those who operate with this concept are content to refer to Primal as a Nostr client, and they can’t understand how anyone could reasonably state that it is not.

What is meant by this is a recognition that people often use the same words to refer to different concepts, and as long as you haven’t defined what you mean by the words you are using, two people using the same word to refer to different concepts will continue to talk past one another and confuse anyone observing their interactions. Rather, we should first ensure that when we use a word, we are both understanding the same concept behind it, or agree to use different words for each concept, at least for the sake of our discussion.

it is objectively clear to me that the United States has been completely corrupted and hollowed out over the last five decades from both sides of the aisle. The uni-party working under the guise of a two-party system has done its best to sell out the American people in favor of cronyism. The cronyism comes in different flavors depending on which party is in power at any given point in time, but the end result is the same; insiders and cronies benefit at the detriment of the Common Man.