Affinity**For*Disobedience's avatar
Affinity**For*Disobedience
npub12uwt...u26s
But we all well know that the reason that most of us are here is because of our affinity for disobedience.
@₿en Wehrman @Marty Bent @ODELL @HODL The Tucker Carlson Podcast » Pavel Durov Speaks Out for the First Time Since His Politically-Motivated Arrest in France 5 minutes smart summary Last August, arriving in Paris on a tourist visit, I was met by police at the airport. Initially, I assumed it was Olympic-related security. Instead, they presented a list of sixteen charges – all sorts of crimes. It was bewildering, especially considering our company's commitment to the highest standards and my own clean record. It became clear this wasn't about something *I* had done, but about how some individuals were using Telegram. I was driven away in a police motorcade, ironically similar to escorts I'd received while visiting heads of state. My phone was confiscated, and I spent four days in custody in a seven-square-meter, windowless concrete cell. The room contained a narrow bed with a yoga-mat-thin mattress and a constantly blinking light – utter solitude. The reason, I later learned, was Telegram's alleged lack of response to French judicial requests. This was simply untrue; we never received a legally binding request. We already had a Digital Services Act-compliant system in place to disclose IP addresses and phone numbers of criminal suspects with court orders through our Belgian entity. Other countries used this system effectively. Why not France? Especially given my French citizenship, this felt unprecedented. The authorities know my address; the French consulate shares the same building as our Telegram office in Dubai, just two floors below. They could easily have contacted me, yet they chose a public arrest at the airport, a move seemingly designed for maximum humiliation and intimidation. It was unexpected being arrested in France. Prior to that trip, I had visited numerous countries, some considered autocratic, where Telegram is popular. I experienced zero issues, despite our commitment to zero censorship and complete privacy. The irony of being arrested in the free West wasn't lost on me. If Zuckerberg or Musk were grabbed at De Gaulle, the world would stop. In my case, it felt like some thought, "Oh, he's got a Russian last name. It's fine." Ethnicity seems to play a role. Despite leaving Russia and making it clear I wasn't involved in whatever angered them, it makes me an easier target because my story isn’t widely known. Some defended me, thankfully; millions signed a petition. But where were the human rights watchdogs? This feels like something out of North Korea, yet in France, it’s shrugged off. It’s complicated because the investigation should be unbiased, regardless of jurisdiction. During those four days of detention, they asked about Telegram's operations as if it were some kind of enigma. We're a large, established company, audited by a Big Four firm, collaborating with major financial institutions, and spending millions on legal compliance in nearly 200 countries. Learning that Telegram supposedly erred was shocking. The law clearly outlines the process for requests, which wasn't followed. French prosecutors could have discovered this online in minutes. The irony is thick. Months later, I'm still in France under judicial control, restricting my travel. I can go to Dubai, but it's controlled. With a multi-billion-dollar company and a billion users, why would I run? I’m here to answer questions about Telegram every few months. The rest of the time, my presence is hard to justify. The whole situation is confusing. So, I can't leave France freely, which, you could say, makes me imprisoned. Though, I don't want viewers picturing a real prison cell. Think of it as France – very first world in some ways, but not in its attitudes. My kids are in Dubai, and I can't legally take care of them right now, signing documents and such. It’s stressful, especially for my gravely ill mom, whom I can’t see. This also impacts the company, with a billion users. I'm running it remotely, but it's not as efficient. France is less than 1% of Telegram's user base – maybe half of 1%. Yet, the entire organization is impacted by this investigation here, despite only needing my presence once every few months. The restriction feels strange and unnecessary. Everything is possible, including being criminally charged. But this whole thing shouldn't have happened based on a media article claiming Telegram is uncooperative or has worse content moderation than other platforms – both completely false. They should've verified things thoroughly first. Decisions like this impact not just me and my company, but France itself. As a French citizen, I worry about that. Telegram was probably the most friendly potential partner for France. Every time French authorities reached out, I helped. This feels like friendly fire, attacking their own ally, with significant collateral damage for France's image. CEOs of big tech companies are concerned, asking if it's still safe to come to France. It's part of the Digital Services Act; you have to remove whatever a European country demands across the entire EU. Imagine Romania, Estonia, or any nation demanding the removal of Telegram channels for some reason. You appeal, but removal must be swift, or face fines and bans. How is that not Soviet? If you criticize those in charge, they shut you down. That's tyranny; that's the definition. Telegram channels, unlike some platforms, aren't promoted. Everything is deliberately searched for. It's a completely neutral platform; everyone expresses their voice within common sense rules. People can then decide which viewpoint makes the most sense. That's freedom. Regarding encryption, with advances in computing power, quantum computing, encryption has to evolve. Tools to decrypt become stronger, so tools to encrypt do too. State actors have almost infinite computing power and technologies they may not disclose. The biggest privacy risk is a state actor penetrating a device. There are zero-day vulnerabilities governments exploit. If targeted, a Trojan like Pegasus could be installed. I know; I was one of those people eight years ago. Knowing for certain if your phone has been compromised is difficult, but organizations can help check for exploited vulnerabilities. I find phones distracting and harmful to my privacy. I prefer laptops or iPads to focus and interact with my team, not disappear consuming short-form content. https://blossom.primal.net/38d4309a5c1663a2af1d9f17f5651ebb85af451a9cdcf15aca464b46a50db2c6
Nostr is the only platform on which if I publish something and get 0 likes, 0 zaps, 0 comments... I still feel heard for some reason that I can't quite put my finger on. This place is different.
Bitcoin, once again, shows off its anti-fragility. After the emotional rollercoaster provided by the OP_RETURN debate, it has slowly but steadily dawned on me that I am, in fact, more optimistic than ever before about Bitcoin’s future thanks to the fundamentally anti-fragile behaviour it continues to exhibit. This whole debate started with Bitcoin Core's nonsensical and clumsy Pull Request published on the 8th of April, 2025. Standing here 36 days later, my honest assessment is that Bitcoin is now more decentralized than it was prior to that date. We have had an extremely messy and healthy debate, and its tangible outcome is that Bitcoin has decentralized further along a previously problematic dimension: Implementation Alternatives. Bitcoin Knots' market share is rising; I expect it to stabilize around 15-20% of nodes. @ODELL has published an Open Sats grant for a Bitcoin Knots developer. Most importantly, I have no doubt that in the next 6 months, more implementations will emerge and compete. This is anti-fragility in action. Bitcoin has demonstrated this again, and while I shouldn’t be surprised at this point, I still can’t help but marvel at it. Thanks to this meteoric rise of Bitcoin Knots adoption, ironically, as of today, I would argue it is actually slightly harder to get spam accepted by mempools than it was before the pull request was published. This is the market speaking and I believe that's the trend we are ending in. I have some sympathy for the Bitcoin Core team, as they made a misguided change they clearly thought was minuscule and inconsequential, backed by some technical rationale. Core’s dominance in the implementation space led them to grave complacency around communication. The problem is not the PR itself, of course, but it was the straw that broke the camel’s back. I completely agree in practice that OP_RETURN Limit is a weak spam filter. The conclusion to that, however, should not have been to remove it, but instead to implement better spam filters, such as those on Bitcoin Knots. Crucially, under no circumstances should user configurability be sacrificed—a direct attack on their sovereignty. Ultimately, Bitcoin Core shipped a shittier product, and now its main competition is gaining traction. People vote with their nodes. The free market works. Bitcoin overall benefits. Anti-fragile. Bitcoin Core’s PR and how they handled it exposes their underlying problem of tolerating arbitrary data, weakening Bitcoin’s monetary use case. As @Bitcoin Mechanic rightly puts it, we had to draw the line somewhere, and it just happened to be around this OP_RETURN issue. Drawing that line was always going to be absolutely arbitrary, and the resistance against OP_RETURN is actually more symbolic than anything else. The overwhelming majority of my sympathy, however, goes undoubtfully to @Matthew Kratter and @Bitcoin Mechanic , who have had to spend ungodly amounts of emotional energy for weeks on end to make their points heard, and to get the community to take notice. In essence, it fell on them to set Bitcoin’s anti-fragility process in motion. The pressure to embody and temporarily become the face of Bitcoin’s anti-fragility fell entropically onto you guys, and you answered the call extremely diligently. I have nothing but praise and admiration for you. In so many ways, Bitcoin is a selfish gene, having absolutely no consideration or empathy for its hosts. Anti-fragility, as Taleb himself said, is such a hard concept to grasp—the sort of concept you can go your whole life without even knowing exists, yet once you see it, you can’t ever unsee it. The more we bicker in Bitcoin—and more importantly, the more that bickering forces decisive, opposing actions—the stronger Bitcoin as a whole becomes, the more decentralized Bitcoin becomes. It is so deeply counter-intuitive. Yet this has been achieved here once again. On an individual level, I have deepened my understanding of Bitcoin’s protocol and its different implementations, and my seamless switch to running Bitcoin Knots now makes me a more sovereign and educated individual. @Matthew Kratter and @Bitcoin Mechanic might have been the mechanisms through which I achieved this, but it was Bitcoin Core’s lousy decisions that were the actual trigger. As a wise Suddock once said, everything is good for Bitcoin—even the blunders of its most prolific developers. The ability for individuals to easily run a node is all that matters; it is the fundamental and defining aspect of Bitcoin from which everything else stems, even its scarcity guarantee—something the MSTR fanboys and TradeFi seem to never understand. I would like to think this latest show of Bitcoin’s anti-fragility is what has enabled the recent 26% price run over the last 30 days. I know this is naive and oversimplified, but you gotta admit it’s comforting. If you don’t believe that there are over a dozen technical analysts at BlackRock tasked exclusively with monitoring the technical ecosystem from the shadows, you are even more naive than I am. These technical analysts are paid full-time by BlackRock to constantly re-underwrite Bitcoin's technical risks by constantly monitoring the developer landscape. The fact they have raised no alarm bells—but rather appear to have doubled down on their allocation—speaks volumes. Perhaps they reached the same conclusion that I have: somehow, some way, Bitcoin always converges on the most decentralized and anti-fragile path forward. The more chaos there is, the stronger Bitcoin grows. And the one thing you can take for granted in this universe is chaos. Bitcoin’s anti-fragility is an “always-on” flywheel, operating quietly in the darkness, usually via the inexorable growth of its hash rate or the merciless issuance of its scheduled supply. But several visible episodes throughout its lifetime have made its anti-fragility property bubble up to the surface, becoming observable to human cognition. Here are the examples I have in mind (feel free to skip these if you already know them off by heart): 2011: Wikileaks adopted Bitcoin to receive donations out of desperation, without Satoshi’s permission, stress-testing its censorship-resistant properties in the open market. Bitcoin ended up stronger and more decentralized. 2013: Bitcoin was targeted by government intelligence agencies in the Silk Road bust, inadvertently raising awareness about its unstoppable nature. Bitcoin ended up stronger and more decentralized. 2017: Vested interests tried to co-opt Bitcoin by in essence wanting to dilute its mining rewards; users forked off and resisted, destroying (or absorbing?) millions of dollars in capital. Bitcoin ended up stronger and more decentralized. 2021: China’s Communist Party imposed a nation-wide Bitcoin mining ban. Short-term hash rate turbulence occurred, but miners relocated insanely rapidly, spreading out globally. Bitcoin ended up stronger and more decentralized. 2025: Due to this contentious pull request and the internal debate on how to discourage non-monetary transactions, we are beginning to see the earliest signs that Bitcoin will become more resistant to spam transactions in the long term. Bitcoin will end up stronger and more decentralized. Once more, Bitcoin has shown its irrevocable tendency towards anti-fragility, and though this isn't the first nor the last time this happens, I can’t help but pause and marvel at it in awe. Thanks for taking this pause with me. Now back to acting. Back to building. Follow your beliefs and turn them into concrete actions. Whichever side you're on, you'll be helping Bitcoin, whether you intend to or not.
Why is "GM" and "GN" are so common place round here and yet I've not once seen "GA" or "GE". How come? Nostr is a place of so many mysteries.