Primary creators by @Juraj usually are not building out of themselves as silkworms. They were raised in some culture and had parents, friends, foes, talks, books and overall environment which formed them before they started creating. Also usually (though not always, see Van Gogh) they should not be starving themselves, and definitely their family should be all right or they should not have one - creativity is not very good aligned with a requirement to feed your children in poor conditions. // Hypothesis: there are different % of "primary" creators in the US and North Korea or Central Africa. BTW, maybe this is incorrect, and numbers are similar; in this case this is something genetical like mentioned psychopathy. Also they are almost always building on top of the basis of what was built before them. Kopernik knew about Ptolemey, Einstein knew about Newton and all of them knew not-so-basic math. Brothers Wright knew about countless attempts to fly before their time (and probably of Leonardo's ideas too). Even great writers were reading books before they started writing. However, putting aside question of whether primary creators are doing this out of themselves (IMO they don't), the concept of owning your actions (active vs. reactive) and doing them not for installing yourself in the existing system, but to create something new and parallel to the existing, and do so without help from the existing powers - this probably something what was implied here, and if so - this quality is definitely rare and should be encouraged. What I'm trying to say - is that we should not mix up these two concepts: 1) owning and executing action which is not aligned with current systems of power, but parallel (or perpendicular) to them; 2) doing it only by your own ideas, something which was not tried before. 1 - is commendable and should be encouraged. 2 - is most probably impossible, so should not be the criteria. Even BTC is done by smartly combining existing things and trying for the N-th time what has failed every single time before. As with the most of the inventions. People going to the space know that this is possible, though dangerous. Nobody builds from zero. And even their desire to build something is caused most probably by sum of all their previous experiences, internal impulses and external conditions and not by themselves sitting, meditating and intentionally deciding to do this. IMO we should focus on 1. Discuss.

With all due respect - a couple of comments on recent @Frank Braun talk on ZEC vs. BTC: 1. Privacy dependence on value at rest. —- this is not really working en masse, at least until fixed. How many people do know about this caveat? How many will not forget about this in a year after the talk? Yes, you can achieve privacy with ZEC if you know what you are doing, but then you can achieve it even with BTC. 2. Store of value. —- Privacy coins are under the fire from governments: gov don’t want people to make untaxable transactions or hide wealth. You cannot just issue your private money and work with them in any major community. Then what prevents gov from outlaw privacy coins? Say 20 years of prison for anyone working with it, same as for heroine or counterfeiting for that matter. They did similar for gold in the US in 19xxs if I’m not mistaken. They are slowly starting this for XMR now, why not for ZEC? ECC is trying to sit on two chairs being both regulatory-friendly and optionally private, and usually this ends badly. 3. As far as I know the decentralisation is not really here as of now. You can pressure the devs, so it has the same attack surface as, say, ETH, SOL or even as any of USDT/USDC. Don’t look as very uncensorable project. Or is there any recent change? 4. Question: Why ZEC and not XMR? Any particular reason? Discuss.

If you by any chance need to find someone's last posts on twitter and try to go without login to their twitter page, you will get just a broth of the posts without any structure. If you need to see the latest posts first (without login ofc)- use

Nitter

XCancel

- online instance of nitter. Probably most of the people know that already, or anyway it's one click away, but I just found out, so sharing.

Here I also see huge amounts of MeshCore nodes popped up about 1-1.5 months ago, but they are in different locations from the Meshtastic nodes, so it seems that this is not that all old Meshtastic nodes just switched over during a couple of weeks, it's really a new and growing adoption. Did we have some big event with MeshCore presentation around the October-December? You need time to buy and install nodes. ) BTW, the similar map of Reticulum nodes does not have it's page on the Reticulum site as far as I can tell, but need to be searched separately: https://rmap.world/ Maybe this is also one of the small but important adoption things which make the difference. Here is the map for Meshtastic:

MeshMap - Meshtastic Node Map

A nearly live map of Meshtastic nodes seen by the official Meshtastic MQTT server

(also separate site) Here is for MeshCore:

Network Map — MeshCore

View the global MeshCore mesh network map. See active nodes and coverage areas.

(here is for MeshCore, integrated) BTW, why MeshCore is trademarked?? How sure we are about the trustworthiness of the developers, of the map and the quality of the software (e.g. in terms of encryption)? View quoted note →