wikimove

Sometimes, we need to build an iOS application ourselves in our work: to test it on different simulators, or we simply don’t have an iPhone at hand, or we need a version from a certain branch, and a developer can’t build the app now. In such cases, we have to learn to be independent and this guide can help. In fact, it’s not as difficult as it seems. We’ll do it in 10 minutes using the Wikipedia application. It’s available at https://github.com/wikimedia/wikipedia-ios. You can download the project simply as an archive (using buttons 1 and 2 from the screenshot), but I recommend cloning it via the terminal using Git: this way, you can get updates in the future simply by entering “git pull.” So, I advise you to open the terminal, and go to the desired folder by entering, for example: cd Downloads Use the link under number 3, and enter the command: git clone https://github.com/wikimedia/wikipedia-ios.git Then, check that everything has been downloaded. Find this folder in the finder. You can see in your files “Wikipedia.xcodeproj”. But we need to have “Wikipedia.xcworkspace”. And also go to it in the terminal: cd wikipedia-ios To generate the .xcworkspace file, we will install the necessary pods. Steps to add CocoaPods to manage dependencies in your project: sudo gem install cocoapods
This installs CocoaPods as a piece of software on your machine. (wait a little, ~10 minutes).


Go to the root of your project directory (but we are here already), and execute.
pod init

This will add a base Podfile to your project.


Run
pod install

which will fetch all the external dependencies mentioned by you, and associate it with a .xcworkspace file of your project.
This .xcworkspace file will be generated for you if you already do not have one. From here on, you should use the .xcworkspace file instead of .xcproject / .xcodeproj.

Open Wikipedia.xcworkspace in Xcode, and wait for all dependencies to load.


Choose any device (I picked iPhone 16), and click the Run button. Wait a little (about 5 min). That’s all! Now, we have our application running on an iOS simulator. You can use it. Also, you can find the .app file and use it for autotests or send it to your colleagues. Sometimes, we need to build an iOS application ourselves in our work: to test it on different simulators, or we simply don’t have an iPhone at hand, or we need a version from a certain branch, and a developer can’t build the app now. In such cases, we have to learn to be independent and this guide can help. In fact, it’s not as difficult as it seems. We’ll do it in 10 minutes using the Wikipedia application. It’s available at https://github.com/wikimedia/wikipedia-ios . https://github.com/wikimedia/wikipedia-ios You can download the project simply as an archive (using buttons 1 and 2 from the screenshot), but I recommend cloning it via the terminal using Git: this way, you can get updates in the future simply by entering “git pull.” So, I advise you to open the terminal, and go to the desired folder by entering, for example: cd Downloads cd Downloads Use the link under number 3, and enter the command: git clone https://github.com/wikimedia/wikipedia-ios.git git clone https://github.com/wikimedia/wikipedia-ios.git Then, check that everything has been downloaded. Find this folder in the finder. You can see in your files “Wikipedia.xcodeproj”. But we need to have “Wikipedia.xcworkspace”. And also go to it in the terminal: cd wikipedia-ios cd wikipedia-ios To generate the .xcworkspace file, we will install the necessary pods. Steps to add CocoaPods to manage dependencies in your project: sudo gem install cocoapods
This installs CocoaPods as a piece of software on your machine. (wait a little, ~10 minutes). Go to the root of your project directory (but we are here already), and execute.
pod init

This will add a base Podfile to your project. Run
pod install

which will fetch all the external dependencies mentioned by you, and associate it with a .xcworkspace file of your project.
This .xcworkspace file will be generated for you if you already do not have one. From here on, you should use the .xcworkspace file instead of .xcproject / .xcodeproj. Open Wikipedia.xcworkspace in Xcode, and wait for all dependencies to load. Choose any device (I picked iPhone 16), and click the Run button. sudo gem install cocoapods This installs CocoaPods as a piece of software on your machine. (wait a little, ~10 minutes). sudo gem install cocoapods sudo gem install cocoapods This installs CocoaPods as a piece of software on your machine. (wait a little, ~10 minutes). Go to the root of your project directory (but we are here already), and execute. pod init This will add a base Podfile to your project. Go to the root of your project directory (but we are here already), and execute. pod init pod init This will add a base Podfile to your project. Run pod install which will fetch all the external dependencies mentioned by you, and associate it with a .xcworkspace file of your project. This .xcworkspace file will be generated for you if you already do not have one. From here on, you should use the .xcworkspace file instead of .xcproject / .xcodeproj. Run pod install pod install which will fetch all the external dependencies mentioned by you, and associate it with a .xcworkspace file of your project. This .xcworkspace file will be generated for you if you already do not have one. From here on, you should use the .xcworkspace file instead of .xcproject / .xcodeproj. you should use the .xcworkspace Open Wikipedia.xcworkspace in Xcode, and wait for all dependencies to load. Open Wikipedia.xcworkspace in Xcode, and wait for all dependencies to load. Choose any device (I picked iPhone 16), and click the Run button. Choose any device (I picked iPhone 16), and click the Run button. Wait a little (about 5 min). That’s all! Now, we have our application running on an iOS simulator. You can use it. Also, you can find the .app file and use it for autotests or send it to your colleagues.

How to Build an iOS Application: A Guide for QA Engineers

The IISc Memristor: The Dawn of a New Era in Computing and AI Accelerators

Surely, BitTorrent sounds like something familiar, right? It’s that famous file-sharing protocol that now works with the client uTorrent. Well, Bram Cohen, an American computer scientist, is the one who invented it —and more. He’s also considered an early cypherpunk, even if he wasn’t on the 90’s mailing list because he’s been dedicated to creating privacy-oriented and peer-to-peer (P2P) software. Born in 1975 in New York City, Cohen grew up in a family that nurtured his intellectual pursuits, with his father being a computer scientist. His fascination with computers began early; by the age of six, he was already learning to code in BASIC on a Timex Sinclair computer. This early exposure to programming set the foundation for his future innovations. During his high school years at Stuyvesant High School, Cohen excelled in mathematics and even qualified for the United States of America Mathematical Olympiad. Indeed, he’s said that he considers himself a mathematician in his own right. After graduating, he briefly attended SUNY Buffalo but soon left to dive into the tech industry, joining several dot-com startups during the 1990s. Before his groundbreaking work on BitTorrent, Cohen was involved in various projects, including MojoNation, a platform he co-developed with Jim McCoy —another early cypherpunk. This system was designed to allow users to securely share files by breaking them into encrypted pieces distributed across multiple computers, in a P2P manner. It was never fully operational, but this project would likely lay the groundwork for Cohen’s later creation of the BitTorrent protocol, which revolutionized file sharing and digital distribution. BitTorrent & Chia Cohen started to work on the BitTorrent software in 2001, but it wouldn’t be until 2004 that he founded the company BitTorrent Inc., along with his brother Ross Cohen and business partner Ashwin Navin. The protocol offers shutdown-resistant, efficient, and scalable file distribution by decentralizing the process. It works by breaking files into smaller pieces, which are then distributed among users (called peers) who download and upload these pieces simultaneously. This approach has allowed massive piracy to happen over the years, even though Cohen has said that wasn’t his intention. As it actually happened, however, the main advantage of BitTorrent is being a tool where file sharing is pretty hard to stop or block, no matter the file or country, because there are many peers involved. Previous services of this kind, like mp3.com and Napster, were shut down because they were centralized –unlike BitTorrent, which came to solve that issue, despite all odds. Its system was designed to distribute and share data directly among individual peers, without restrictions, in contrast to traditional methods like HTTP or FTP, which often rely on a single server. The first releases of the BitTorrent software by Cohen’s company were open-source and are still around, allowing widespread adoption and development by various developers and communities. Over time, aspects of the company’s BitTorrent technology became proprietary, particularly as the company behind it, BitTorrent, Inc. (later Rainberry, Inc.), sought to monetize the technology through various products and services​. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DHFHYmaKS0 The rebranded client uTorrent, released in 2007, was no longer open-source. However, the BitTorrent protocol is open, and there are multiple alternative programs implementing the same protocol, some of them are open-source. For his part, Cohen left the company to co-found the Chia Network in 2017. This is a blockchain protocol designed with a focus on sustainability. Unlike cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, which rely on energy-intensive Proof-of-Work (PoW) mechanisms, Chia uses its own consensus algorithm called Proof of Space and Time (PoST), created by Cohen. This method leverages unused storage space on users’ hard drives to “farm” Chia coins, rather than “mining” them with powerful computing hardware. The idea is to make the network eco-friendlier by utilizing existing resources rather than consuming excessive energy. However, large chunks of space (over 108 GB) and some degree of technical knowledge are required to become a farmer. Cohen and Cypherpunks Cohen is considered a cypherpunk by many, but he’s shared that he wasn’t on any cypherpunk lists, because he found “too many political rants, too little tech.” Beyond this, and maybe ironically, he’s been widely involved with other cypherpunks over the years. Len Sassaman, a privacy advocate and vocal cypherpunk (even a suspected candidate to be Satoshi Nakamoto), was his roommate by 2001 and helped him to create the annual CodeCon conference for hackers and technology enthusiasts in 2002. Cohen remembers that Len was a constant participant on the cypherpunk mailing list, and tried to make him publish BitTorrent pseudonymously. Besides Sassaman, several cypherpunks likely ended up participating in the CodeCon until the last one, in 2009. Hal Finney, the first-ever Bitcoin user, and creator of the system RPOW, gave a talk there in 2005, and Adam Back, now the Blockstream CEO, assisted in 2002. However, above all, Cohen’s creations have been reflecting his ideologies. BitTorrent, as a P2P file-sharing system, and Chia, as a crypto ecosystem, have been seen as tools that align with cypherpunk ideals, promoting the decentralization of data and providing users with more control over their digital privacy​ —and funds. Besides, for him, “cypherpunk” is “a bit of a catch-all term for Internet-related badassery,” and his own work “feels like a constant series of extreme heists, somehow bizarrely juxtaposed with it all happening while I lounge on my couch in sweat pants.” Cypherpunk Projects We can say that Bram Cohen is more of a lowkey cypherpunk, not as vocal about it as other members. However, his creations follow the same goals. BitTorrent, for instance, revolutionized file-sharing by decentralizing the process, making it virtually impossible to shut down. Unlike earlier systems like mp3.com and Napster, which relied on centralized servers that could be targeted and taken down by authorities, BitTorrent distributed the workload across many users. Its P2P network implies that there’s no single point of failure, making it incredibly resilient against shutdown attempts. This decentralized nature aligns perfectly with cypherpunk ideals, which champion privacy, freedom, and resistance to censorship. BitTorrent, and also the decentralized Chia, embody these principles by ensuring that information and transactions remain free-flowing and accessible, inside the devices of thousands, regardless of attempts to control it. Their design reflects the cypherpunk ethos of using technology to protect individual rights and maintain an open, uncensored Internet. A Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) structure like Obyte also reflects those ideals. This is a truly decentralized platform, whose design allows transactions to be added directly by users, and it’s maintained by a whole global network of peers. The only other thing needed to avoid double-spending is Order Providers (OPs), who just provide their own transactions as a guide to order the rest, but don’t have further control over the network. This approach not only enhances decentralization but also aligns with the cypherpunk ethos of reducing reliance on centralized authorities and increasing user control over data and transactions. The platform's commitment to privacy and autonomy is evident in its features like self-sovereign identity and its own privacy coin (Blackbytes), allowing users to manage their data and engage in secure, private transactions. These attributes and many more make Obyte a practical tool for those who value the ideals of cypherpunks, such as the protection of personal information and the promotion of a decentralized digital economy. Read more from Cypherpunks Write Code series: Tim May & Crypto-anarchism
Wei Dai & B-money
Nick Szabo & Smart Contracts
Adam Back & Hashcash
Eric Hughes & Remailer
St Jude & Community Memory
Julian Assange & Wikileaks
Hal Finney & RPOW
John Gilmore & EFF
Satoshi Nakamoto & Bitcoin
Gregory Maxwell & Bitcoin Core
David Chaum & Ecash Featured Vector Image by Garry Killian/Freepik Photograph of Bram Cohen by Ijon/Wikimedia Surely, BitTorrent sounds like something familiar, right? It’s that famous file-sharing protocol that now works with the client uTorrent. Well, Bram Cohen, an American computer scientist, is the one who invented it —and more. He’s also considered an early cypherpunk, even if he wasn’t on the 90’s mailing list because he’s been dedicated to creating privacy-oriented and peer-to-peer (P2P) software. Born in 1975 in New York City, Cohen grew up in a family that nurtured his intellectual pursuits, with his father being a computer scientist. His fascination with computers began early ; by the age of six, he was already learning to code in BASIC on a Timex Sinclair computer. This early exposure to programming set the foundation for his future innovations. began early began early During his high school years at Stuyvesant High School, Cohen excelled in mathematics and even qualified for the United States of America Mathematical Olympiad. Indeed, he’s said that he considers himself a mathematician in his own right. After graduating, he briefly attended SUNY Buffalo but soon left to dive into the tech industry, joining several dot-com startups during the 1990s. he’s said he’s said After graduating, he briefly attended SUNY Buffalo but soon left to dive into the tech industry, joining several dot-com startups during the 1990s. Before his groundbreaking work on BitTorrent, Cohen was involved in various projects, including MojoNation, a platform he co-developed with Jim McCoy —another early cypherpunk. This system was designed to allow users to securely share files by breaking them into encrypted pieces distributed across multiple computers, in a P2P manner. It was never fully operational , but this project would likely lay the groundwork for Cohen’s later creation of the BitTorrent protocol, which revolutionized file sharing and digital distribution. fully operational fully operational BitTorrent & Chia Cohen started to work on the BitTorrent software in 2001, but it wouldn’t be until 2004 that he founded the company BitTorrent Inc., along with his brother Ross Cohen and business partner Ashwin Navin. The protocol offers shutdown-resistant, efficient, and scalable file distribution by decentralizing the process. It works by breaking files into smaller pieces, which are then distributed among users (called peers) who download and upload these pieces simultaneously. This approach has allowed massive piracy to happen over the years, even though Cohen has said that wasn’t his intention. As it actually happened, however, the main advantage of BitTorrent is being a tool where file sharing is pretty hard to stop or block, no matter the file or country, because there are many peers involved. Cohen has said that wasn’t his intention. Cohen has said that wasn’t his intention. As it actually happened, however, the main advantage of BitTorrent is being a tool where file sharing is pretty hard to stop or block, no matter the file or country, because there are many peers involved. Previous services of this kind, like mp3.com and Napster, were shut down because they were centralized –unlike BitTorrent, which came to solve that issue, despite all odds. Its system was designed to distribute and share data directly among individual peers, without restrictions, in contrast to traditional methods like HTTP or FTP, which often rely on a single server. The first releases of the BitTorrent software by Cohen’s company were open-source and are still around, allowing widespread adoption and development by various developers and communities. Over time, aspects of the company’s BitTorrent technology became proprietary, particularly as the company behind it, BitTorrent, Inc. (later Rainberry, Inc.), sought to monetize the technology through various products and services​. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DHFHYmaKS0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DHFHYmaKS0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DHFHYmaKS0 The rebranded client uTorrent, released in 2007, was no longer open-source. However, the BitTorrent protocol is open, and there are multiple alternative programs implementing the same protocol, some of them are open-source. For his part, Cohen left the company to co-found the Chia Network in 2017. This is a blockchain protocol designed with a focus on sustainability. Unlike cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, which rely on energy-intensive Proof-of-Work (PoW) mechanisms, Chia uses its own consensus algorithm called Proof of Space and Time (PoST), created by Cohen. For his part, Cohen left the company to co-found the Chia Network in 2017. This method leverages unused storage space on users’ hard drives to “farm” Chia coins, rather than “mining” them with powerful computing hardware. The idea is to make the network eco-friendlier by utilizing existing resources rather than consuming excessive energy. However, large chunks of space ( over 108 GB ) and some degree of technical knowledge are required to become a farmer. over 108 GB over 108 GB Cohen and Cypherpunks Cohen is considered a cypherpunk by many, but he’s shared that he wasn’t on any cypherpunk lists, because he found “too many political rants, too little tech.” Beyond this, and maybe ironically, he’s been widely involved with other cypherpunks over the years. he found he found Len Sassaman, a privacy advocate and vocal cypherpunk (even a suspected candidate to be Satoshi Nakamoto), was his roommate by 2001 a nd helped him to create the annual CodeCon conference for hackers and technology enthusiasts in 2002. suspected candidate suspected candidate nd helped him to create the annual CodeCon conference for hackers and technology enthusiasts in 2002. Cohen remembers that Len was a constant participant on the cypherpunk mailing list, and tried to make him publish BitTorrent pseudonymously. Besides Sassaman, several cypherpunks likely ended up participating in the CodeCon until the last one, in 2009. Cohen remembers Cohen remembers Hal Finney, the first-ever Bitcoin user, and creator of the system RPOW, gave a talk there in 2005, and Adam Back, now the Blockstream CEO, assisted in 2002. gave a talk gave a talk assisted assisted However, above all, Cohen’s creations have been reflecting his ideologies. BitTorrent, as a P2P file-sharing system, and Chia, as a crypto ecosystem, have been seen as tools that align with cypherpunk ideals, promoting the decentralization of data and providing users with more control over their digital privacy​ —and funds . BitTorrent, as a P2P file-sharing system, and Chia, as a crypto ecosystem, have been seen as tools that align with cypherpunk ideals, promoting the decentralization of data and providing users with more control over their digital privacy​ —and funds Besides, for him , “cypherpunk” is “a bit of a catch-all term for Internet-related badassery,” and his own work “feels like a constant series of extreme heists, somehow bizarrely juxtaposed with it all happening while I lounge on my couch in sweat pants.” for him for him Cypherpunk Projects We can say that Bram Cohen is more of a lowkey cypherpunk, not as vocal about it as other members. However, his creations follow the same goals. BitTorrent, for instance, revolutionized file-sharing by decentralizing the process, making it virtually impossible to shut down. Unlike earlier systems like mp3.com and Napster, which relied on centralized servers that could be targeted and taken down by authorities, BitTorrent distributed the workload across many users. Its P2P network implies that there’s no single point of failure, making it incredibly resilient against shutdown attempts. This decentralized nature aligns perfectly with cypherpunk ideals, which champion privacy, freedom, and resistance to censorship. BitTorrent, and also the decentralized Chia, embody these principles by ensuring that information and transactions remain free-flowing and accessible, inside the devices of thousands, regardless of attempts to control it. Their design reflects the cypherpunk ethos of using technology to protect individual rights and maintain an open, uncensored Internet. A Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) structure like Obyte also reflects those ideals. This is a truly decentralized platform, whose design allows transactions to be added directly by users, and it’s maintained by a whole global network of peers. The only other thing needed to avoid double-spending is Order Providers (OPs), who just provide their own transactions as a guide to order the rest, but don’t have further control over the network. A Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) structure like Obyte also reflects those ideals. This is a truly decentralized platform, whose design allows transactions to be added directly by users, and it’s maintained by a whole global network of peers. Obyte Obyte This approach not only enhances decentralization but also aligns with the cypherpunk ethos of reducing reliance on centralized authorities and increasing user control over data and transactions. The platform's commitment to privacy and autonomy is evident in its features like self-sovereign identity and its own privacy coin ( Blackbytes ), allowing users to manage their data and engage in secure, private transactions. These attributes and many more make Obyte a practical tool for those who value the ideals of cypherpunks, such as the protection of personal information and the promotion of a decentralized digital economy. self-sovereign identity self-sovereign identity Blackbytes Blackbytes Read more from Cypherpunks Write Code series: Read more from Cypherpunks Write Code series: Tim May & Crypto-anarchism Wei Dai & B-money Nick Szabo & Smart Contracts Adam Back & Hashcash Eric Hughes & Remailer St Jude & Community Memory Julian Assange & Wikileaks Hal Finney & RPOW John Gilmore & EFF Satoshi Nakamoto & Bitcoin Gregory Maxwell & Bitcoin Core David Chaum & Ecash Tim May & Crypto-anarchism Tim May & Crypto-anarchism Tim May & Crypto-anarchism Tim May & Crypto-anarchism Wei Dai & B-money Wei Dai & B-money Wei Dai & B-money Wei Dai & B-money Nick Szabo & Smart Contracts Nick Szabo & Smart Contracts Nick Szabo & Smart Contracts Nick Szabo & Smart Contracts Adam Back & Hashcash Adam Back & Hashcash Adam Back & Hashcash Adam Back & Hashcash Eric Hughes & Remailer Eric Hughes & Remailer Eric Hughes & Remailer Eric Hughes & Remailer St Jude & Community Memory St Jude & Community Memory St Jude & Community Memory St Jude & Community Memory Julian Assange & Wikileaks Julian Assange & Wikileaks Julian Assange & Wikileaks Julian Assange & Wikileaks Hal Finney & RPOW Hal Finney & RPOW Hal Finney & RPOW Hal Finney & RPOW John Gilmore & EFF John Gilmore & EFF John Gilmore & EFF John Gilmore & EFF Satoshi Nakamoto & Bitcoin Satoshi Nakamoto & Bitcoin Satoshi Nakamoto & Bitcoin Satoshi Nakamoto & Bitcoin Gregory Maxwell & Bitcoin Core Gregory Maxwell & Bitcoin Core Gregory Maxwell & Bitcoin Core Gregory Maxwell & Bitcoin Core David Chaum & Ecash David Chaum & Ecash Featured Vector Image by Garry Killian/Freepik Featured Vector Image by Garry Killian/ Freepik Freepik Freepik Photograph of Bram Cohen by Ijon/ Wikimedia Photograph of Bram Cohen by Ijon/ Wikimedia Wikimedia

Cypherpunks Write Code: Bram Cohen & BitTorrent

Los ciberpunks escriben código: Bram Cohen y BitTorrent

Cypherpunks کد را می نویسد: برام کوهن و بیت تورنت

I Cypherpunk scrivono il codice: Bram Cohen e BitTorrent

サイファーパンクがコードを書く: Bram Cohen と BitTorrent

Cypherpunks кодты жазады: Брам Коэн және BitTorrent

사이퍼펑크가 코드를 쓴다: 브램 코헨과 비트토렌트

Cypherpunks Manoratra Code: Bram Cohen & BitTorrent

Cypherpunks пишуваат код: Брам Коен и BitTorrent

Cypherpunks Ngwala Khoutu: Bram Cohen & BitTorrent

ሳይፈርፓንክስ ኮድ ጽሓፍ: ብራም ኮሄን & ቢትቶረንት።

Şifrler kod ýazýarlar: Bram Kohen we BitTorrent

I-Cypherpunks Bhala Ikhodi: Bram Cohen & BitTorrent

“People think focus means saying yes to the thing you’ve got to focus on. But that’s not what it means at all. It means saying no to the hundred other good ideas that there are. You have to pick carefully. I’m actually as proud of the things we haven’t done as the things I have done. Innovation is saying no to 1,000 things.”
Steve Jobs Having worked at Pixar in Systems, I know that Steve practiced what he preached. My boss reported directly to Steve, so he communicated with Jobs at least two to three times a month. Erik would occasionally call me into his office with a scowl on his face. I would usually mutter, "Hey Erik, what's up?" In what seemed like a temporary tantrum, he spun his computer screen at me and said in a fit, "James it took me months to develop this idea, three days to write and finally send Steve the email. Look at his damned reply," he barked. I saw two words and a period. Quotes added by me. “No. Steve” Steve was pointing to a reality many of us find ourselves in if we aren’t careful. Yup, overwhelm. You know that feeling when your to-do list is a mile long, and you're drowning in a sea of tasks? It's like trying to eat an entire pizza by yourself – overwhelming and kind of scary. But guess what? You don't have to do this alone. If you ask for help, you might be surprised at the willingness of others to help. I recall during  my time working for Pixar, that my boss and I had lunch every Friday at the Pixar cafe. It was located next to the giant atrium that divides the main building into two separate areas. On one of those Fridays, I asked my boss about the design of the building and was particularly interested in the football field-sized atrium. He said, “Oh the atrium was Steve’s idea.” I came to understand later that since Steve wasn’t a part of the filmmaking process, he made it a point to take charge of the design of the Emeryville campus. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pixar_Animation_Studios_Atrium.jpg?embedable=true Having worked for both of his companies, I can say this with confidence. There were two areas in which Steve Jobs was brilliant. He picked the best humans for the task at hand and surrounded himself with them, and he believed that when talent meets collaboration the result is beyond anything mere mortals can imagine. The atrium was there to make this possible. Almost every day I would randomly bump into a fellow employee from another department and we would swap stories about what we were working on and the triumphs and challenges faced. Almost assuredly out of that exchange solutions were shared and something magical occurred. The particular problem I was facing changed because I had new information. I can’t tell you how many times I would return to my desk, sit down, hop on the computer, and with this new information in hand, I would solve the problem in 5 minutes. This happened all the time and it blew my mind. Adam B. Varey, in an article on BuzzFeed, writes, “Ed Catmull, one of the founders of Pixar, was quoted as saying, 'Since Steve didn't make our movies, the building itself became his project.' Craig Payne, who happens to be a good friend of mine, said about Jobs, 'He was involved in every detail of this building, down to the door handles of the offices.'" Prioritizing isn’t just about checking boxes; it’s about focusing on what truly matters. Imagine being a superhero – you can’t save the world all at once, right? You have to pick your battles. That’s where prioritization comes in.Let’s break it down.The 80/20 Rule: Your Secret Weapon Ever noticed that a tiny part of your work gives you the biggest results? That’s the 80/20 rule in action. It’s like finding that one amazing pair of jeans that makes you feel confident – you wanna wear ‘em all the time. So, focus on the tasks that pack the biggest punch. It's gonna feel tough at first, but trust me, the payoff is huge.One Thing at a Time: Your Superpower We live in a world that screams “multitask!” But let’s be honest, trying to do everything at once is like juggling chainsaws. Instead, pick one thing, give it your full attention, and crush it. It’s like meditating with a purpose. You’ll be amazed at how much you can accomplish when you’re not distracted by a million other things. Remember, you’re not alone in this. We’re all trying to figure it out.  Celebrate small wins. Practice and learn to say No. “People think focus means saying yes to the thing you’ve got to focus on. But that’s not what it means at all. It means saying no to the hundred other good ideas that there are. You have to pick carefully. I’m actually as proud of the things we haven’t done as the things I have done. Innovation is saying no to 1,000 things.” Steve Jobs “People think focus means saying yes to the thing you’ve got to focus on. But that’s not what it means at all. It means saying no to the hundred other good ideas that there are. You have to pick carefully. I’m actually as proud of the things we haven’t done as the things I have done. Innovation is saying no to 1,000 things.” Steve Jobs Having worked at Pixar in Systems, I know that Steve practiced what he preached. My boss reported directly to Steve, so he communicated with Jobs at least two to three times a month. Erik would occasionally call me into his office with a scowl on his face. I would usually mutter, "Hey Erik, what's up?" In what seemed like a temporary tantrum, he spun his computer screen at me and said in a fit, "James it took me months to develop this idea, three days to write and finally send Steve the email. Look at his damned reply," he barked. I saw two words and a period. Quotes added by me. “No. Steve” Steve was pointing to a reality many of us find ourselves in if we aren’t careful. Yup, overwhelm. You know that feeling when your to-do list is a mile long, and you're drowning in a sea of tasks? It's like trying to eat an entire pizza by yourself – overwhelming and kind of scary. But guess what? You don't have to do this alone. If you ask for help, you might be surprised at the willingness of others to help. I recall during  my time working for Pixar, that my boss and I had lunch every Friday at the Pixar cafe. It was located next to the giant atrium that divides the main building into two separate areas. On one of those Fridays, I asked my boss about the design of the building and was particularly interested in the football field-sized atrium. He said, “Oh the atrium was Steve’s idea.” I came to understand later that since Steve wasn’t a part of the filmmaking process, he made it a point to take charge of the design of the Emeryville campus. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pixar_Animation_Studios_Atrium.jpg?embedable=true https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pixar_Animation_Studios_Atrium.jpg?embedable=true Having worked for both of his companies, I can say this with confidence. There were two areas in which Steve Jobs was brilliant. He picked the best humans for the task at hand and surrounded himself with them, and he believed that when talent meets collaboration the result is beyond anything mere mortals can imagine. The atrium was there to make this possible. Almost every day I would randomly bump into a fellow employee from another department and we would swap stories about what we were working on and the triumphs and challenges faced. Almost assuredly out of that exchange solutions were shared and something magical occurred. The particular problem I was facing changed because I had new information. I can’t tell you how many times I would return to my desk, sit down, hop on the computer, and with this new information in hand, I would solve the problem in 5 minutes. This happened all the time and it blew my mind. Adam B. Varey , in an article on BuzzFeed, writes, “Ed Catmull, one of the founders of Pixar, was quoted as saying, 'Since Steve didn't make our movies, the building itself became his project.' Craig Payne, who happens to be a good friend of mine, said about Jobs, 'He was involved in every detail of this building, down to the door handles of the offices.'" Adam B. Varey article Prioritizing isn’t just about checking boxes; it’s about focusing on what truly matters. Imagine being a superhero – you can’t save the world all at once, right? You have to pick your battles. That’s where prioritization comes in. Let’s break it down. The 80/20 Rule: Your Secret Weapon Ever noticed that a tiny part of your work gives you the biggest results? That’s the 80/20 rule in action. It’s like finding that one amazing pair of jeans that makes you feel confident – you wanna wear ‘em all the time. So, focus on the tasks that pack the biggest punch. It's gonna feel tough at first, but trust me, the payoff is huge. One Thing at a Time: Your Superpower We live in a world that screams “multitask!” But let’s be honest, trying to do everything at once is like juggling chainsaws. Instead, pick one thing, give it your full attention, and crush it. It’s like meditating with a purpose. You’ll be amazed at how much you can accomplish when you’re not distracted by a million other things. Remember, you’re not alone in this. We’re all trying to figure it out.  Celebrate small wins. Practice and learn to say No.

Focus and Innovation: Insights from Steve Jobs and Pixar's Systems Team

Three years ago (perhaps more), there was a mini-controversy across LinkedIn and (RIP) Twitter over ‘team of one’ game teams. Teams of one identified as such; others disagreed - an egregious case of political in/correctness. Recently I had a chat with a designer and startup founder. They shared hope around how automating coding via LLMs may enable a one-wo(man) app design team. Responded somewhat bluntly, "Perhaps, but this isn't business". Not the best answer. What about the one team? In games, team of one has always been a thing. I need not quote names since Thomas was alone, and you did spend five nights at Freddie's after Mainichi playing Elite in 1984… Okay… Elite wasn’t (they were two). Undertales of solo developers abound. The barrier to entry has dropped; making compelling games without much technical/artistic skills is easier (and more pointless) than ever before. Throwing assets in the mix made it possible to go and say "Sure, but you didn't make this on your own". Whereas nobody would have gone on to say, "Sure, but your game is running on Windows. Did you author the OS?”. This has happened before. Renaissance geniuses weren't just artists; they were engineers, mixed pigments, designed flying machines. Michelangelo got paint in his eyes - a far cry from Jason Allen’s ethereal technique. In sum: you do not need a large group of people to build a compelling product. Creativity across the board I am attached to the concept of authoring. Authors create personal works; we (consumers) get a personal experience. The genius of (not only) music and writing is in shaping personal experience through consuming personal works. I have never watched Titanic, you have. Purposely: creativity is a bridge no one will cross if we all are on the same shore. Which does not make one the ideal team size. One is a team size. A good size. Two is a good size. Three is a good size... Teams get creative in different ways. In recent years, making apps has become easier. Back in 1998, when I created my first app, I designed a custom window system; in 2008, I wrote a game engine for my first game. Today, we have codeless, in continuity with the team of one ideal. In software, it is not rare for designers to feel disempowered. Whereas engineers can build anything provided they set their mind to it... Concurrently, there is a sense of creativity being vertical, with designers leading the effort while engineers focus on the details. Then you get the idea that designers would be much more productive if they did not have to communicate with engineers. Yet, crossovers between design and engineering are not rare. If you get serious about creativity, you will necessarily encounter Maggie Boden's Creative Mind. Boden's work is equal parts dedicated to creativity in arts, science, and engineering. No code, no life Where no-code is breaking down (it isn't) isn't, okay, can we write apps without code or not? We surely can (did not need LLMs to make this happen). What's more surprising is how engineers ceaselessly toy with the idea of taking themselves out of the loop, whereas artists feel outraged when their work is automated. No, it isn’t surprising. No code, and the 5th wall (1) Wired assumptions about how things (are meant to) work. Trivial example: many teams do not design their own widgets. Meaning that the interaction design effort is now derivative; diegetic interfaces in (mainstream) games are not progressing because we aren’t thinking about interaction beyond the widgets. This isn't only about computing. The printing press, alphabetization, typewriters, Unicode, spellcheckers... have contributed to the sedimentation of a bounded medium; one friend told me (1995), “we are no longer writing to communicate, we are writing to find out whether we have anything to say” - also: we are no longer inventing writing. (2) When discussions between art, science, and engineering are not happening, innovation isn't breaking that fifth wall. Where an engineer would exclaim "I can make this!"? Silence. Where a designer stubbornly asserts, "Make this work"? Silence. In between... obviously! Defeaningly so. In games: before no-code, we got tools like Blueprints, which is designed for… designers to not be talking to coders? Imagine tools for boosting (not negating) cross-disciplinary success. Zero, the forbidden number Around 2010 I came across a forum post where people said okay, apps are now free, at least we can't go lower than this. Others swiftly responded, "Hell no, I'll pay users to install apps". Fast forwarding to the 20s, Hell No has not percolated. Apple does not routinely credit my account for using apps (boo). Still, marketing budgets often exceed 50% to 70% of the total dev cost. Not so relatedly (if you get my drift)… The minimum number of developers needed to build an app isn't one. We do not need developers to make apps. Nor do we need financial advisers to make financial decisions. Do we need to consume goods and services anymore? Am I the product or the user? Top of the food chain? Brainstuff? In a distant future, alien combat units do not go around catching our children with sticky spider webaloo; still, they might break the internet. Playing Kitsune Tails. Keep it together. Photo credit: Chen-Pan Liao via Wikimedia Commons (CC 3.0 Attribution-Share-Alike) Three years ago (perhaps more), there was a mini-controversy across LinkedIn and (RIP) Twitter over ‘team of one’ game teams. Teams of one identified as such; others disagreed - an egregious case of political in/correctness. Three years ago (perhaps more), there was a mini-controversy across LinkedIn and (RIP) Twitter over game teams. Teams of one identified as such; others disagreed - an egregious case of political in/correctness. Recently I had a chat with a designer and startup founder. They shared hope around how automating coding via LLMs may enable a one-wo(man) app design team. Responded somewhat bluntly, "Perhaps, but this isn't business". Recently I had a chat with a designer and startup founder. They shared hope around how automating coding via LLMs may enable a one-wo(man) app design team. Responded somewhat bluntly, "Perhaps, but this isn't business". Not the best answer. Not the best answer. What about the one team? In games, team of one has always been a thing. I need not quote names since Thomas was alone, and you did spend five nights at Freddie's after Mainichi playing Elite in 1984… Okay… Elite wasn’t (they were two). Undertales of solo developers abound. always need not quote names The barrier to entry has dropped; making compelling games without much technical/artistic skills is easier (and more pointless) than ever before. Throwing assets in the mix made it possible to go and say "Sure, but you didn't make this on your own". Whereas nobody would have gone on to say, "Sure, but your game is running on Windows. Did you author the OS?”. This has happened before. Renaissance geniuses weren't just artists; they were engineers, mixed pigments, designed flying machines. Michelangelo got paint in his eyes - a far cry from Jason Allen’s ethereal technique. In sum: you do not need a large group of people to build a compelling product. Creativity across the board I am attached to the concept of authoring. Authors create personal works; we (consumers) get a personal experience. The genius of (not only) music and writing is in shaping personal experience through consuming personal works. I have never watched Titanic, you have. Purposely: creativity is a bridge no one will cross if we all are on the same shore. Which does not make one the ideal team size. One is a team size. A good size. Two is a good size. Three is a good size... Teams get creative in different ways. In recent years, making apps has become easier. Back in 1998, when I created my first app, I designed a custom window system; in 2008, I wrote a game engine for my first game. Today, we have codeless, in continuity with the team of one ideal. In software, it is not rare for designers to feel disempowered. Whereas engineers can build anything provided they set their mind to it... Concurrently, there is a sense of creativity being vertical, with designers leading the effort while engineers focus on the details. Then you get the idea that designers would be much more productive if they did not have to communicate with engineers. Yet, crossovers between design and engineering are not rare. If you get serious about creativity, you will necessarily encounter Maggie Boden's Creative Mind . Boden's work is equal parts dedicated to creativity in arts, science, and engineering. Creative Mind No code, no life Where no-code is breaking down (it isn't) isn't, okay, can we write apps without code or not? We surely can (did not need LLMs to make this happen). What's more surprising is how engineers ceaselessly toy with the idea of taking themselves out of the loop, whereas artists feel outraged when their work is automated. No, it isn’t surprising. No code, and the 5th wall No code, and the 5th wall (1) Wired assumptions about how things (are meant to) work. Trivial example: many teams do not design their own widgets. Meaning that the interaction design effort is now derivative; diegetic interfaces in (mainstream) games are not progressing because we aren’t thinking about interaction beyond the widgets. This isn't only about computing. The printing press, alphabetization, typewriters, Unicode, spellcheckers... have contributed to the sedimentation of a bounded medium; one friend told me (1995), “we are no longer writing to communicate, we are writing to find out whether we have anything to say” - also: we are no longer inventing writing. This isn't only about computing. The printing press, alphabetization, typewriters, Unicode, spellcheckers... have contributed to the sedimentation of a bounded medium; one friend told me (1995), “we are no longer writing to communicate, we are writing to find out whether we have anything to say” - also: we are no longer inventing writing. (2) When discussions between art, science, and engineering are not happening, innovation isn't breaking that fifth wall. Where an engineer would exclaim "I can make this!"? Silence. Where a designer stubbornly asserts, "Make this work"? Silence. In between... obviously! Defeaningly so. In games: before no-code, we got tools like Blueprints, which is designed for… designers to not be talking to coders? Imagine tools for boosting (not negating) cross-disciplinary success. Zero, the forbidden number Around 2010 I came across a forum post where people said okay, apps are now free, at least we can't go lower than this. Others swiftly responded, "Hell no, I'll pay users to install apps". Fast forwarding to the 20s, Hell No has not percolated. Apple does not routinely credit my account for using apps (boo). Still, marketing budgets often exceed 50% to 70% of the total dev cost. Not so relatedly (if you get my drift)… The minimum number of developers needed to build an app isn't one. We do not need developers to make apps. Nor do we need financial advisers to make financial decisions. Do we need to consume goods and services anymore? Am I the product or the user? Top of the food chain? Brainstuff? In a distant future, alien combat units do not go around catching our children with sticky spider webaloo; still, they might break the internet. Playing Kitsune Tails. In a distant future, alien combat units do not go around catching our children with sticky spider webaloo; still, they might break the internet. Playing Kitsune Tails . Kitsune Tails Keep it together. Photo credit: Chen-Pan Liao via Wikimedia Commons (CC 3.0 Attribution-Share-Alike) Chen-Pan Liao

No-code, No life

Not all cypherpunks were on the 90s mailing list led by Tim May, Eric Hughes, and John Gilmore. Per common definition, they’re activists dedicated to defending digital privacy and freedom, who have created or paved the way for the creation of new tools to defend it. The physicist, economist, and legal scholar David D. Friedman fits the bill very well —besides ‘stealing’ ideas from Tim May, and vice versa. David Director Friedman was born in February 1945, in the United States, to Rose Director and Milton Friedman. They were both free-market economists, and the latter was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1976 for his work on consumption analysis, monetary history and theory, and the intricacies of stabilization policy. As it would be evident later, his son would inherit a lot of his interests. Funny enough, being considered an economist and a legal scholar, David D. Friedman didn’t study either of them in college. Instead, he completed his undergraduate studies at Harvard University in 1965 with high honors, earning a bachelor's degree in chemistry and physics. Then, he obtained a master's degree in 1967 and a PhD in 1971 in theoretical physics from the University of Chicago. Afterward, he ended up as a professor (mostly of economics and law) in different American universities, including Virginia Polytechnic Institute, University of California, Cornell University, University of Chicago, and, finally, Santa Clara University, from which he retired as Emeritus in 2017. In the middle of all the teaching, he was also a prolific writer of fiction and non-fiction. That’s where his cypherpunk ideas are shown to everyone. The Machinery of Freedom Friedman has published at least eleven books, including three science fiction novels and a long list of economics and law reflections. One of them, specifically the one that earned him the title of ‘anarcho-capitalist theorist’ is The Machinery of Freedom, first released in 1971, and then reprinted in 1978, 1989, and 2014. He might not be the one who coined and first described the term anarcho-capitalism, but he’s considered an important source on the topic. To recap, Anarcho-capitalism (also known as “Ancap”) is a political and economic philosophy that advocates for the abolition of the state and the establishment of a purely voluntary society based on private property, free markets, and individual liberty. That’s quite similar to the crypto-anarchism described by Tim May, with some cryptographic tweaks. That concept, as May confessed, took inspiration from Friedman’s book. Friedman also commented on it in a presentation to the Independent Institute in 2001: “The basic history of these ideas is that I stole them from a bunch of people called ‘Cypherpunks,’ of whom the leading light is Tim May, who stole some of them from me… and then I stole the ideas back from him.” The Machinery of Freedom ponders on how a society like the one mentioned above would be possible. It defends private property as the groundwork from which everything else would thrive, including, especially, individual freedom. It describes as well how anarchy isn’t a synonym of chaos, and how laws and rules would work in a world like this. The book also has a section on how anarcho-capitalist money should be, and what’s the main issue with traditional money. As it turns out, it’s something in which cryptocurrencies are a perfect match: “…instead of arguing about whether our government should return to the gold standard we should instead be thinking about whether the government should produce money at all.” Just like most cypherpunks, Friedman is against centralized money. Future Ecash Back in 1982, the American computer scientist David Chaum designed Ecash, an electronic cash system coated in cryptography to be sort of anonymous. It was likely the first, or one of the first attempts at creating a cryptocurrency, long before Bitcoin. It failed, likely because it was handled (centralized) by the company Digicash, which had to mind US strict regulations about money. Ecash wasn’t decentralized, not yet. Despite its come and go, Friedman found it quite interesting as a candidate for the money of the future, or at least, the money an anarcho-capitalist society would find useful. He has a chapter about this topic in his book Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World, published in late 2008 and dedicated to Tim May “and all the other friends whose ideas I have shamelessly, but selectively, appropriated.” Another fun fact here. Friedman was talking there about the double spending problem, private and public keys, and electronic money, coming to this conclusion: “While pieces of his [Chaum’s] vision have become real in other contexts, there is as yet nothing close to a fully anonymous Ecash available for general use” —at the same time Satoshi Nakamoto was around writing the Bitcoin whitepaper. The Bitcoin Genesis block would be released mere months after that affirmation, bringing with it a brewing storm for finances worldwide. Friedman was positive that the control of money shouldn’t fall on governments only, and he had some suggestions to create a new kind of private money controlled by corporations or groups, whose value would come from a bundle of commodities. He didn’t guess cryptography-based decentralized coins would be coming to fit as the last puzzle piece in his own idea of society. But then, here we are, with numerous crypto tools available for everyone. Evolution of Electronic Cash Bitcoin was likely a crucial moment in the path to building a more anarcho-capitalist and free society, but it can be considered only the first step. Despite the decentralized inclination of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum, they still exhibit some level of centralization due to their reliance on miners and powerful “validators”. These entities play a crucial role in processing transactions but can inadvertently introduce points of control and censorship. Miners, who have an important role in transaction approval, can potentially prioritize or exclude certain transactions. Similarly, “validators”, being middlemen in systems like Ethereum can wield significant influence and be at the mercy of regulators, which may compromise the principles of decentralization and openness. In contrast, Obyte offers a truly decentralized and censorship-resistant alternative. Unlike blockchain-based cryptocurrencies, Obyte utilizes a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) system, which eliminates the need for middlemen, miners, or so-called “validators”. Transactions on Obyte are both created and added solely by users, ensuring that no single entity can block or manipulate them. This architecture aligns closely with the ideals of the anarcho-capitalist money that Friedman suggested, providing a higher level of online freedom and privacy, far from governments and external dominance. Obyte and its tokens represent a forward-thinking approach to electronic, decentralized money, paving the way for a future where financial transactions are truly free from centralized control. Read more from Cypherpunks Write Code series:

Tim May & Crypto-anarchism
Wei Dai & B-money
Nick Szabo & Smart Contracts
Adam Back & Hashcash
Eric Hughes & Remailer
St Jude & Community Memory
Julian Assange & Wikileaks
Hal Finney & RPOW
John Gilmore & EFF
Satoshi Nakamoto & Bitcoin
Gregory Maxwell & Bitcoin Core
Vinay Gupta & Mattereum Featured Vector Image by Garry Killian / Freepik
Photograph of David D. Friedman by Gage Skidmore / Wikimedia Not all cypherpunks were on the 90s mailing list led by Tim May, Eric Hughes, and John Gilmore. Per common definition, they’re activists dedicated to defending digital privacy and freedom, who have created or paved the way for the creation of new tools to defend it. The physicist, economist, and legal scholar David D. Friedman fits the bill very well —besides ‘stealing’ ideas from Tim May, and vice versa. David Director Friedman was born in February 1945, in the United States, to Rose Director and Milton Friedman . They were both free-market economists, and the latter was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1976 for his work on consumption analysis, monetary history and theory, and the intricacies of stabilization policy. As it would be evident later, his son would inherit a lot of his interests. David Director Friedman was born in February 1945, in the United States, to Rose Director and Milton Friedman Funny enough, being considered an economist and a legal scholar, David D. Friedman didn’t study either of them in college. Instead, he completed his undergraduate studies at Harvard University in 1965 with high honors, earning a bachelor's degree in chemistry and physics. Then, he obtained a master's degree in 1967 and a PhD in 1971 in theoretical physics from the University of Chicago. Afterward, he ended up as a professor (mostly of economics and law) in different American universities, including Virginia Polytechnic Institute, University of California, Cornell University, University of Chicago, and, finally, Santa Clara University, from which he retired as Emeritus in 2017. In the middle of all the teaching, he was also a prolific writer of fiction and non-fiction. That’s where his cypherpunk ideas are shown to everyone. as a professor as a professor The Machinery of Freedom Friedman has published at least eleven books, including three science fiction novels and a long list of economics and law reflections. One of them, specifically the one that earned him the title of ‘anarcho-capitalist theorist’ is The Machinery of Freedom , first released in 1971, and then reprinted in 1978, 1989, and 2014. He might not be the one who coined and first described the term anarcho-capitalism, but he’s considered an important source on the topic. The Machinery of Freedom He might not be the one who coined and first described the term anarcho-capitalism, but he’s considered an important source on the topic. To recap, Anarcho-capitalism (also known as “Ancap”) is a political and economic philosophy that advocates for the abolition of the state and the establishment of a purely voluntary society based on private property, free markets, and individual liberty. That’s quite similar to the crypto-anarchism described by Tim May, with some cryptographic tweaks. That concept, as May confessed, took inspiration from Friedman’s book. Friedman also commented on it in a presentation to the Independent Institute in 2001: Anarcho-capitalism Anarcho-capitalism crypto-anarchism crypto-anarchism a presentation a presentation “The basic history of these ideas is that I stole them from a bunch of people called ‘Cypherpunks,’ of whom the leading light is Tim May, who stole some of them from me… and then I stole the ideas back from him.” “The basic history of these ideas is that I stole them from a bunch of people called ‘Cypherpunks,’ of whom the leading light is Tim May, who stole some of them from me… and then I stole the ideas back from him.” The Machinery of Freedom ponders on how a society like the one mentioned above would be possible. It defends private property as the groundwork from which everything else would thrive, including, especially, individual freedom. It describes as well how anarchy isn’t a synonym of chaos, and how laws and rules would work in a world like this. The book also has a section on how anarcho-capitalist money should be, and what’s the main issue with traditional money. As it turns out, it’s something in which cryptocurrencies are a perfect match: “…instead of arguing about whether our government should return to the gold standard we should instead be thinking about whether the government should produce money at all.” Just like most cypherpunks , Friedman is against centralized money. The book also has a section on how anarcho-capitalist money should be, and what’s the main issue with traditional money. cypherpunks cypherpunks Future Ecash Back in 1982, the American computer scientist David Chaum designed Ecash, an electronic cash system coated in cryptography to be sort of anonymous. It was likely the first, or one of the first attempts at creating a cryptocurrency, long before Bitcoin. It failed, likely because it was handled (centralized) by the company Digicash, which had to mind US strict regulations about money. Ecash wasn’t decentralized, not yet. Despite its come and go, Friedman found it quite interesting as a candidate for the money of the future, or at least, the money an anarcho-capitalist society would find useful. He has a chapter about this topic in his book Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World , published in late 2008 and dedicated to Tim May “and all the other friends whose ideas I have shamelessly, but selectively, appropriated.” Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World Another fun fact here. Friedman was talking there about the double spending problem, private and public keys, and electronic money, coming to this conclusion: “While pieces of his [Chaum’s] vision have become real in other contexts, there is as yet nothing close to a fully anonymous Ecash available for general use” —at the same time Satoshi Nakamoto was around writing the Bitcoin whitepaper. The Bitcoin Genesis block would be released mere months after that affirmation, bringing with it a brewing storm for finances worldwide. Satoshi Nakamoto Satoshi Nakamoto Friedman was positive that the control of money shouldn’t fall on governments only, and he had some suggestions to create a new kind of private money controlled by corporations or groups , whose value would come from a bundle of commodities. He didn’t guess cryptography-based decentralized coins would be coming to fit as the last puzzle piece in his own idea of society. But then, here we are, with numerous crypto tools available for everyone. Friedman was positive that the control of money shouldn’t fall on governments only, and he had some suggestions to create a new kind of private money controlled by corporations or groups Evolution of Electronic Cash Bitcoin was likely a crucial moment in the path to building a more anarcho-capitalist and free society, but it can be considered only the first step. Despite the decentralized inclination of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum, they still exhibit some level of centralization due to their reliance on miners and powerful “validators”. These entities play a crucial role in processing transactions but can inadvertently introduce points of control and censorship. Bitcoin Miners, who have an important role in transaction approval, can potentially prioritize or exclude certain transactions. Similarly, “validators”, being middlemen in systems like Ethereum can wield significant influence and be at the mercy of regulators, which may compromise the principles of decentralization and openness. In contrast, Obyte offers a truly decentralized and censorship-resistant alternative. Unlike blockchain-based cryptocurrencies, Obyte utilizes a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) system, which eliminates the need for middlemen, miners, or so-called “validators”. Transactions on Obyte are both created and added solely by users, ensuring that no single entity can block or manipulate them. In contrast, Obyte offers a truly decentralized and censorship-resistant alternative. Obyte Obyte both created and added both created and added This architecture aligns closely with the ideals of the anarcho-capitalist money that Friedman suggested, providing a higher level of online freedom and privacy, far from governments and external dominance. Obyte and its tokens represent a forward-thinking approach to electronic, decentralized money, paving the way for a future where financial transactions are truly free from centralized control. Obyte and its tokens Obyte and its tokens Read more from Cypherpunks Write Code series: Tim May & Crypto-anarchism
Wei Dai & B-money
Nick Szabo & Smart Contracts
Adam Back & Hashcash
Eric Hughes & Remailer
St Jude & Community Memory
Julian Assange & Wikileaks
Hal Finney & RPOW
John Gilmore & EFF
Satoshi Nakamoto & Bitcoin
Gregory Maxwell & Bitcoin Core
Vinay Gupta & Mattereum Read more from Cypherpunks Write Code series: Read more from Cypherpunks Write Code series: Tim May & Crypto-anarchism Wei Dai & B-money Nick Szabo & Smart Contracts Adam Back & Hashcash Eric Hughes & Remailer St Jude & Community Memory Julian Assange & Wikileaks Hal Finney & RPOW John Gilmore & EFF Satoshi Nakamoto & Bitcoin Gregory Maxwell & Bitcoin Core Vinay Gupta & Mattereum Tim May & Crypto-anarchism Tim May & Crypto-anarchism Tim May & Crypto-anarchism Tim May & Crypto-anarchism Wei Dai & B-money Wei Dai & B-money Wei Dai & B-money Wei Dai & B-money Nick Szabo & Smart Contracts Nick Szabo & Smart Contracts Nick Szabo & Smart Contracts Nick Szabo & Smart Contracts Adam Back & Hashcash Adam Back & Hashcash Adam Back & Hashcash Adam Back & Hashcash Eric Hughes & Remailer Eric Hughes & Remailer Eric Hughes & Remailer Eric Hughes & Remailer St Jude & Community Memory St Jude & Community Memory St Jude & Community Memory St Jude & Community Memory Julian Assange & Wikileaks Julian Assange & Wikileaks Julian Assange & Wikileaks Julian Assange & Wikileaks Hal Finney & RPOW Hal Finney & RPOW Hal Finney & RPOW Hal Finney & RPOW John Gilmore & EFF John Gilmore & EFF John Gilmore & EFF John Gilmore & EFF Satoshi Nakamoto & Bitcoin Satoshi Nakamoto & Bitcoin Satoshi Nakamoto & Bitcoin Satoshi Nakamoto & Bitcoin Gregory Maxwell & Bitcoin Core Gregory Maxwell & Bitcoin Core Gregory Maxwell & Bitcoin Core Gregory Maxwell & Bitcoin Core Vinay Gupta & Mattereum Vinay Gupta & Mattereum Vinay Gupta & Mattereum Vinay Gupta & Mattereum Featured Vector Image by Garry Killian / Freepik Photograph of David D. Friedman by Gage Skidmore / Wikimedia Featured Vector Image by Garry Killian / Freepik Freepik Freepik Photograph of David D. Friedman by Gage Skidmore / Wikimedia

Cypherpunks Write Code: David D. Friedman & the Machinery of Freedom

সাইফারপাঙ্কস কোড লিখুন: ডেভিড ডি. ফ্রিডম্যান অ্যান্ড দ্য মেশিনারি অফ ফ্রিডম

Cypherpunks schreiben Code: David D. Friedman und die Maschinerie der Freiheit

Los Cypherpunks escriben código: David D. Friedman y la maquinaria de la libertad

Cypherpunks écrivent du code : David D. Friedman et la machinerie de la liberté

साइफरपंक्स कोड लिखें: डेविड डी. फ्राइडमैन और स्वतंत्रता की मशीनरी

サイファーパンクはコードを書く: デイビッド・D・フリードマンと自由の機械

사이퍼펑크의 코드 작성: David D. Friedman과 자유의 기계

Cypherpunks escrevem código: David D. Friedman e a maquinaria da liberdade

Шифропанки пишут код: Дэвид Д. Фридман и механизм свободы

Şifrepunklar Kod Yazıyor: David D. Friedman ve Özgürlük Makineleri

Cypherpunks viết mã: David D. Friedman và cỗ máy tự do

密码朋克编写代码：David D. Friedman 与自由机器

5 Open-Source Learning Software Projects to Donate Via Kivach

OpenCitations Meta: Related Works

OpenCitations Meta: সম্পর্কিত কাজ

OpenCitations Meta: Verwandte Werke

Meta de OpenCitations: trabajos relacionados

Méta OpenCitations : travaux connexes

ओपनसाइटेशंस मेटा: संबंधित कार्य

OpenCitations メタ: 関連作品

OpenCitations Meta: 관련 저작물

OpenCitations Meta: Trabalhos Relacionados

Мета OpenCitations: Связанные работы

OpenCitations Meta: İlgili Çalışmalar

OpenCites Meta: Tác phẩm liên quan

OpenCitations Meta：相关著作

Cypherpunks Write Code: The Mysterious Satoshi Nakamoto

সাইফারপাঙ্কস কোড লিখুন: রহস্যময় সাতোশি নাকামোটো

Cypherpunks schreiben Code: Der mysteriöse Satoshi Nakamoto

Código de escritura de Cypherpunks: El misterioso Satoshi Nakamoto

Cypherpunks écrit du code : le mystérieux Satoshi Nakamoto

साइफरपंक्स कोड लिखें: रहस्यमय सातोशी नाकामोतो

サイファーパンクがコードを書く: 謎のサトシ・ナカモト

사이퍼펑크의 코드 작성: 신비한 나카모토 사토시

Cypherpunks escrevem código: o misterioso Satoshi Nakamoto

Шифропанки пишут код: загадочный Сатоши Накамото

Şifrepunklar Kod Yazıyor: Gizemli Satoshi Nakamoto

Cypherpunks viết mã: Satoshi Nakamoto bí ẩn

密码朋克编写代码：神秘的中本聪

Using pgvector To Locate Similarities In Enterprise Data

এন্টারপ্রাইজ ডেটাতে মিল খুঁজে পেতে pgvector ব্যবহার করা

Verwenden von pgvector zum Auffinden von Ähnlichkeiten in Unternehmensdaten

Uso de pgvector para localizar similitudes en datos empresariales

Utilisation de pgvector pour localiser les similitudes dans les données d'entreprise

एंटरप्राइज़ डेटा में समानताएँ खोजने के लिए pgvector का उपयोग करना

pgvector を使用して企業データ内の類似点を特定する

pgVector를 사용하여 기업 데이터의 유사점 찾기

Usando pgvector para localizar semelhanças em dados corporativos

Использование pgvector для поиска сходств в корпоративных данных

Kurumsal Verilerdeki Benzerlikleri Bulmak İçin pgvector'u Kullanma

Sử dụng pgvector để xác định điểm tương đồng trong dữ liệu doanh nghiệp

使用 pgvector 查找企业数据中的相似之处

Stories, News & Mentions about WIKIMOVE

Wikimove’s Stories on HackerNoon