s Liberty

13.7K posts

s Liberty banner
s Liberty

s Liberty

@psyforfreedom

소설가입니다 주로 엑스에 망상기반의. 소설을 씁니다 아 비트코인을 아시나요? 저는 몰라요 ⚡️⚡️⚡️

가입일 Ocak 2025
894 팔로잉569 팔로워
s Liberty 리트윗함
사토시옹 🍔
사토시옹 🍔@greenpark67·
이지스를 국내 기업이 아닌 중국계 회사가 먹네..🤦‍♀️
한국어
5
78
135
3.1K
s Liberty 리트윗함
YOKIZ
YOKIZ@tomiyokiz·
모텔살인범 김소영, “고의 아냐. 잠들게 하려던 것” 유족 “사형 내려달라”
YOKIZ tweet media
한국어
3
1
10
263
s Liberty 리트윗함
Isaac
Isaac@isaacrrr7·
ÚLTIMA HORA: La Guardia Revolucionaria ha iniciado una represión en todo Irán, deteniendo a miles de manifestantes en las últimas 24 horas. Este supuesto alto el fuego ha traído dolor y terror a millones de iraníes amantes de la paz, la democracia y la libertad.
Español
185
2.7K
4K
69K
s Liberty 리트윗함
End Wokeness
End Wokeness@EndWokeness·
communism vs capitalism from space
End Wokeness tweet media
English
555
1.7K
14.1K
273.2K
s Liberty 리트윗함
박상용
박상용@sypark1113·
<특검이 '특별검사'가 아니라 "특정진영의 검사"였군요> 수사권 없으니 음모론 만들어 퍼뜨리더니, 이제는 아예 본색을 드러내어, 특정진영에 대놓고 "곧 원하시는 성과가 난다, 포토라인 세울 것"이라고 수사보고 대회를 합니다. 특검보는 공무원으로 의제됩니다. 이건 정치적 중립의무위반, 공무상비밀누설 아닌지요? 이게 결론 정해놓고 하는 소위 표적수사, 인간사냥 아닌지요? 살다보니 별꼴을 다 봅니다. 역대 특검 중에서도 권창영 특검은 정말 보법이 남다르네요. 우리나라 법치는 어디까지 무너져버리는 걸까요?
박상용 tweet media
한국어
60
616
866
6K
s Liberty
s Liberty@psyforfreedom·
@cyp3er 일단 정상적인 [화폐거래]로 [인정]을 받지 못하면 [해운보험]들이 그 거래를 인정하느냐의 문제가 있는데요. 오히려 로이드 가 비트코인 TXID 를 [인정]해 주면 그 때는 한국정부가 어떻게 할지가 궁금해지죠. 조만간 해결을 보겠네요. 기름은 급하니까. 그리고 이대통령이 비트코인 잘 압니다
한국어
1
0
2
20
s Liberty 리트윗함
Cyp3er
Cyp3er@cyp3er·
자, 만약 한국 해운 법인이 비트코인을 통행료로 지불하여 호르무즈 해협을 통과하려고 한다면, 국내 디지털 자산 규제 프레임 안에서 어떤 어려움을 겪게 될 지 한 번 알아보자. 한줄요약: <규제가 기업의 발목을 잡는다> 1) 구매 - 국내 거래소 실명계좌 발급이 상장법인·전문투자자 등록 법인 등 일부에게만 제한적으로 허용되고 있음 - 투자 한도(자기자본 5% 이내), 사업 목적 증빙 등이 요구됨 → 해운 법인의 국내 거래소 계좌 발급과 대량 구매가 상당히 어움 2) 결제 - 외국환거래법 적용: 비트코인을 해외 지갑으로 보내는 행위는 외국환은행을 거치지 않은 지급·영수로 간주되어 한국은행에 지급등의 방법 신고가 의무 (가상자산 직접 결제에 대한 명확한 규정이 아직 미비) - AML 및 FIU 모니터링: 특정금융정보법에 따른 트래블룰로 대규모 해외 지갑 송금 시 의심거래보고(STR) 의무가 있으며, 통행료 목적 증빙(계약서 등)이 불충분하면 거래가 지연·거부될 수 있음 3) 세금 및 회계 - 법인세 발생: 비트코인 지급 시 처분(양도)으로 보고 시가 기준 손익이 발생해 법인세가 부과됨 -비트코인 구매·보유·지급 전 과정에서 손익을 사업소득으로 처리해야 하므로 회계 평가와 증빙 부담이 매우 큼 결론 2026년 현재 한국 법인에게 비트코인 통행료 지급은 외환신고·AML·트래블룰·세금·회계 부담이 중첩되어 실무적으로 거의 불가능하거나 극히 어렵다. 출처 및 근거: 법인 가상자산시장 참여 로드맵 외국환거래법 제16조 제4호 특정금융정보법 법인세법
한국어
17
12
119
3.8K
s Liberty 리트윗함
soulfree
soulfree@soulfree2026·
한국의 블랙요원이 누군가의 블랙요원 유출로 인해 이렇게 별이 되었다. 우린 이것을 알아야한다.
soulfree tweet media
한국어
84
731
3.2K
466.5K
s Liberty 리트윗함
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent
Congress has spent the better part of half a decade trying to pass a framework to onshore the future of finance. It is time for @BankingGOP to hold a markup and send the CLARITY Act to President Trump’s desk. Senate time is precious, and now is the time to act.
English
620
3.2K
15.7K
1.4M
s Liberty 리트윗함
Tara O
Tara O@DrTaraO·
Another example of "China First" policy in South Korea. Taxpayers were unaware that their taxes were used to pay for carrying luggage of Chinese tourists. This was buried in the "war emergency budget." Lee Jae-myung said he didn't know & couldn't believe it.
The Monarch Report@monarchreport25

South Korea's war emergency budget contained Chinese tourist perks. When confronted, Lee responded: "I don't know the details well." At a bipartisan lunch at the presidential office on April 7, People Power Party representative Chang Dong-hyeok raised an inconvenient item buried in the Lee administration's 26 trillion won supplementary budget. Inside South Korea's 26 trillion won emergency war budget: 30.6 billion won for Chinese tourist hospitality, including 500 million won for a luggage-carry service directed specifically at Chinese visitors. Chang asked the obvious question. "Why is Chinese tourist infrastructure in a war-response emergency bill?" President Lee's answer was notable for what it admitted. "I don't know the details well." He then suggested the funds were probably for general tourism promotion, adding: "Surely it wouldn't only be for Chinese people." When Chang pushed back, Lee said: "If it's limited only to Chinese people, cut it. Jeong Cheong-rae of the Democratic Party of Korea, seated beside Lee, interjected that the spending was directed at "Chinese-speaking regions". Lee then questioned whether Chang's characterization was accurate in the first place, suggesting the matter needed to be fact-checked. The Culture, Sports and Tourism Committee subsequently cut approximately 2.5 billion won in related budget items. The cut itself is the tell. If the spending had been genuinely mischaracterized, there would be nothing to remove. A president who doesn't know what's in his own emergency budget, or who does and chose not to defend it, raises the same question either way. What else is in the 26 trillion won bill that no one is asking about yet. Source: biz.chosun.com/en/en-policy/2…

English
13
117
302
3.6K
s Liberty 리트윗함
Gordon G. Chang
Gordon G. Chang@GordonGChang·
Iran’s rules are unacceptable. The Strait of Hormuz is not, as a practical matter, open. How can this not be a ceasefire violation?
Shanaka Anslem Perera ⚡@shanaka86

JUST IN: The IRGC Navy just added a second lock to the gate. Hours after the ceasefire was supposed to reopen Hormuz, the IRGC issued an official directive requiring all commercial vessels to use two alternative corridors near Larak Island to avoid sea mines deployed during the war. Inbound traffic north of Larak. Outbound traffic south of Larak. All ships must coordinate with the IRGC Navy before entering. Until further notice. The mines are real. Iran laid them during the February to April campaign as a defensive measure against the US Fifth Fleet. They are in the standard shipping lanes. The alternative routes bypass the minefields but funnel every vessel through a narrow channel inside Iranian territorial waters, past the same Larak Island where the IRGC toll booth already operates and the patrol boats already escort ships one at a time after verifying clearance codes paid for in yuan or cryptocurrency. This is not a safety measure. It is infrastructure. The mines create the problem. The alternative routes create the solution. The solution requires coordination with the IRGC. The coordination requires toll payment. The toll requires yuan. Each layer reinforces the previous one until the Strait of Hormuz is no longer a waterway governed by international maritime law but a managed corridor operated by a theocratic military force collecting revenue in a currency that is not the dollar. The sequence now runs as follows. A vessel operator contacts IRGC-linked intermediaries. Submits IMO number, ownership chain, cargo manifest, crew list, and destination. The IRGC’s Hormozgan Provincial Command screens for sanctions alignment and assigns a friendliness tier. The toll is calculated at approximately one dollar per barrel for oil tankers, paid in yuan through CIPS or in stablecoins through the Qeshm Island crypto exchange window. If approved, the vessel receives a clearance code and route instructions for the Larak corridors. Upon approach, VHF radio hail, AIS verification, and a patrol boat escort through the minefield-free alternative channel. One ship at a time. Fifteen to twenty ships completed this process in the first 24 hours. The pre-war average was 138 per day. Four hundred vessels are reportedly waiting outside the strait. The Gulf states have declared the toll illegal and refuse to pay. Japan’s prime minister called the strait an international public good. Oman’s transport minister said international agreements prohibit fees. None of this has stopped the IRGC from operating the corridor, collecting the revenue, and turning back tankers that attempt passage without a code. Trump claimed a complete opening of the strait. The strait is not completely open. It is completely controlled. The difference between closed and controlled is that a closed strait generates no revenue and invites military intervention. A controlled strait generates reconstruction funding in yuan, establishes a precedent for non-dollar energy settlement, and operates under the legal fiction of a safety directive that blames wartime mines for the necessity of IRGC coordination. The mines will take months to clear. The alternative routes will become permanent. The toll will become normalised. And by the time Islamabad concludes, the infrastructure of a post-dollar energy chokepoint will have been stress-tested, revenue-generating, and operationally embedded for two weeks under the protection of a ceasefire that was supposed to dismantle it. Full analysis open.substack.com/pub/shanakaans…

English
17
53
133
7.1K
s Liberty
s Liberty@psyforfreedom·
파키스탄 스리랑카 같은 나라가 당한 국가기간인프라 탈취를 한국이 당하다니 그것도 뻔히 당하는거 보고
The Monarch Report@monarchreport25

Hillhouse Capital, a firm with strong Chinese ties through its founder Zhang Lei, is on the verge of acquiring IGIS Asset Management, South Korea’s largest real estate fund manager handling $52 billion in assets. IGIS oversees public pension funds and holds sensitive data on major infrastructure and property holdings across the country. The deal has drawn attention after Korean insurers, including Hyeungkuk Life, submitted higher bids but were sidelined following additional bidding rounds conducted by Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. The transaction raises important questions about foreign influence over critical domestic assets. South Korea’s real estate and pension system are vital to national economic stability and retirement security for millions of citizens. When a major fund with links to a geopolitical rival gains control of such assets, it touches on broader concerns regarding economic sovereignty and the protection of public funds. In an era of increasing cross-border investment and geopolitical tension, how nations safeguard strategic domestic assets directly affects public trust and long-term economic independence. Do you believe foreign acquisitions of key financial institutions like IGIS should face stricter national security reviews, or should market principles take priority?

한국어
0
0
0
17
s Liberty 리트윗함
s Liberty
s Liberty@psyforfreedom·
관련기사 coinness.com/en/news/1154045 2026년 3월 구글이 2000개 미만의 큐빗양자컴으로도 공개키에서 개인키 역산이 가능하다고 발표한 논문을 오늘 2026년 4월 뒤집음 바탕이론은 작년 7월에 나옴 coinness.com/en/news/1154045
Bull Theory@BullTheoryio

THIS IS BIG. A Bitcoin developer has built a working prototype that protects your wallet from quantum computers. Even if Bitcoin is forced to shut down part of its own security system to protect itself. To understand why this matters you need to understand the problem first. Every Bitcoin wallet is secured by a cryptographic signature scheme built on elliptic curve mathematics. The security assumption behind this system is that deriving a private key from a publicly visible public key requires computational work that classical computers cannot perform within any practical timeframe. Quantum computers running Shor's algorithm can break that assumption. Google researchers published findings last week showing a quantum computer could compromise Bitcoin's core cryptography in as little as nine minutes, using significantly fewer physical qubits than prior estimates required. The threat is not immediate but the timeline is compressing faster than most researchers projected. Now here is where it gets complicated. Bitcoin's Taproot upgrade, activated in 2021, improved transaction efficiency and privacy across the network. But by design it permanently exposes the public key of every Taproot wallet on the blockchain. Because that public key is permanently recorded and publicly visible, a sufficiently powerful quantum computer could use it to derive the corresponding private key and drain the wallet at any point in the future. Approximately 6.9 million Bitcoin across Taproot and older P2PK address formats are already in this exposed state. The developer community has a contingency plan for this scenario. If quantum computers advance to the point where this becomes an active threat, Bitcoin could activate an emergency soft fork that disables the key path spend in Taproot, which is the specific spending mechanism a quantum attacker would exploit. This closes the vulnerability before it can be exploited. But this emergency response introduces a serious secondary problem that nobody had resolved until now. The vast majority of modern Bitcoin wallets, particularly single signature Taproot wallets, rely entirely on that key path spend mechanism and have no alternative spending path configured. If Bitcoin disables that mechanism network wide, those wallets have no remaining method to authorize transactions. The funds inside them become permanently inaccessible, not stolen, but completely unspendable even by their rightful owners. The same upgrade designed to protect users could permanently strand their funds. This is the problem that Olaoluwa Osuntokun, chief technology officer of Lightning Labs, just solved with a working prototype posted to the Bitcoin developer mailing list yesterday. His solution uses a zk-STARK proof, which stands for zero knowledge scalable transparent argument of knowledge. In practical terms this means the following. Every Bitcoin wallet is ultimately derived from a master seed, typically the 12 or 24 word recovery phrase generated when the wallet is first created. All keys in the wallet are mathematically derived from that seed following a deterministic standard called BIP-32. Osuntokun built a system that generates a cryptographic proof demonstrating that a specific public key was derived from a specific master seed via the standard BIP-32 derivation path, without revealing the seed itself or any intermediate private key material. The Bitcoin network can verify the proof and authorize the wallet owner to move their funds, bypassing the disabled signature mechanism entirely. The prototype generates a valid proof in 50 seconds on a standard MacBook using Metal GPU acceleration, consumes approximately 12 gigabytes of RAM during proof generation, and produces a final proof of 1.7 megabytes. Osuntokun acknowledged the codebase is largely unoptimized and that a production implementation built specifically for this statement would run significantly faster and produce smaller proofs. He also noted that multiple proofs could be aggregated into a single compact proof to reduce on-chain verification overhead. Cryptographically relevant quantum computers capable of executing this attack do not exist today. What has changed is that Google's latest research has materially lowered the estimated resource requirements for such an attack, and the practical timeline is now closer than the field previously assumed. What is also new is that the developer community now has a working prototype of one of the critical tools needed to execute an emergency quantum defense without permanently locking legitimate holders out of their own funds. A problem that has existed in theoretical discussions for years has now produced a concrete technical implementation.

한국어
1
0
0
31