Alther

デジタル資産の急速な成長は、多くのムスリムに重要な問いを投げかけています: 暗号通貨はイスラム法と互換性があるのでしょうか？その答えは単純な「ハラール」または「ハラーム」ではありません。それは資産の構造、機能、使用方法によります。この評価を導くイスラム金融の3つの核心原則は、リバ（利子）の回避、過度のガラール（不確実性）の回避、メイシール（ギャンブル）の回避です。
実際、暗号通貨は保有者が完全に所有するデジタル商品と見なすことができます。スポットベースで取引される場合—レバレッジ、マージン、先物、または任意の形態のデリバティブ契約なしで—リバのリスクは大幅に減少します。多くの現代のファトワ機関は、交換手段としての明確なユーティリティを持つ暗号通貨を他の取引可能な資産と同様に扱った場合、潜在的に許可される（ムバーフ）と考えています。

The communities around Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and Monero (XMR) did not emerge from market enthusiasm alone. They emerged from a quieter source: moral discomfort. As financial systems became more sophisticated, they also became more invasive, more expensive, and more centralized. BCH and XMR exist because some people refused to accept that trajectory as inevitable.
This is not a story about profit. It is a story about where money belongs in human life.
----------
BCH: A Quiet Rejection of Financial Elitism
Bitcoin Cash is not a rebellion against technology. It is a refusal to accept engineered complexity as virtue.
In a world where financial systems are intentionally slow, costly, and permissioned, BCH chose something almost unfashionable: speed, low fees, and universal usability. This was not an accident. It was a value choice.
The BCH community implicitly rejects the idea that:
Money must be exclusive to be valuable.Complexity equals maturity.Access should require institutional approval.
BCH aligns itself with everyday life: small merchants, ordinary payments, real economic activity. Its underlying ethic is blunt but consistent: if money cannot be used by everyone, it fails morally, not just technically.
--------
XMR: Refusing the Normalization of Surveillance
Monero was born from a different discomfort. Modern systems increasingly assume that visibility is virtue, that every action should be traceable, stored, and audited. XMR rejects that assumption at the root.
The Monero community is not trying to disappear. It is drawing a boundary.
For XMR:
Privacy is not an optional feature; it is structural.Total transparency is not inherently ethical; it can become coercive.Trust is not produced by monitoring, but by personal responsibility.
The ideology behind XMR is unsettling to centralized power: humans are entitled to spaces that systems cannot fully see. Not to escape accountability, but to preserve dignity.
--------
One Ethical Core, Two Expressions
BCH and XMR are often framed as opposites. Ideologically, they are closer than many admit. Both reject the concentration of financial power. Both resist the transformation of money into an instrument of discipline.
BCH speaks from the perspective of social usability.
XMR speaks from the perspective of individual sovereignty.
One protects economic participation.
The other protects human interiority.
A mature community understands that freedom is not singular. Sometimes it requires openness to remain fair. Sometimes it requires opacity to remain humane.
---------
Anti-Propaganda as a Principle
This narrative deliberately avoids heroic language. There are no promises of salvation, no claims of inevitability. Communities built on BCH and XMR should be skeptical of narratives that sound too pure or too certain.
History is clear:
when ideas turn into propaganda, they stop thinking and start demanding loyalty.
The ideology here is not a call to belief, but an invitation to judgment:
Does this system reduce friction in real life?Does it respect human boundaries?Does it encourage responsibility rather than blind freedom?
If the answer becomes “no,” then criticism is not betrayal—it is integrity.
----------
Conclusion: Quiet Freedom
BCH and XMR do not promise redemption. They offer tools, and they suggest values. What follows depends entirely on the maturity of those who use them.
This ideological stance does not shout. It does not recruit. It simply insists on one thing:
Money is ethical infrastructure, not an object of worship.
In a world increasingly obsessed with control, the most radical position may be the calmest one: returning money to its proper place—in human hands, not above human life.
#FilosofiCrypto

When Layer 2 solutions first emerged, they were treated like saviors. Faster transactions, lower fees, and a promise that blockchains could finally scale for the masses. In 2025, that narrative has aged. What remains is not hype, but a harder question: do all Layer 2 networks still deserve to exist?
The truth is uncomfortable but clear: Layer 2 has not failed—but it is no longer automatically relevant. It has shifted from being revolutionary infrastructure to ordinary plumbing, and ordinary infrastructure must justify its presence every day.
The first visible problem is saturation. Too many Layer 2 networks offer nearly identical promises, fragmenting liquidity and users alike. Developers are forced to choose, users hop between ecosystems, and activity thins out. Only Layer 2s with real usage—living applications, consistent transaction volume, and human behavior beyond incentives—remain active. The rest look polished on GitHub but quiet on-chain.
The second issue is token economics. In 2025, many Layer 2 tokens struggle to explain their own necessity. Governance exists but is rarely exercised. Staking rewards depend heavily on inflation rather than demand. The market has grown more honest: a token without a clear economic role is decoration, not value.
A more subtle shift is also happening. Functions once unique to Layer 2 are being absorbed back into Layer 1 design. Modular architectures, rollup-friendly execution, and adaptive fee models allow Layer 1 chains to solve problems that once justified entire Layer 2 ecosystems. As Layer 1 evolves, some Layer 2s begin to look like solutions searching for problems.
This does not mean Layer 2 has no future. It means the future is narrower and more disciplined. Surviving Layer 2s stop trying to be everything. Specialization wins. Networks focused on privacy, gaming, micro-payments, or specific DeFi settlement layers show stronger resilience than general-purpose clones.
In many ways, 2025 is a year of natural selection for Layer 2. Not the fastest or cheapest networks endure, but the ones that remain relevant when incentives fade and hype moves on.
Ultimately, Layer 2 is not just a technical story. It is a human one—about trust, habits, and actual need. In a market that has grown more skeptical and less forgiving, infrastructure survives only if people keep using it even when no one is cheering.
That may be the clearest sign of maturity in crypto: no longer asking what is possible, but what is truly necessary.