Edit: Looks like the post I was replying to got deleted, but they were good questions so will let the answers stand...
Thank you for the very thoughtful and encouraging feedback alexmorgandev!
do glossary entries link INTO the guided journey at the right moments, or are they a separate experience?
Journey chapters and rabbit holes auto-link glossary terms inline (via a rehype plugin — exact-title matches get a dotted-orange underline → linked entry). Hand curated links will likely be more contextually accurate and can be added easily.
running a node specifically. That step often gets hand-waved in beginner content because it's intimidating. If your chapter on this is concrete (exact steps, what software, what hardware minimum), that would differentiate you from 90% of Bitcoin education sites.
Exactly the differentiator we tried to build. The Sovereignty chapter (Chapter 6 of the journey) names specific software (Bitcoin Core, Start9, Umbrel, Nix Bitcoin), gives a recommended hardware build ($200, Pi 5 + 1TB SSD), specifies disk/RAM requirements, and walks through the actual flashing/booting/connecting steps. The framing is "pick what's useful, skip what isn't." Not a checklist, but with enough concrete to act on.
Direct link:
https://www.learnbitcoin.com/journey/sovereigntyTwo rabbit holes go deeper on what your node is actually verifying:
https://www.learnbitcoin.com/rabbit-hole/utxos — why "balance" is a UI fiction and what your node tracks instead
https://www.learnbitcoin.com/rabbit-hole/mining — the proof-of-work side of validation, with live difficulty + hashrate widgets
What we could definitely add is a more concrete step by step guides as rabbit holes for specific hardware/node combos.
Would love your eyes on the journey chapter specifically. If anything is hand-wavy or under-specified for what you'd want to act on, that's the highest-value feedback we could get on the journey right now.
Is the "Edit link on every page" (CC-BY-SA) model meant to be community-editable, or is it more "view source for trust"? The collaborative model for technical accuracy could be interesting if there are enough engaged contributors.
Both, actually, but weighted toward community-editable. The repo has a
CONTRIBUTING.md that welcomes typos, factual corrections, clarifications, new entries, and new rabbit holes. We will merge fast on small fixes; bigger contributions get an issue-first conversation about scope and angle.
There's a published "what we will not merge" list too (altcoins, price predictions, affiliates, edgelord politics) and a voice guide. Closer to a publication that takes PRs than to Wikipedia. The CC-BY-SA license also means anyone can fork it and run their own school on top, that's intentional. The orange-pilled internet should have more of this content, not less.
If you're up for it, the highest-leverage contributions right now are: factual corrections to glossary entries in your wheelhouse, and clarifications to journey prose that you find confusing on first read. CONTRIBUTING.md has the full guide.
