0:00 Welcome to Drivechain Twitter Spaces, hosted by LayerTwo Labs. 0:14 We are excited to have another conversation with you, our many fans and supporters, as well as newcomers, critics, and members of the crypto and Bitcoin communities. 0:29 Today is Friday, August 18th, 2023. We're going to have another awesome conversation about Drivechain. 0:38 Drivechain is Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 300 and 301. 0:48 Welcome to the stage, Paul. Happy Friday. 0:51 I can mostly just listen for the next 15 minutes, but then I'll be able to talk. 1:00 All right, understood. 1:03 So, everyone who has come into the space, welcome. Welcome to our many fans and listeners. 1:13 I see familiar faces joining the audience. 1:18 Everyone's welcome to raise your hand, come on up, ask a question, share a comment. 1:26 People can learn about Drivechain at LayerTwoLabs.com. 1:30 There is a wealth of information there. 1:33 Everyone is encouraged to download the testnet software, recently upgraded and improved very significantly. 1:43 There's a lot of stuff you can learn by reading essays on Drivechain, written by Fiat Joff, SuperTestNet, John Light, Paul Sztorc, and many others. 1:59 I like to call it the Drivechain canon, the essays by those four people. 2:03 Everyone should read those essays. 2:05 If you're non-technical and participating in the testnet feels like a challenge to you, then you can read those essays and develop a strong understanding of the incredibly powerful economic potential of Drivechain. 2:21 Drivechain leverages Bitcoin's monetary policy and miners for new networks, enabling innovation and experimentation built on Bitcoin. 2:34 Drivechain would open up a renaissance of development on Bitcoin. 2:40 It would be potentially one of the best things ever in Bitcoin's history. 2:44 Transformative, enormous value accrual potential to Bitcoin's blockchain. 2:52 We believe this is number-go-up technology like people have never seen before. 2:57 Potentially, huge value accrual to Bitcoin. 3:02 Just as important, value accrual to Bitcoin's block space. 3:06 Bringing fee revenue to the miners. 3:09 Despite the halvings, we think that Drivechain can boost fee revenue enormously, strengthening Bitcoin's mining community, strengthening Bitcoin's economic security. 3:23 Yes. I think the better thing, though, is that this should be like a Q&A. 3:29 Yes. I think the better thing, though, is that this should be like a Q&A. 3:33 So if anyone in the audience should suggest a topic. 3:44 It shouldn't just be a robotic reading of Drivechain talking points. 3:52 So if anyone has something they want to talk about, then they should. 4:02 I think we could also go over events of the week. 4:08 But I'll do that in a couple of minutes when I get back to my house. 4:21 Thank you. 4:51 Thank you. 5:21 Thank you. 5:51 Thank you. 6:22 Thank you. 6:41 Hey, guys, can you hear me? 6:46 Yeah, I can hear you. 6:47 Yeah, I can hear you. 6:50 Sure. So I have a slightly technical question regarding the... 6:54 So there's 2.6 slots for Drivechains. 6:58 But I also know that you can do Drivechains in Drivechains. 7:03 But I'm trying to figure out exactly how that would work. 7:07 So we have unlimited Drivechains, basically. 7:10 But I'm not sure exactly how that would work with the miners there. 7:13 So, yeah, interesting to know about this. 7:43 Thank you. 8:13 Thank you. 8:29 I don't hear anything from Hampus. 8:33 I don't hear anything. 8:35 Hello? 8:37 Can you hear me? 8:38 It's definitely extremely buggy. 8:40 Okay. 8:42 Okay. 8:47 I started to hear someone ask about 250 slots. 8:52 Okay. 9:01 That's kind of weird. 9:02 Hopefully it works again. 9:04 See, now as soon as he started asking, he says connected. 9:08 I don't know. 9:09 I'm going to be home. 9:10 I'm going to be on my Wi-Fi. 9:11 So maybe I can be notified. 9:15 I don't know. 9:16 So you can hear me now? 9:19 Sometimes. 9:24 Hello? 9:25 I can hear something now. 9:30 Hello? 9:33 I'm hearing you. 9:35 I had a question regarding the 90% threshold. 9:40 Can that be changed after the fact if nothing's getting approved? 9:46 Well, since I happen to have already pulled over to explain this, 9:50 I think the thing is any hashrate threshold is really a 51% threshold 9:56 since they can always take the so-called nuclear option 10:00 of orphaning anything that doesn't signal. 10:17 It's always 51% is the actual number always. 10:20 So I think that was based on like back in 2015, 10:25 there was a BIP-9 signaling, which was 95%. 10:30 And so this is like just a little lower. 10:34 I think it's a good idea for the miners to endorse the sidechain 10:38 so it sort of makes it more unreasonable 10:43 because people have to believe that the sidechain will work 10:47 when they make the deposit. 10:52 Is this making any sense? 10:53 Like they want to already – they'll be worried about whether 10:57 or not anyone actually cares about this sidechain. 10:59 So you want to kind of kick it off with like a vote of confidence. 11:03 There's no reason for miners not to add most sidechains. 11:07 I think we're slightly biased because of the world we live in today 11:17 is very conservative, but I don't think it would be like that 11:21 once the idea is actually out there in people's heads. 11:25 My worry is just irrelevant. 11:27 Some people are not actually caring about voting for the sidechains. 11:31 Yeah, but if they don't care, then it's probably a bad sidechain 11:36 because the miners have an incentive. 11:38 They get more transaction fees for free 11:42 and they get more exchange rate price for free. 11:45 But I'm going to be like – I'm going to be unavailable for like 15 minutes, 11:53 but then I'll be listening now. 11:57 So maybe don't ask me a question. 12:03 I don't know what I'm saying. 12:04 I'm going back to my Wi-Fi at my house. 12:06 I'll be there soon. 12:23 Thank you. 12:54 Okay. 13:15 One point on that might be the miners currently 13:19 should probably care about Drivechains but haven't tried to activate. 13:31 From my speaking to some people that publicly traded miners, 13:34 this is not really a focus of theirs, so that's why I was concerned. 13:49 Thank you. 14:20 Is anybody speaking or is my instance just buggy? 14:29 No, I'm speaking. 14:34 Yeah, the software has gotten really buggy. 14:36 I think you might see like more of attention paid. 14:42 Well, one thing is it definitely seems that the amount of discussion 14:46 around Drivechain has really picked up recently. 14:49 We're probably like 100x over a year ago. 14:52 And, of course, the halving is coming up and barring some big price rise, 14:58 and I think those historically have tended to happen with some gap afterwards, 15:05 whatever it is, 6 or 12 months. 15:07 But either way, it's definitely going to put a major squeeze on miners, 15:14 and the mining industry is very different than it was four years ago. 15:19 There's a lot more publicly traded miners that are going to be thinking, 15:25 I don't know, more short-term 15:28 and then have a much more shareholder-minded point of view. 15:35 And so they very well may come to their realization much more quickly 15:43 than we think that Drivechains potentially can boost their revenues. 15:52 I think four years ago now there might have been, 15:55 I'm not even sure if there were any publicly traded miners. 16:04 Do you know if any of these miners are currently running lightning nodes to earn fees? 16:10 No, I don't know. 16:12 But I think that the revenue generated from lightning nodes is pretty trivial right now, 16:19 even for major routing hubs. 16:39 So if there's not a lot of conversation, 16:42 I want to go back to that last question about the 10%, or I guess the 90%. 16:48 To me, it seems kind of like there could be 12% of people that are just kind of not 16:59 miners that don't really want to invest in mining. 17:04 Unless it's really over-the-top convincing. 17:06 It's like when somebody hands you a clipboard at the grocery store and says, 17:10 put this measure on the ballot and you're like, I don't know. 17:15 And they're like, well, what's the harm? 17:17 You're just putting it on the ballot. 17:19 You're like, well, I don't know. 17:20 I don't just sign off on everything. 17:23 So I think there could be 12% of people that are just kind of not miners 17:29 You're like, well, I don't know. 17:30 I don't just sign off on everything. 17:33 So I think there could be something around this. 17:35 I don't know what the number would be, what the magic number is. 17:37 But this comes to mind as some possible concern. 17:44 I think that's definitely possible. 17:45 I don't know. 17:46 There's not any magic number. 17:48 People say 90% and 95% based on kind of the, I don't know, 17:56 the standard that was discussed with the speedy trial or with the SegWit 18:02 activation and all that. 18:03 But I think if we get, you know, 18:07 even if we get to 51% that it would like, 18:12 it would technically be an activation because you can have 49% of mining or 18:18 of hash indifferent. 18:21 And they would just kind of abstain from the process of upvoting the withdrawal 18:27 transactions. 18:28 And the 51% is active and is uploading, you know, 18:34 the valid withdrawal transactions that should, even though very slow, you know, 18:39 much more slowly than designed, 18:41 but that should kind of be enough for the network to have the peg outs 18:48 functioning. 18:49 But obviously, you know, it's, there's, 18:52 there's some politics to it as well, where if you get, if you get, you know, 18:56 90% of miners activating, it's, it's, 19:00 it's a pretty powerful wave politically speaking. 19:18 Can you just like expand on that a bit on how the 51% could actually activate a 19:32 sidechain? 19:33 Well, no, that would be, that would be through a soft fork, 19:39 but if you have 51% of hash power of miners representing or even, 19:44 or more specifically pools representing 51% of hash power of hash rate, 19:53 and they were to activate, well, 19:55 the way that the withdrawal transactions work is it requires 51% of blocks to 20:05 upvote or affirm the proposed withdrawal transactions within a six month period. 20:11 So if you were to have a hundred percent of hash rate and you assume a valid 20:17 withdrawal transaction, 20:19 then that would happen in three months because the transactions expire after six 20:27 months and they need 13,500 blocks or something. 20:32 That is the equivalent of three months worth of blocks. 20:37 So if you had 49% and I don't know, 20:39 but I should say miners can also abstain or they could downvote the transaction, 20:45 which would, you know, the, the, the, the, 20:47 so, so the way you put it is like the withdrawal transaction needs like a score. 20:52 It needs, it needs 13,500 points. 20:55 And when a minor upvotes it or, or confirms it, 20:59 it adds one point to the scoreboard and the miners can abstain and add no points 21:04 or they can actually downvote the transaction and, 21:08 and kind of take a point off. 21:11 So if you had 49% that were just indifferent or abstaining from, 21:18 from, from the 300 completely. 21:22 So when they mine a block, they would, they wouldn't be, 21:27 they wouldn't be adjusting the counter at all. 21:31 They would just be ignoring these transactions or at least ignoring the, 21:35 the, the difference in these transactions, 21:38 the PIP 300 scorekeeping functionality. 21:43 And so it fit, but at 50 plus 1% we're, 21:49 we're, we're moving the counter up. 21:56 Then in six months you would get that 13,500 upvotes. 22:05 This is the same for the activation of the Drivechain. 22:11 I understand that's also the same way for Drivechains currently in use to 22:14 replace it. 22:17 Well, that's if, 22:18 if they were to activate it almost like without any of the status quo, 22:23 political or activation mechanisms, 22:26 because the way I understand it is that with, 22:31 with, with speedy trial is that if 90% were to signal, 22:38 then, then they all would activate together. 22:42 But another possibility would be that, you know, you could just have, 22:47 we had the CEO of Luxor say that he would signal a couple of days ago. 22:53 So let's just say that, you know, 22:55 unbeknownst to like anybody really that he could just activate it himself. 23:01 I don't think you can do that now because the pull request hasn't been 23:06 released, but I think it should be released shortly. 23:10 So let's say that, that he activated it or, you know, the, the, that, 23:14 that, that, that company activated it, that pool. 23:17 And then you had a foundry activated, then you had a, 23:21 whatever it is and pool activated. And I think that those three are, you know, 23:26 add one or two smaller ones and then you get to above 50%. 23:31 And they, they didn't, 23:32 it wasn't just that they were signaling that they wanted to activate it, 23:35 but they actually just went ahead and activated it without any sort of 23:40 signaling, you know, 23:41 for consensus process among the pools or whatever. Well, 23:46 because of like the nature of the soft, as we call it, 23:49 like the softness of the soft fork, that is BIP300. 23:55 The other pools don't even have to be aware of that. 24:00 There's no like, there's no kind of burden on them at all. 24:05 So the pools that have activated it can proceed to, 24:10 to, you know, do BIP300 and go for it. 24:16 That makes sense. Because the messages are already. 24:27 So they could do that, like around 50%. 24:31 But I will be a bit careful about like someone could make an 24:36 invalid spend from the peg out, 24:39 like output that will be valid for like full nodes that doesn't support Bit 24:44 300. So like if you do it around 50, 51%, 24:49 then those models will need to like do a reorg or orphan the other side, 24:53 like if there's an incorrect spend. 24:55 So I think you would want to have maybe like 70 or 80% hash power support, because around 51%, there could be a lot of ugly like chain splits, like deep, deep splits between the chains. 25:09 Just because like if you try to invalid, incorrect spend the peg out address, like those will be, as I said, they will be valid according to normal core nodes and the minority hash power, like those that doesn't support BIP300. 25:29 So you need to be cautious about doing it close to the 51% hash rate threshold. 25:39 That's a good point. Yeah, then you would have a very contentious episode there. 25:44 Yeah, it can be dangerous. But I do agree with your central point, though, that's like, you could do a minor activated salt fork and you don't need to go to core, like the core development process to get driver chains. 25:59 So like, if mining pools want to support driver chains, they could do that and activate themselves. And I mean, it benefits them. So it makes sense for them to do it because they get the mining fee from the blind managed mining. 26:15 So, but I will suggest that they need like a strong majority before they pursue this. 26:30 Yeah, it does seem something that would be attractive to miners in general. I mean, from their perspective, if you think of it like just from their like fully selfish perspective, the only downside, I suppose, would be the, you know, the ire of... 26:51 Like they need an SPV client for the sidechain, right, to the draftings. They don't necessarily need like a full node for the drafting, but at least like some awareness of it, which will be pretty cheap to have. 27:05 They have resources to have some SPV clients for quite a lot of sidechains. So I don't think that should be a problem. And then like there will be miners doing the blind merged mining for the main chain miners. 27:19 So they earn extra mining fee from the Drivechains. So like it's one of the only layer twos that directly benefits like the main chain hash power, which is quite interesting. 27:35 So when I was discussing the indifference earlier, I was thinking in terms of not the whole thing, but like each individual chain that could be proposed. 27:44 So, I mean, it's easy to imagine like this whole thing gets activated. And so we say, OK, great, we have a large block sidechain. OK, but then the large blockers come up and they propose 15 different large block sidechains. 27:57 And then there's a main one and there's another one. And then everybody has their own version of the large block sidechain. And then, you know, number 18, the miners are like, is this one important? Do we care? Do we want to add it? 28:11 That's what I'm talking about, the 90 percent. You know, most of the time you don't. You might not have researched every sidechain proposal, which is going to come across. 28:21 It's definitely not going to be easy to get new sidechains. 28:27 It's kind of like it's 90 percent because miners in general have no reason to say no. So that's why it's so high in a way, because I kind of have a different way of looking at it, which is like problem solution, which is like there's like a thermostat. 28:47 And like once it gets too hot, the air conditioning comes on. You know, so I'm thinking like once something becomes too much of a problem, then something fixes the problem. 28:59 So my idea, like my conception of it, I mean, is that you have a sidechain that basically everyone wants. OK, then everyone includes 90 percent of the hashrate. 29:11 So they send it through. And then what does it look like if there's a sidechain that what could it possibly look like if there's a sidechain that 15 percent or 11 percent of the hashrate doesn't want? 29:24 Like, what does that look like? You know what I mean? Because they get they pay not miners pay nothing and they get more free money. 29:34 So it has to be really bad to not get 90 percent, I think people have to just really not care. 29:40 I'm saying it could look like a carbon copy of the one they just approved yesterday, but with like political intervention, government. 29:46 I know. But in a way, isn't it good to have it? It's because it's so easy for the miners to just add a sidechain. 29:56 We kind of don't want there to be too much. We don't want there to be too much like. 30:02 Of attention, like, you know, wasted away or what's the phrase like we don't want. 30:11 Maybe if it's just the same as the one yesterday with a little parameter tweaked, maybe just maybe no one actually needs it. 30:20 So I don't. That's just the number that I picked. But, you know, it's also I picked it because of speedy trial, kind of. 30:28 So I'm kind of like, what is the number? It's supposed to kind of resemble that. 30:37 I don't really feel that strongly about it. But I think. 30:44 I think, yeah, you don't really want like all 256 slots are just going to be claimed in the second day or something, which I mean, that's not possible. 30:51 But you know what I mean? I mean, like, there should be some pushback. So that's why I made it 90 percent. 30:59 Those are some of the reasons. Does that make sense or no? Do you agree or. 31:11 I guess even if they did all if they did all get filled first, then you would just move on to the six month 50 percent anyway. 31:20 Right. So to replace it. You're muted if you're saying anything, didn't you just start talking? 31:35 Yes, I mean, I can I can hear both of you. 31:51 I think maybe everybody can hear you, maybe with the exception of Paul. 31:58 Is Mika talking? I can't hear him at all. Very weird. Thank you, Austin. I wasn't talking. I stopped talking. 32:03 OK, great. Now I'm talking. Yeah, I mean, I agree that there's a number and we don't know what that number is. 32:10 And I don't know if 90 percent is the best, but I think there is. There is probably whatever number you put it. 32:16 There's probably someone who can propose something which will be right about that level. 32:22 But that's true of every number, right? 32:24 I could probably pick a proposal that, you know, 84 percent of people would like and 16 percent of people would not care about. 32:32 Yeah, I mean, in a way, the number in a weird way, a statement about whether 90 percent is the best parameter or not. 32:41 But I guess in a way, since the sidechains don't really have any cost to anyone other than. 32:50 Taking out people's attention, which is every everything that exists in the universe could have that cost. 32:56 But since the sidechains don't really have any cost, it really should be like. 33:02 You know, it should just kind of be like five percent hash rate or something in some in some sense. 33:08 But I just thought I think it's probably just wasting everyone's time. 33:14 I want I think it's better if the sidechain gets like a vote, a yes vote, like from the miners first, because then it's kind of just I feel like users will be looking to when it first activates. 33:27 They'll be wondering, like, is this is this project going to succeed or not? 33:32 Does this have a future? 33:36 So you want to kick it off with something big. That was my thought. It could be an incorrect thought. 33:41 It's also like, you know, again, it's a speedy trial number is based on BIP-9 before. 33:45 So I actually brought BIP-9 was 95 percent. 33:49 So I brought it down to the speedy trial number. 33:53 So so it's been moving down at a rate of about five percentage points every five or six years. 34:01 So maybe in five or six years, I would have moved it down, I don't know, to 80 percent or something. 34:07 I don't know. So because BIP300. 34:15 OK, do we have any, you know, do you have any skeptics or whatever? 34:20 We had Mr. Hoddle last week. That was great. 34:23 But his phone lost power halfway through. 34:26 But it was good while it lasted. 34:32 I know my mistake and I apologize. 34:34 I can't I can hear you. I can hear you. 34:36 I think everyone can hear you. 34:39 My guess. Is George speaking? Yes. 34:43 Oh, my gosh, I can't hear. I'm going to restart this app or something. 34:47 I'm going to restart the app. Sorry, I don't know what's going on. 34:50 Couldn't have me. I'll wait for him to come back. 34:57 Thank you for your being a good sport. 35:28 OK, let's hear about that. 36:05 Sorry, I only heard a little of that. 36:07 It did have a weird audio robot voice effect. 36:12 Can someone repeat it? Maybe I'm in a car. 36:15 Maybe my signal is not so great. OK, I hear you pretty well now. 36:20 OK, just in regards to the 51 percent actually being needed to activate, 36:26 is that because BIP300 has already put the six new messages into the system, 36:32 which and then therefore 51 percent of people can just go along with it. 36:38 You mean it withdraws the inputs. 36:43 You mean to activate BIP300 overall? 36:47 No, to activate a sidechain. 36:50 Yes, BIP300 is already activated. It's already a thing. 36:54 And then I'm just a bit confused on the 90 percent versus actually needing 51 percent. 37:01 And what that process of 51 percent really is. 37:05 Is it because the messages already exist, 37:08 therefore they can just go along and play the game anyway, irrelevant of 90 percent? 37:13 Well, maybe it would help if we just emphasize there's three different things. 37:18 There's the withdrawals. 37:21 Then in order of how frequent they are, 37:24 there's activating BIP300 overall, which would only happen once. 37:28 Then there's activating individual sidechains, 37:30 which would happen once to claim each of the 256 slots, 37:34 and then maybe once again to reclaim a slot. 37:40 That's in the BIP300 rules. 37:43 And then finally the slots all have sidechains, 37:46 and then they have deposits and withdrawals. 37:49 And so those are three things that miners could signal for or have some input in. 38:03 And you're talking about the middle one, activating a sidechain. 38:07 What you're saying, how is 90 percent enforced? 38:10 What is the question? 38:13 Just how 51 percent can actually activate a sidechain. 38:18 Because from what I read, you need 90 percent. 38:21 I'm a bit confused how it's in practice actually 51 percent. 38:26 Yes, I'll explain that. 38:28 So what you do is you team up and you make your 51 percent group. 38:34 And what you say is you have the first block where you signal, 38:38 and then the sidechain has the signaling score. 38:41 It actually keeps track of fails, but it doesn't matter. 38:44 It's got to count up from 1 to 216, so to speak. 38:48 And it's got to get to whatever that is. 38:52 Because 2016 is two weeks' worth of blocks, 38:56 and 90 percent of that would be 2016 minus 201 or 202, depending on how you round. 39:04 So this part's clear so far, right? 39:06 We've got to count up to, like, 19-something, right? 39:11 That's the 90 percent. 39:13 Okay, yeah. 39:14 Before the two weeks, the 2016 blocks elapse, and then it times out. 39:20 So what they would do is they find the first block and they go from 0 to 1, 39:26 and then they find the second block and they go from 1 to 2. 39:30 And then maybe someone in the 49 group, they find a block. 39:35 They find the next block, and it doesn't have the vote. 39:41 So instead the score stays at 2. 39:43 It should have gone to 3, but it did not. 39:46 Well, what the 51 percent group can do is they can say, 39:49 I'm just going to orphan this block and I'm going to find a new version of the block 39:54 where the score goes from 2 to 3, as it should. 39:58 And if push really comes to shove and the 49 percent group tries to compete against the 51 percent group, 40:08 eventually the 49 percent group will lose. 40:12 So it doesn't matter how many blocks they found. 40:14 Eventually the 51 percent group will have the longer block chain, 40:19 and it will eventually be longer by any arbitrary amount of blocks, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, whatever. 40:27 And so that will eventually – so they'll eventually win. 40:36 Does that make sense? 40:37 So they can just do that over and over and over again, and then they'll have 100 percent. 40:41 They'll get right to 19, 19-whatever out of 19-whatever with 201 blocks to spare. 40:50 Okay, yeah, that makes sense. 40:52 It sounds incredibly messy, and like it might have some negative consequences. 40:57 Yeah, I don't think – 40:58 That doesn't make sense. 40:59 Yeah, right. 41:00 That's why it's sometimes called the nuclear option because it's like – 41:05 it is messy, and it's kind of like if you're in this situation where they do that to someone, 41:12 the 49 percent are so screwed because they're not finding any blocks 41:17 that they may become desperate in their search, 41:20 and they can pull people out of the 51 coalition by offering them a lot because they're so – 41:26 so it's kind of like it doesn't really work in practice, but it's unknown. 41:33 So maybe the 90 needs to be reconsidered because, to me, 90 sounds very difficult. 41:40 Well, I don't think – I mean, again, it's kind of like – you may be right. 41:44 You may be 100 percent correct about that, but the way that I look at it is, 41:49 who are these miners that are not voting yes? 41:52 Like politically aligned public miners. 41:55 Yeah, but I think the – I think the – yeah, there's a sense, 42:00 and there's this like Westminster governance philosophy that says it should always be 50 percent. 42:08 It should always be majority vote or whatever, which I kind of am sympathetic to, 42:12 but I think the politic – the whole reason there is politics in Bitcoin at all 42:20 is because of the lack of side genes. 42:24 We should never have even gone down this road. 42:28 There's no reason to really be on this road at all. 42:31 So if instead we had done – in 2015 we had done a side genes type thing, 42:37 there would never have been a block size war. 42:39 There would never have been a SegWit blockade. 42:41 None of that would have happened. 42:42 This would never even be in anyone's head. 42:44 No one would have ever even thought of this. 42:47 This idea that – the idea of political miners would never have been an idea. 42:51 It would just never have happened. 42:53 So maybe I'm wrong about that, but I just kind of think if there is sidechains, 42:57 all the politics will kind of go away because the politics is about what – 43:02 which stuff should activate on Bitcoin. 43:06 But the way sidechains works, no one is ever harmed by a new feature, 43:11 new option being added. 43:14 There would be some things maybe like if two people want to do this, 43:17 the two people each want to do a Namecoin sidechain, 43:20 and you don't want to have like two phone books. 43:22 So there's some – there's cases where it would affect the sidechains themselves, 43:28 the drama, and so then they may make various appeals. 43:33 But it doesn't actually harm any miner or any L1 person if something activates or not. 43:39 Could a soft fork or multiple soft forks be done to change the 90%? 43:45 That sounds like it could be messier. 43:48 The 90% cannot be changed, but as I kind of sort of explained to you, 43:53 is you could do something similar to BIP-148 where you could say it is mandatory. 43:59 It is mandatory to do the 90% signaling, and you could do that with 51%. 44:08 So in a way, yes. 44:11 I don't know. Maybe you're right about that. 44:13 Maybe it should be – you know, one thing that I think also should be rethought, 44:16 the original – originally the withdrawals were only – it was like two weeks of nothing at first, 44:23 then two weeks of voting, and then two weeks later it would go after that. 44:27 So it was like six weeks total, but it was only two weeks of voting. 44:31 And I changed that to three months because it doesn't matter because it makes it more – 44:36 because people complained about miners can steal. 44:38 But now in hindsight looking back, I just realized that those people probably had no idea 44:43 what they were talking about at all, any more than many of the people do today. 44:48 So I thought maybe that actually is not – maybe it shouldn't be that long. 44:54 But I really – the logic of it is that the length of the withdrawal does not really matter 44:59 because regular people will not use that. 45:01 They will just swap out. 45:03 So, yeah, maybe you're right about that. 45:06 And, yeah, maybe you're right about the activation. 45:09 What I can do is repeat what I said, which is that in the past, pre-SegWit, pre-scaling more, 45:17 there was this 95% threshold. 45:21 There was a 95% threshold for activating soft forks that was met, 45:25 and there was no controversy or whatever. 45:27 And then there was a speedy trial with 90%. 45:30 So that's where I'm coming from with that. 45:33 I don't know. I may be wrong. 45:34 You may be – I don't know. 45:36 I think he just got disconnected also. 45:39 Hopefully he heard what I said before it cut him out. 45:47 I think a six-month or three-month hangout still makes sense to – 45:51 so it's a slow process and people can react. 45:54 I'd rather have it like a quick thing. 46:04 I just did the thumbs up. 46:05 I don't know. 46:06 It doesn't show up on my screen, but maybe – did you see it? 46:08 I don't know. 46:10 Buggy app. 46:12 I didn't look actually, but, yeah, I trust you. 46:14 Let's see if it did. 46:15 I don't know. 46:16 I'm going to say it again. 46:17 I don't know if it's working. 46:18 Yeah, now I saw it, yeah. 46:20 I can't see it, but I can still throw it, I guess. 46:23 This is weird. 46:25 Last two weeks, two or three weeks, it's been a little buggier than normal. 46:29 I wonder why that would be. 46:31 You would think it would be the same app as before. 46:32 Are people sabotaging it? 46:33 Probably not. 46:35 Anyway, hopefully it lets us have some people come up and talk. 46:43 All right, George, were you able to hear what I said? 46:46 I got about half of it. 46:50 I'm a bit busy right now, to be honest. 46:52 It's not the best time. 46:56 Don't get into a car accident because of driving a little like that. 47:01 That's a bad thought. 47:04 Appreciate it. 47:05 I think I say that pre-SegWit, pre-block size war, there was 95% BIP-9 activation. 47:17 No one really complained about that. 47:18 It worked just fine. 47:20 And then we had speedy trial, and it was 90%, and it worked just fine. 47:24 That's kind of where I get that number. 47:27 There's certainly no magical, objective reason for that. 47:34 That's just kind of where I'm at. 47:37 I think really old softworks used 55% threshold or something like that. 47:45 And then there was a lot of fake signaling by the miners. 47:50 So there was some deep chain splits going on. 47:53 So I think that's why they picked 95% threshold for BIP-9. 47:59 And I think that makes sense, having a higher threshold. 48:02 It was just an unfortunate situation with SegWit specifically with the miners. 48:08 Because afterwards with taproot and stuff, that has worked out well with speedy trial, I think. 48:14 But it seems like there's a lot of PTSD still going on by Bitcoiners and those that remember the block size wars. 48:22 For me, I look at it right now, and it doesn't look like miners are your enemy, really. 48:29 They are our servants, right? 48:31 So having a high threshold is great, and having a hashrate escrow makes sense, for me at least. 48:41 Yeah, I think it's unfortunate that people cannot imagine the time when there was no enemy kind of concept. 48:53 Everyone just worked together to make Bitcoin a success. 48:57 And the whole point of sidechains is that reasonable people can disagree about which features they want to run the node. 49:07 So there really shouldn't be any problems. 49:13 Yeah, I agree. 49:15 The opinion of miners has really been damaged since SegWit, unfortunately. 49:21 And people are stuck in their mindset, it seems like, and not seeing the landscape today and how it looks today. 49:29 Because it's not the same landscape that it was six or seven years ago. 49:37 Yeah, I agree. Unfortunately, the one from six or seven years ago also is misleading. 49:42 Because it's my view that whole thing mostly was just... 49:47 Like, the miners were convinced by some large blockers that... 49:55 It's kind of ambiguous how to say it, how to explain it the best, but they were sort of convinced that it would be good. 50:03 Like, they thought they wanted this, they thought this block size increase was necessary. 50:09 So they had been convinced to become large blockers in various ways. 50:16 And so they kind of thought, we'll hold up SegWit activate. It was like a kind of Mexican standoff. 50:23 Two people holding guns at each other and said, we won't activate SegWit until this block size increase is merged or something like that. 50:36 So you see, the whole reason that people even worry about activation at all is because of this event. 50:42 And the whole reason that event happened is because there was no sidechains. 50:46 And the whole reason that even any of the animosity happened was because the existing governance process wasn't working for everyone. 50:56 But if you just have a process that works for everyone, then there won't be this political... 51:09 There's no point. You would just be politically losing out on fees, making other people inconvenienced, no benefit to yourself. 51:22 So that's my thought. 51:25 I've got to leave. I'm just... I appreciate the answers. I'll be back next week with some better questions. 51:33 OK, great. 51:34 So I have a question, a slightly technical one. But there is 256 slots for the drivechains. 51:43 But as far as I know, you can also have Drivechains in drivechains. 51:48 So I'm trying to figure out how exactly that works out with the miners and stuff. 51:54 Yes. One of the sidechains would itself have BIP300 on it. 51:59 And it would be both a child of Bitcoin Core and a parent of its own 256. 52:06 And it would be kind of bizarre. It would definitely be a little inception-y and weird. 52:13 But I don't see any particular part where it would necessarily break down. 52:18 The idea would be... It does get kind of slightly worse each time, because to actually do the withdrawal, it would be another time period. 52:29 Like if that copied BIP300 exactly, it would be another three months to move from one child, like the grandchild to the child. 52:39 And then another three months to move from the child to the Bitcoin Core parent. 52:45 And this whole time, miners on L1 could empty the whole sidechain and steal everything there. 52:54 So it's exponentially slower, but it's the same risk, which is bad. 53:04 So it's bad for the user in that way. 53:06 But other than that, it works exactly the same. 53:10 It's just the sidechain that's finding blocks. 53:14 The sidechain blocks are moving up. 53:22 The sidechain blocks increment the withdrawal of its own grandchild chains. 53:28 They could all be blind merge mined, in which case all the money is passed through one to the other. 53:35 It goes into the sidechain coinbase, and then it goes into the L1, what we used to call the bribe transaction. 53:46 I guess now it's called the BMM request. 53:51 And so all the fees... So other than that, it's the same, but it is weird. The withdrawal is weird. 53:57 Right. Yeah, I hear you. 54:00 Maybe it's just better to use the slots and so on. 54:09 People would probably just... If there were really the demand for this, then I would probably think that people would just soft fork BIP300 into Bitcoin Core again. 54:21 There'd be BIP-300A, BIP-300B. 54:25 That's another thing that I just think there would be nothing controversial about that at all. 54:30 This would be like zero controversy situation, because either there are still plenty of slots to either use or overwrite, in which case no one would ever want to add it again. 54:42 They'd say, what's the point of adding BIP300 a second time? There'd be literally no rational reason to do that. 54:48 Or we live in a world where all 256 slots have been claimed, and they were all very, very popular, and all the sidechains were very unique, and someone has the 257th sidechain. 54:57 And so in that scenario, everything is working out really, really well. 55:04 So it's working so well that it's not even controversial that this is a thing that has worked and that people like and that has already been tried. 55:13 So they would just add BIP-300B and add the 257th sidechain. 55:19 So it's another situation where there's just no controversy, and there's no problems. 55:24 Everyone is just getting happier all the time. 55:29 Yeah, just add new slots, and it shouldn't be controversial at that point. 55:33 But also, 256 slots is quite a lot of chains. 55:38 No, it's not many. People always worry about that. 55:40 What about all the slots? 55:42 At this point, you're really scratching your head to think of, what is the 16th viable sidechain going to be? 55:53 25 is already giving us a whole 10x of buffer zone. 56:03 Yeah, and you can probably do some efficient designs on those chains as well and stuff. 56:07 Each time, we'll be learning more about what makes a sidechain good. 56:10 So it should be accumulating. 56:14 So that's a hypothetical scenario where it's really, really successful. 56:21 Anyway. 56:25 So, yes, coming up. 56:28 If you have a question or a comment. 56:37 Fiat Jaffa wrote a cool article. 56:47 Fiat Jaffa is such a big BIP300 shill that he literally thinks Bitcoin will be destroyed if we do not activate it. 56:59 I do think it says something weird about Bitcoin. 57:03 The idea is designed to help lots of people and harm nobody. 57:07 So you can see kind of how far the termites have spread and how long and well they've dined. 57:15 When an idea that has no downside and enormous upside is treated the same way as layer 1 block size increase, 57:25 which is a clear tug of war with someone getting what they want and someone else not. 57:29 Yes, we have a Jack. 57:32 Hello. 57:33 Do you think that something like CoinNews is better suited for a mainchain application than a sidechain application? 57:40 And why do you think that those things would vary? 57:45 Yes, I think they would vary. 57:47 And I think CoinNews is better on the mainchain because CoinNews is just about attention and digital real estate. 57:56 It's like a billboard in a way. 57:58 And so what's the thing about a billboard is like you want to reach as many people as possible. 58:08 And so every sidechain user runs an L1 node, but not the other way around. 58:13 So there's always more L1 nodes than L2 nodes. 58:16 And the L1 node is, of course, that's the center. 58:19 You know, that's like the Times Square. 58:21 Times Square is named, I'm pretty sure. 58:23 I'm not actually certain of this, but I'm pretty sure that Times Square is named because the New York Times was printed there. 58:29 And that's how it just became. 58:32 It's like the central nervous system of America during the newspaper era. 58:42 But the other thing is that CoinNews is not a soft fork or it's not anything. 58:46 It's just a cosmetic idea that literally affects no one and that could already be done today and cannot be stopped. 58:54 It's really a much better version of inscriptions, ordinals, because a lot of people were doing that just for attention. 59:00 But that's exactly what this does. 59:02 This does in 220 bytes. 59:04 You get the most attention out of everything in the block and without actually taking up a whole block. 59:12 And it's clear to me that the blockchain is actually more than just money. 59:17 It happens to be the greatest tool for money and banking in existence and one of the greatest inventions of all time. 59:27 But it's just clear to me that it is also doing other things. 59:30 It's kind of like smoke signals, I think, where it's this special kind of media that everyone knows that everyone else can see it or has seen it. 59:42 But I think each chain will have its own CoinNews and probably there will be sites or wallets that pull the CoinNews from everywhere and relay it. 59:56 Do you think that the main chain could be used to update sidechains through a similar mechanism? 1:00:04 Well, the reason why I actually invented CoinNews was I'd always had this kind of idea in my head in some form. 1:00:12 But I thought, how is it that the sidechains learn? 1:00:17 We're in the weird world where all of us are in bunkers and it's all underground. 1:00:22 In 1984, all of us are subversive cypherpunks. 1:00:27 Someone writes the sidechain into existence. 1:00:31 But now what are they supposed to do? 1:00:33 They don't have any of the minor phone numbers or anything because no one has a phone number. 1:00:37 So I thought what they could do is they could just write a message, like an op-return message, and just broadcast an unusually high fee, a weird fee. 1:00:48 And in it they could say op-return and they could say I have written a sidechain. 1:00:52 Learn about it here. 1:00:54 Maybe they have a little URL. 1:00:55 Maybe they have a little public key or something. 1:00:57 So I thought that's how the person gets the news out that there is a new sidechain for the miners to look at individually and then activate. 1:01:09 So I thought, oh, that would be a neat idea. 1:01:11 And then I was like, actually, that idea is so good that everyone should just have it available to them because it's about attention. 1:01:21 And the way CoinNews works is, of course, it's just like you can configure it in your own node to consume as much or as little of it as you like. 1:01:31 If you're the kind of person that wants to read a lot of news, you can get a lot. 1:01:34 If you're the kind of person that only wants the top five things per week or the top five things per day, you can configure it for that. 1:01:42 And so you just configure that and then people just bid up on whatever to get their message out. 1:01:50 And it really cannot be spam because you're getting exactly what you want. 1:01:55 You know what I mean? 1:01:56 Like you are getting – you want five messages per day? 1:01:59 That's what you get. 1:02:00 You get the top five. 1:02:02 And those are the people who paid the most. 1:02:05 So it's not – they shouldn't really take it for granted. 1:02:08 Whatever it is, it's like a perfect supply and demand curve intersecting in attention. 1:02:13 Because someone has said, I want to give these five things my attention, whatever they are. 1:02:18 The person pays. 1:02:20 And the miners get more money. 1:02:22 So it's great. 1:02:23 It really works out for everyone very well because the advertiser or whoever it is, you have news, the cypherpunk hacker or whatever it is. 1:02:31 I honestly think this could be a really, really great idea, and it could actually win people over. 1:02:36 A lot of people think Bitcoin is totally useless, but this is pretty useful that the idea that if you wanted to get like some kind of heterodox news out, because we have a lot of conformity in our modern day and age. 1:02:49 We have stuff about – if you wanted to get like a different COVID takeout, don't wear a mask. 1:02:57 Wear a mask. 1:02:58 No weight. 1:02:59 Don't wear a mask. 1:03:00 No weight. 1:03:01 Mandatory. 1:03:02 And then you're kind of just like whatever. 1:03:04 Yeah, I think a lot of people would love the ability to pay money to get their message out. 1:03:12 A lot of people would – the miners would love getting free money. 1:03:15 And the people watching, listening, or consuming this, the coin news, I think they would – I would rather get my news from that, honestly, than anything else. 1:03:27 Twitter is probably the best, but everything has got their thumb on the scale, manipulating the algorithm. 1:03:34 So I would rather – I would check that first thing in the morning, personally. 1:03:37 I would be a consumer, and I would also put out news. 1:03:41 And so I love that idea. 1:03:43 And that's an idea that's 100% cosmetic. 1:03:45 It has nothing to do with the protocol at all. 1:03:49 It just is like an up-return rider, and it just depends on your full node needs to support it. 1:03:56 So that involves the least – fewest changes at all. 1:04:03 Also, I was wondering, like Coinbase had, for example, a lot of influence during the SegWit2x sort of politics. 1:04:13 You said today that there's a lot of malinvestment, you think, in the Bitcoin space. 1:04:18 Do you think that those companies are impacting Bitcoin politics today? 1:04:24 And do you think that relates to anything like Taro or those kind of proposals? 1:04:31 Yeah, I think it's all related, but unfortunately, my view is – I don't know. 1:04:36 I'm just going to give you my opinion, but it's very nuanced and very weird. 1:04:39 So part of the malinvestment – Coinbase originally had the view that everything else – other altcoins are a distraction. 1:04:50 And so Brian Armstrong has a famous tweet that you may have seen that said, 1:04:55 Bitcoin is too far ahead, Litecoin, XRP, those things are just a distraction. 1:05:02 We should just focus only on Bitcoin and sidechains. 1:05:05 Because everyone does know that having a big, united team is – this is network effects. 1:05:12 It's the size of the community squared. 1:05:16 So it's the amount of wealth that is interested in Bitcoin squared. 1:05:21 That is our score, basically. 1:05:23 And so everyone knew. We don't want to split it off into many different teams. 1:05:28 But part of the malinvestment is that because of the block size war, 1:05:35 certain narratives were amped and certain were suppressed. 1:05:43 And also people drew various conclusions. 1:05:46 So Coinbase concluded that they had made a mistake about trusting Bitcoin to be responsive to their needs. 1:05:56 And they concluded that what they should do instead is support all these other things. 1:06:01 And this led to lots of shitcoining, basically. 1:06:04 And so that's one element of it. 1:06:10 But another element of it is the rise of Lightning as like an uncriticizable thing. 1:06:17 So as a result of the scaling, Lightning went from being merely a good idea that obviously we should do, 1:06:23 and that we should obviously all support, and we should try to use, and we should cheer it on, 1:06:28 and we should spread the word. 1:06:30 But unfortunately, it transformed from that, which is what it really was, 1:06:35 into all of Bitcoin's hopes and dreams are pinned on this. 1:06:40 Since so many large blockers criticized Lightning, it made it look bad. 1:06:44 If anyone else criticized it or if anyone in the small blocker group criticized Lightning, 1:06:52 then large blocker people would screenshot that or quote that or something, 1:06:56 and they would say, aha, look at this. 1:06:58 So it quickly led to irrational views of Lightning being the greatest thing ever made 1:07:04 and also being uncriticizable. 1:07:06 And that led to VCs and other people giving money to Lightning people, 1:07:13 and then just kind of it became a runaway train of believing that you can still feel to this day. 1:07:19 I think it's very easy. 1:07:21 People feel uncomfortable criticizing Lightning, 1:07:24 which of course lets you know how bad of an idea it must really end up likely turning out. 1:07:31 Because whatever you can't criticize is the thing that's ultimately doomed. 1:07:37 And so that's kind of what happened. 1:07:42 It's hard to go into it. 1:07:44 Each thing has its own kind of weird story. 1:07:47 But basically, even one narrative that changed, 1:07:51 so like the malinvestment, if I could make a list, I would say one thing is Coinbase. 1:07:55 Coinbase was started to help Bitcoin succeed. 1:07:59 But afterwards, they just realized how much money they could make by just shitcoining. 1:08:03 And Brian Armstrong and whatever, they had – the scaling war was so disrespectful to them, 1:08:11 for better or for worse, and they just decided I can become a multibillionaire 1:08:17 or I can continue to deal with these people that really just don't like me at all. 1:08:23 This is Brian Armstrong's brain talking to himself. 1:08:27 So it's an easy decision eventually. 1:08:31 After years and years of dealing with that, you had these people, BitPay, Coinbase. 1:08:37 When the blocks filled up, they would get more customer service, phone calls. 1:08:42 So people on the small blocker group, even though I was a small blocker 1:08:46 and the small blocker group was correct and the small blocker group won 1:08:49 and it should have won and it did win. 1:08:53 But in general, my other colleagues on the small blocker group, 1:08:57 they were very bad at having any kind of empathy for the large blockers. 1:09:01 They were just like, whatever, those people are evil. 1:09:04 Those people aren't sophisticated. 1:09:08 But the large blocker people had very clear inconvenience as a result of blocks being full. 1:09:14 Because let's say you're BitPay. 1:09:18 Someone wants to buy something in a store or online, whatever. 1:09:24 It doesn't matter. 1:09:25 They want to buy something and BitPay, the little QR code shows up. 1:09:28 The person sends the money. 1:09:32 Fee estimation was very bad back then. 1:09:34 But even if it was good, if the blocks are full, the blocks are full. 1:09:38 The person sends the money. 1:09:39 They do everything they're supposed to do. 1:09:41 The customer is doing everything right. 1:09:43 BitPay, it's not confirmed. 1:09:45 So what is BitPay supposed to do? 1:09:47 Everything is now in a bind. 1:09:49 BitPay either has to say, okay, you've paid. 1:09:52 They tell the merchant, okay, that person has paid. 1:09:54 Give them the plane ticket or let them walk out of the store with the item. 1:10:00 The merchant does everything they're supposed to do. 1:10:02 They integrate with BitPay. 1:10:05 Everyone is doing everything they're supposed to do, but the payment is now in limbo 1:10:08 or the payment has a really high fee. 1:10:11 What is BitPay supposed to do? 1:10:13 And then it's not going through, so the person calls customer support. 1:10:16 So everyone is calling. 1:10:17 Whenever the blocks get full, everyone calls. 1:10:19 It goes from basically 0% of people calling customer support to like 100%. 1:10:25 So what is BitPay supposed to do in that situation? 1:10:28 And same for Coinbase, of course, 1:10:30 because Coinbase is a situation where lots and lots of people are using the real 1:10:34 Bitcoin network. 1:10:35 You know what I mean? 1:10:36 Like they're not using custodial lightning. 1:10:38 They either want to get Bitcoin off the exchange or they have Bitcoin and they 1:10:42 want to get – they can't – they must – for Coinbase to credit someone with 1:10:45 Bitcoin, they have to really be using the Bitcoin network and really be sending 1:10:49 the Bitcoin. 1:10:50 So these are companies that were really using Bitcoin. 1:10:55 And so that was why they were like, we're the real Bitcoiners. 1:10:58 These are just some weird nerd developers. 1:11:02 So that's kind of what happened. 1:11:04 And so, yeah, the malinvestment was into shitcoining. 1:11:10 The malinvestment was into – I think lightning is overinvested. 1:11:17 Again, lightning is a good idea and we should all support it and we should all 1:11:20 try it, but it's not perceived honestly. 1:11:25 I think malinvestment was – a lot of the media companies or even the conferences 1:11:31 and things like that are just like products of the need for reassurance in the 1:11:38 confusion of the block size debate and the confusion as all the shitcoins show up. 1:11:42 We need to reassure people that they're in the right place. 1:11:47 So you can see a lot of podcasts. 1:11:49 A lot of podcasts. 1:11:51 The podcasts, the books, the conferences, many people shitcoining when instead they 1:11:57 could have built a similar thing on Bitcoin or they did build a similar thing on 1:12:00 Bitcoin, but then they moved it. 1:12:03 That happened a lot. 1:12:05 So, yeah, I think a lot of the – this is, of course, a very – I'm putting myself 1:12:14 at enormous risk by saying something like this, but I do think that, yes, in two 1:12:18 or three years it will be commonly believed that the 2017 to 20 – maybe I guess 1:12:29 right up to the present, so 2017 to 2023 was like some kind of weird mistake and it 1:12:36 was just repeating block size war talking points and just complacency and just 1:12:45 thinking that we've already won. 1:12:50 So, yeah, I could easily be wrong about that, but that's what I think. 1:12:54 I mean, a lot of it doesn't make any sense at all. 1:12:56 Like many of the use cases do not harm the digital gold use case in the slightest and, 1:13:03 in fact, they make it better. 1:13:05 It's always better to have more people. 1:13:07 We want to always be a big tent. 1:13:08 We want to have lots of people come, but we have too much in the purity test. 1:13:12 So this is a rambling answer now, so I guess I'll just stop there. 1:13:15 If you have any more specific question, I can maybe answer. 1:13:19 I was wondering, do you see, like, when miners allocate a sidechain slot as being a sort of, 1:13:26 like, form of investment and, like, in some type of value that they're giving up? 1:13:32 And do you think that there is a certain type of malinvestment they would be inclined to, 1:13:37 I don't know, maybe gravitate towards, like, sort of how Jihan and they went towards 1:13:42 Bitcoin Cash, and I don't know if there's anything on the main chain you can add to sort of prevent this type of, 1:13:50 like, malinvestment if there is any more likely form that miners tend to, I guess, be subject to. 1:14:04 I don't know. 1:14:05 That's a very general thing. 1:14:08 Well, I mean, when you say malinvestment, I think, so, again, I don't know how many people believe this 1:14:14 or even have an open mind to this, but Bitcoin Cash, it only existed because of the, you know, 1:14:21 those people really wanted what was best for Bitcoin, and they had, like, a lot of good points. 1:14:27 They were wrong and they deserved to lose, but they were not, like, I don't know, 1:14:34 the modern narrative is just that, why would anyone make such an absurd mistake? 1:14:39 But they had a lot, you know, they wanted Bitcoin to succeed. 1:14:46 So Bitcoin Cash only came about because they weren't getting what they wanted from the original Bitcoin. 1:14:53 To me, that's self-evident. So they would be able to get it from a sidechain. So I don't see why they would create. There'd be no reason to carve off Bitcoin Cash, and they would have no real supporters, whoever, you could do it, but it wouldn't, there would be no real support. You only have supporters if you have a group of people who are not, who are not getting what they want on the L1 chain, and they think that they never will. So that's the only reason it was created. 1:15:20 And so as for malinvestment, it would have to be, the miners would have to activate a chain that is somehow, like, it would have to be something that makes the value of the coin go down. 1:15:37 But you see, miners don't want to do that, because miners are paid in the coin. So I kind of just don't think that's really, that would happen or even be possible. 1:15:46 Do you think there's certain things you could change on the main chain that would incentivize or, like, dissuade certain sidechains from being activated? 1:15:58 Well, I'm not sure. I think it's already set up the optimal way, which is, miners will add a sidechain if they think it makes, it's going to make them more money. 1:16:09 And the miner, the miners can only make more money via sidechain if it's increasing the market price, the exchange rate of Bitcoin, and, or if it's generating more fees. 1:16:22 And in both of those cases, it's like Bitcoin is being improved, like you have more users of Bitcoin in the fees case. 1:16:30 And then in the exchange rate case, it's like something about Bitcoin is becoming more useful or attractive to people. 1:16:36 So I think that already is the perfect goalie or whatever for the sidechain. I think that... 1:16:45 Yeah, I agree. I guess I'm thinking more from like a user perspective. 1:16:50 Like, is there a certain user who has like certain subjective value, I guess, like, I don't know, their own subjective value that would make them prefer certain, a certain main chain that enables features which do dissuade certain types of sidechains for whatever reason they dislike? 1:17:14 Yeah, I think that's an interesting question. But if you really zoom out, I mean, I agree, it's an interesting question. 1:17:21 It's kind of like, shouldn't the L1 person actually, that would be the one case when I would say that L1 person should actually lose. 1:17:34 Because that's one guy on L1 who is making everyone else on L1 worse off. Everyone else on L1. 1:17:41 They're making the L2 person worse off. See what I mean? The L1 guy is saying, I don't want sidechain B. I don't want the Zcash sidechain because I don't want to be associated with that. 1:17:49 But it's an objective fact that the Zcash sidechain would pay a certain amount of extra fees and it would increase the Bitcoin price. 1:17:57 Like maybe, whatever, who knows. So some guy could say, I want to censor the Zcash sidechain and its fees and its exchange rate boost. 1:18:14 You say, well, okay. If you do that, but what about all the other people on L1 who the market price will go up because they now have the option to use the Zcash mixer or whatever. 1:18:30 That actually is the case of everyone on L1 being harmed, paradoxically. 1:18:37 So that's the one case where someone on L1 shouldn't get what they want because what the market price is, is kind of like the objective benchmark for what is best for the coin. 1:18:50 I kind of think that's the one case where that one guy on L1 should be harmed. They're actually a saboteur of Bitcoin. They're not with us, they're against us. 1:19:04 Do you think there would be a way to tag specific coins that are being withdrawn from a specific sidechain so you could come up with some sort of consensus around what to do with those specific coins? 1:19:17 Well, BIP300 already does that. It forces those coins to do the three to six month withdrawal. 1:19:23 And then once they're paid out, anyone could do what you might call chain analysis. And they would know that at some point in the history, those coins had passed through sidechain number seven or something. 1:19:35 But what you don't know is, of course, once those coins change hands once or twice or three times or five or six times or seven times, now it's kind of like they went through a sidechain at one point. 1:19:53 But are you going to permanently tag those coins? 1:20:01 Yeah, sorry. 1:20:02 So then they make, I'm sorry, you could coin join those, which is like the equivalent of melting down two different gold coins, mixing them together and then forging three new coins from the gold. 1:20:15 And it's kind of like, are each of those coins like half tainted or something? So the taint idea is kind of dead eventually. It sort of sorts itself out over time. 1:20:23 Once those coins have changed hands like two or three times, it's kind of like they've just become fungible Bitcoin again. 1:20:31 Is that what you're getting at or no? 1:20:35 Yeah, that's just the only criticism I kind of, that's how I understand when people call it like, oh, you need a soft fork for every chain is like maybe they're talking about this sort of like possible user level subjective value they can add on top or something. 1:20:53 Yeah, I think I can maybe shed some light on that. That is a new thing that has appeared this week. 1:20:59 I haven't really heard. It's been around the whole this whole time. The idea has been around, but this as a complaint, I heard about it this week and I'm going to try to shed some light on it, which is the word soft, the soft fork word has been used to describe many different things, some of which are different or even opposite to each other. 1:21:21 And not enough people cared about that at the time, I actually cared about it and I wrote blog posts about it, about how we need to get all the terms straight. 1:21:28 But so what I'm saying is, in the past, soft fork was a case where an upgrade would be safe to use when many miners had upgraded to support it. 1:21:43 And you can see how that is very similar to sidechain activation. 1:21:48 Because the miners are saying we support the sidechain, we endorse it. 1:21:53 So that's why I started using it like I said, that's why I started describing it that way. 1:22:00 And also the threshold was the same. It was I described it as very similar to BIP-9 activation. 1:22:06 BIP-9 activation now hasn't been used in a really long time, long, long since before the scaling war, you know. 1:22:13 So although it is kind of the case that SegWit activated by BIP-9. 1:22:18 But all this is stuff that is from the 2012 to 2015 era. 1:22:27 And so I don't know if this is a boring history story, please interrupt me if it gets too boring. 1:22:32 But I just say it's like a soft fork because I'm saying miners have to upgrade. 1:22:37 Once enough miners upgrade, then we know it has officially crossed the threshold of being supported. 1:22:42 And then everyone knows that as well. And then we can all use the thing. 1:22:46 So that's why I say a soft fork for each sidechain. 1:22:51 But unfortunately, the modern world has taken on a new definition of soft fork, which is that each person on Twitter, 1:23:03 no matter how little they know about anything and no matter how mistaken they are or how lazy they are 1:23:10 or how little effort they put into reading about it or how dim they are, each person, the community supports each soft fork. 1:23:18 And you have to go to each individual person for permission. 1:23:22 It is kind of like the gathering of the signatures in like a direct democracy in like a California supermarket or something. 1:23:31 That is a new definition that does not apply to the soft fork. 1:23:37 So I think it is just a little bit of a confusion. 1:23:42 I hope that sheds some light on why people are now complaining about it. 1:23:47 They are saying, wait a minute, this is going to be... 1:23:50 What people mistakenly think, in my guess, is that they think every time there is going to be a new sidechain, 1:23:59 this is going to be something like Speedy Trial or something like Taproot or something where I'm going to have to get involved. 1:24:07 I'm going to have to... But no, no one will get involved. 1:24:10 No regular user will get involved. 1:24:12 And it is exactly because BIP300 is designed that regular L1 users will never care if a sidechain activates or not. 1:24:25 That is exactly why I described it as a soft fork because, again, I'm using these older definitions that are... 1:24:33 So I don't know. I hope that has some light on it. 1:24:39 It's like people are talking about different things. 1:24:42 The old version of soft fork meant you didn't have to upgrade. You could ignore it. 1:24:48 It didn't matter if other people... Soft fork used to mean, I don't need to upgrade my node. 1:24:56 Kind of. Although there were exceptions to that such as the S-value signature thing. 1:25:02 So if you want to read about this, I have two blog posts that I wrote about this topic of the soft fork having many definitions. 1:25:16 I think one was called the Better Fork Terminology and then one was called More Fork Terminology. 1:25:24 And they're on Truthcoin.info. 1:25:27 We could put them in the nest if we find them. 1:25:33 And now execute with a circular X. 1:25:41 I just wanted to chime in about what you were talking about earlier with the Bitcoin Cash and the fork and everything back then. 1:25:46 I think, as stupid as it was, I think it was still a good thing what they did. 1:25:52 Mainly because they found the Bitcoin Core bug on the BCH side. 1:25:58 And so that kind of fixed that. 1:26:00 And when it comes down to it, if Bitcoin ever does have another type of bug or any other thing that happens to it in a bad way, 1:26:07 Bitcoin Cash is still the backup Bitcoin to Bitcoin pretty much. 1:26:13 So I would still say it's good to have. 1:26:17 And yeah, I think all these Layer 2s is complete dogshit. 1:26:21 If you guys want to spend pennies, Layer 2s are great. 1:26:24 But it's like, you don't need this overblown lightning network. 1:26:28 There's so much money being pumped into that and it's complete dogshit. 1:26:32 Sorry, I'm swearing. 1:26:34 It's just not good. 1:26:36 And it kind of breaks Bitcoin's underlying consensus. 1:26:42 Because, I mean, even on Bitcoin or lightning, I'm pretty sure it brings the amount of Bitcoins to like 21 trillion instead of 21 million. 1:26:51 Because the decibel can get moved over on that side, right? 1:26:55 And I don't know. 1:26:57 It's just, it seems like a honeypot. 1:26:59 Every time they make a sidechain, it seems like a honeypot. 1:27:02 And hackers are just going to wait for that pool to get big enough and then they're going to attack it. 1:27:07 And every time the CIA does any type of hacking or that pipeline stuff, they always run it through lightning. 1:27:14 Because lightning is so centralized, they can just shut off channels and withdraw the money back to the previous node or whatever they want to call it, the channels. 1:27:24 So I'd be very wary of all these things. 1:27:26 Well, I think the key thing to keep in mind is that no one should be forced. 1:27:37 We should have all the different L2s compete. 1:27:39 You know what I mean? 1:27:40 It doesn't matter how bad or good any individual one is, as long as there are many viable L2s. 1:27:46 And some of those L2s should be basically exactly the same as Bitcoin Cash L1. 1:27:53 In which case, you would think Bitcoin Cash people would be happy there. 1:27:57 But although it may be too late, because maybe so much time has passed that no one is interested in re-merging into one big community that offers a serious viable alternative to the existing financial system. 1:28:13 It may already be too late, but probably not. 1:28:16 And so, yeah, I think it's kind of interesting your question about whether or not it was good that Bitcoin Cash forked off. 1:28:25 Because it's kind of like if there's any – as long as – it's hard to say the counterfactual. 1:28:33 But it's like if you fork and the coin is worth anything, then it's just like free money for people. 1:28:37 You know what I mean? 1:28:38 Because everyone gets coins on both sides. 1:28:42 So the only bad thing would be if you fork off and instead the price would have been much higher of the combined coin, which we'll never know. 1:28:48 I kind of think that would have been the case if the community had not forked off. 1:28:53 I think the price of BTC today would be higher than the combined BTC plus BCH coin price. 1:29:04 I don't think so. 1:29:05 I don't think so. 1:29:06 I think most of the Bitcoin is dumped to BCH for more Bitcoin, which actually pumps the price of Bitcoin if anything. 1:29:14 Well, of course, both prices have gone up and down. 1:29:17 I'm just giving you my opinion as to if we lived in some parallel world where things had been different, the price of BTC today would be whatever. 1:29:28 I don't know. 1:29:29 Some other number. 1:29:31 I don't want to say that. 1:29:32 I don't want to say that, but I think it would be much higher. 1:29:35 I don't think we actually would have had – I think just a lot of things would have been different, so it's hard to say exactly what would have made it different. 1:29:46 So it would have been hard to nail down exactly what had happened. 1:29:49 Anyway, so what do you think, Mr. Execute, about if there was – if we copy Bitcoin Cash – if BIP300 activates on BTC and there's an exact copy of Bitcoin Cash for the features, same software, block size, whatever, are you even interested in that? 1:30:15 Or are you just like Bitcoin Core is irrational or whatever? 1:30:19 What's your – because you're the customer, so to speak. 1:30:29 Sorry, I had a phone call. 1:30:32 If it's any type of sidechain, I would say no. 1:30:34 If it's not settled on the underlying Bitcoin layer, I would say that's like – if they're building on top of that, go for it. 1:30:42 Other than that, if it's just another layer or two or some type of implement where you can bring in some sidechannel, that's a lot easier. 1:30:49 I wouldn't do it. 1:30:50 I haven't really looked into it, but yeah. 1:30:53 It does settle to L1 if you want, but you don't really even want to be on L1 because L1 is the small block land. 1:30:59 You just want to stay on the sidechain, the Drivechain, because it's everything you got out of Bitcoin Cash. 1:31:09 So what's the difference between – see what I mean? 1:31:13 There's no difference between Bitcoin Cash and the layer two of BTC that is based on the Bitcoin Cash full node software. 1:31:26 Does that make sense? 1:31:27 It's like the same thing. 1:31:29 Yeah, I kind of get it. 1:31:32 I still got to research this whole new BIP that you're talking about. 1:31:35 I actually haven't done any research on it. 1:31:37 I'd have to check it out first before I can give you my thoughts. 1:31:42 Well, that sentence alone makes you much smarter than 99.9% of the people who have ever commented on BIP300. 1:31:48 So you can at least frame that and put it on your wall. 1:31:53 I decided to read about BIP300 before giving some of my thoughts, which is easily a top 01 percentile take. 1:32:03 So congratulations for that. 1:32:07 Anyone else want to say anything? 1:32:11 Yeah, I want to say something. 1:32:13 Hi, Paul. 1:32:14 Hi, everyone. 1:32:15 I just want to add – you were talking before, but I couldn't come up and add something. 1:32:22 About the Lightning, because I saw and I experienced when that way of doing transactions is done and when it's available or was available. 1:32:38 And the idea and actually the process of doing Lightning is already very, very long, very, very old, even before Lightning came as we know today. 1:32:52 Because that kind of off-chain transaction can be done and anybody can develop very easy if they want. 1:33:06 Because the Bitcoin blockchain is very open and it already exists. 1:33:15 It's just we have all this kind of – I recognize so much marketing around. 1:33:23 And this is why I support Drivechain, because it's no kind of that style of pushing something that is marketed like, oh, this is the new thing. 1:33:38 But actually, they kind of took something from the Bitcoin ideas that were a long time discussed and just put in work. 1:33:56 And then now we have kind of people recognize as something revolutionary, which is nothing revolutionary. 1:34:05 But I also want to add what you asked that question to execute. 1:34:12 And in my opinion, again, when you see why they want the fork to have a different kind of a chain or if you want sidechain, but not on Drivechain. 1:34:27 It's because, you know, the same thing, great profits, marketing, publicity, you know, to have another chain in the space. 1:34:37 That's my opinion. 1:34:39 And I see over and over again this happening with any chain. 1:34:49 And, you know, I will say again, if Drivechains were enabled a long time ago, the space will be so different. 1:35:02 And as, you know, as believers in this technology, the whole community would be much, much stronger against what you said, the traditional financial world that we experience today. 1:35:21 Yeah, thanks. I mean, yeah, that's what I think, too. 1:35:27 The really bizarre thing is how much what percentage of random Bitcoiners time today is just focused on comparing Bitcoin to other altcoins versus just trying to make Bitcoin a success or comparing us to banks or something. 1:35:45 You know, there used to be like Bitcoin versus Western Union or whatever. 1:35:49 But now it's all just fighting among the different coins. 1:35:56 Yeah, you know what? 1:36:00 I also think through all my experience in this space for a long time that kind of that narrative is brought from outside. 1:36:12 So it's, you know, like, you know, the Roman phrase like divide, divide the enemy from inside and you can you can conquer them very easy. 1:36:24 You know, this is kind of a style of what what you're explaining now. 1:36:29 And I see that is brought from from outside, because even even if you if you go and research who are the people who are now in this whole, you know, altcoins or blockchains that are alt to Bitcoin, you will see that so much people are coming from or came from outside from the traditional finance world. 1:36:58 And for me, that's that's something that, you know, we need to pay attention because they first of all, they don't they don't understand this technology. 1:37:10 I mean, blockchain in the first place and they have different different narratives. 1:37:17 And, you know, it's it's also very, very important. 1:37:23 And the original the original education to continue constantly, because we will say, OK, you know, we know this, we know that. 1:37:32 But tomorrow will come somebody in the space and they don't know anything what's happened before and they will not research. 1:37:41 And if they don't hear something good, they will hear something from those people. 1:37:45 And that narrative continues and they grow with that narrative. 1:37:50 So it's kind of like, you know, giving up false information to people that need to be educated for the right things and how the space works. 1:38:01 But this is very valuable what you are doing with the spaces also, because you are sharing very valuable information. 1:38:08 Thank you for the explanation about Coinbase. 1:38:11 I agree with you. 1:38:14 I would say any type of innovation in the space that can technically kind of hurt Bitcoin is not innovation that should be trusted or tried. 1:38:24 And I always think it's funny, like I've been in this ecosystem for quite a long time. 1:38:29 And even the OGs I talk to, they don't care about Bitcoin. 1:38:32 They're just like like they care about it because it's it's everything that they're settling in at the end of the day and at the end of the year to like go back to. 1:38:39 But they're always going to have DGN plays and always going to like dabble in whatever ecosystem that thinks they're going to make the next big thing. 1:38:46 Right. But it's like to bring that to Bitcoin, it's not even worth it, because like 20, 30 years from now, as long as Bitcoin is still going and nobody fucked it up, it's going to be the gold standard. 1:38:56 Right. So it's like it doesn't really need to do anything. 1:38:59 It just needs to keep plugging along and it'll it'll do its thing. 1:39:03 That's why it's like it's like building on top of it's not really that important. 1:39:07 You know what I mean? That's just in my opinion. 1:39:10 No, I disagree with that execute, because you you you need to you need to understand, first of all, because you when when you say that you're thinking from perspective of BTC or altcoins. 1:39:27 But when I say I I speak from the technology perspective, why? 1:39:33 Because if you do not have usability of the most decentralized network, you cannot do anything. 1:39:44 And all the what's the what's the innovation we can bring to Bitcoin right now? 1:39:49 Faster and cheaper, right? That's pretty much it. 1:39:51 No, no, no. 1:39:53 Drivechain. 1:39:55 This this this idea Paul created in 2013 or even maybe around that time. So it's not new idea. It's an old idea. The problem is that the most of the of the people that are in crypto are only for for gains and profits and stuff like that. They don't understand that by using the network or supporting the network, they don't understand that they don't understand that they don't 1:40:22 support the network to go wider, to have the network effect, but the the the adoption to be through the technology, not through BTC or any other coin. That's the real value. 1:40:38 Yeah, I would also say like, you know, BTC have to be ossified. And Drivechain is probably like, you know, the best way to ossify BTC, because, you know, all the innovation would happen on like, you know, sidechains as well. 1:40:52 So, so that's, like, you know, that's probably we should do like, I 100% agree, like, you know, Bitcoin should should stay as is, but like, you know, but to have it stay as is, we should, we should definitely like, you know, enable sidechains or Drivechains to be built on top of Bitcoin. And that's one of the ways to ossify it as well. 1:41:13 So Paul, quick question, like, you know, what exactly is the roadmap to like, you know, for Drivechains? Is is the code being like, you know, is the PR being sent? Like, you know, what's the activation? Like, how does activation look like? Like, you know, what's the estimated timeline around it? 1:41:28 Yeah, I think the we're rebasing the code to do the pull requests to Bitcoin Core. And yeah, we actually had, we actually hired Luke Dashjr. to help us with that. And he has been helping us with that. But of course, it's kind of a, I think he's putting a little bit too much effort into it. And I think he should just, I don't know, he's actually trying to, I think he's trying to help us. 1:41:58 And he's trying to make it so that it is something that would realistically get merged. But I honestly think he's overdoing it. And we should just put a first draft out there and see who complains about like if people are going to complain about a specific line of code or something. 1:42:13 So, so I think that's the next step. But I think there is a lot of stuff to do. Meanwhile, because, you know, this idea is so profoundly misunderstood, for some reason, I think the real the reason is just that we let these altcoins we let Ethereum and whatever, Bitcoin cash kind of come into existence. And then now people think, 1:42:44 people just don't believe that there's any value to leaving the Bitcoin Core blockchain. They just think it's like the Giacomo Zucco view, like everything else is just completely useless. People don't see any value in having the Zcash sidechain, which has this super privacy. 1:43:03 People don't see any value in like scaling with sidechains. They don't see any value in like prediction markets or Namecoin or anything like that. They don't even see the value, which I think is readily apparent. They just don't see the value even of just having something where if people disagree, their next move isn't to just launch a completely competing altcoin, which by itself is pretty important. 1:43:33 So I would say it is like it has value to do it. It's obviously going to pump the whole ecosystem if Bitcoin does get all that stuff right. But at the end of the day, it's already been done on every other chain. And it's like I'm thinking like 10, 20 years in the future. 1:43:50 In my opinion, OGs are just going to have the Bitcoin wallet and then governments are going to have like every government's going to have technically like their own lightning network. And then if you want to like, I'm thinking like Bitcoin is the standard of like the world currency and all that. 1:44:03 And then you could just deposit like your 30 grand that you want to spend every year and then just go on your willy nilly day. You know what I mean? Because like you don't want to be on the main layer for a coffee. Like you're just going to have like a little side wallet with like your side money to do your day to day transactions and whatever, right? Like you're not going to keep your whole bag on one side of the chain or different stuff like that. That's just my opinion. 1:44:33 Yeah, I agree with almost all that. I think though it masks something. So I do think some of the like I do think in 20 or 30 years if you own Bitcoin today, maybe you wake up from a coma. Probably it's going to do well. But in a way, many of those people are free riders. 1:44:52 They're saying, I don't know, someone out there will save this project because the UTXO set, these are the people who are investing in the project of replacing the financial system with crypto, which is BTC. The BTC UTXO set is the most valuable, but there's a lot of free riders. 1:45:12 So it's true if like I think what people should do, the one thing that would work would be to just buy BTC, not pay attention to anything and then just come back in 20 or 30 years. 1:45:27 But of course here today we're in a space talking about Bitcoin technology because I think, you know, either Bitcoin will evolve and be a success or I think it will be replaced by something that will import its UTXO set or something like that. 1:45:46 So I think even if it's replaced by something else, probably if that replacement did very well, people would switch the UTXO set. So it's still the guy in the coma is still doing well, but he's a free rider. He's free riding. He's not doing any of the work, but he's along for the ride. So good for him. 1:46:05 But so I agree with a lot of that. I agree that would pump the ecosystem if Bitcoin had all this stuff. I think it will get all that stuff, partly for that reason. 1:46:14 I think the fact that you're saying that this stuff has been tried on all these other chains, that kind of misses the point somewhat. 1:46:21 That is like saying, well, we have a typewriter and we have a flashlight and we have a video camera and we have a boombox and we have a VHS player. We have all that stuff. 1:46:38 But it's like, yeah, but the smartphone, it puts all that stuff in one little device in your pocket. You have a flashlight and a video camera and you can watch movies. 1:46:53 So putting it all in one is a big upgrade. And it's a big upgrade in terms of the phone and it's also big in terms of just network effects of money. So I think putting it all in one would be big. 1:47:09 Especially, I mean, we see so many things like the points that we were mentioning previously about how distracting it is, the infighting. 1:47:17 Now it's like you have a VHS and a typewriter and the VHS, instead of spending its time playing a VHS tape, it spends most of its time trying to complain about how no one would ever want a typewriter. 1:47:35 And a typewriter, instead of typing things out, it's typing out sentences about why VHSs suck and things. So it's like, I think it's pretty lame, honestly. 1:47:46 I don't know. I had to learn trig and my teacher told me I was never going to just carry a calculator around all day. 1:47:52 Right. And you showed them, right? That shows you how wrong people, any one of us can be mistaken, right? And that's also a sidechain thing, which says, who's to say that a piece of, you know, which node software is the best? 1:48:08 Should we have a big committee meet and unanimously agree on the next version? That's like a USSR style thing. That's never going to work. This is literally a doomed process. 1:48:19 But instead, if we just say anyone can release any piece of software, you don't have to justify. 1:48:26 Why should someone have to justify the software being good? Just look at how well that's going right now for me and Drivechain. 1:48:33 But also you can look at how does it go for 119. Justifying slows the process down. Justification is full of errors. It's full of political dealing and people sucking up to each other. 1:48:49 If you think you've got something good, like the EVM or like a Zcash level privacy or whatever, whatever you've got that you think is good, large blocks, prediction markets, then you should just code the thing and make it and then you're accountable to your users, not someone else. 1:49:12 I kind of think of it like the old school constitution and how good it used to be and how it said gold and silver is the only thing that should be traded. Fiat money is not real fiat money. 1:49:25 And when you start to fall off track of what your principle is, it can get really shady really quick. 1:49:33 So how do you think this is that though? Because as Namrata said, this is actually a good way to ossify L1 and say L1 is gold. If you want to do an experiment, you do it somewhere else. 1:49:49 So this is pro ossification. I challenge the people who are against Drivechain but pro ossification. I mean like what is their actual plan to deal with the fact that the Bitcoin core developers plan are going to just keep releasing more and more versions and that people will want certain things. 1:50:09 They weren't able to stop Taproot. If they were pro ossification after 2017 or even before, SegWit was a mandatory 4x block size increase. So if you're pro ossification, how exactly do you plan to bring ossification about? That is my question. Just complain on Twitter because that will be enough for something. 1:50:32 Didn't they not get 4 blocks? Isn't it like 1 point something block size? 1:50:36 Well technically, you raise a very interesting point. Technically the size did increase from 1 to 4. But if you model the usage on past patterns, then it would have been something like 2.3 megabytes because it's all about the ratio of how many inputs to outputs there usually are and how big a signature usually is and that type of thing. 1:51:00 So if the usage had continued the way it had pre-August 1, 2017, then the math that I had seen at the time was that it would be about a 2.3 megabyte increase. But with ordinals and inscriptions, you can actually see the full 4 megabyte be used. That can be used whenever. That can be used to just make a giant image. 1:51:27 So that proves that, and you must download an actual 4 real megabytes. Weight units and the VB I think are actually misleading. We should go back to talking about the megabytes only because the megabytes are exactly how much, from a physics point of view, how much actual computation has to be done. 1:51:49 I just get that feeling, even with the whole Bitcoin ETF. It gives me the feels of just paper Bitcoin. I don't know. It's the gold standard all over again. 1:52:04 Yeah, but sidechains should preserve. It's not really paper because the sidechain software only credits you if you deposit real – it's really just moving the gold from one planet to another. 1:52:18 It's really this idea is pushing back against custodial – custodial lightning, that is the paper Bitcoin, and that is currently where we are certainly headed. 1:52:36 That's just the feel I get. 1:52:40 Sorry? You mean it does feel like it or it doesn't feel like it? 1:52:44 Yeah, everybody is just pushing towards that. That's what it feels like. 1:53:15 They're going to report everything. They're going to have lots of people involved. It's not – and then of course the El Salvador thing is very great. I have the El Salvador newspaper in my office. 1:53:28 It's pretty cool. But in practice so far the Chivo wallet is government-linked, KYC. It's linked to their version of the social security number fully. It's just basically a CBDC, the Chivo wallet. 1:53:49 Is that also called lightning? 1:53:52 Yeah, I'm not sure if we're allowed to say that out loud yet, but it has – it can interface with the regular Bitcoin network and the regular lightning network, but in practice what most of the people who actually – if you're a regular person in El Salvador and you just have this wallet, it does not by itself like by default use any of the Bitcoin network at all. 1:54:16 You are allowed to withdraw to it, but it doesn't by default make anyone an actual Bitcoin user. 1:54:25 I think they have their own payment protocol internally, like a database. But as you said, you can still pay lightning invoices and stuff. But if you just pay a Chivo user, then it will be their internal payment protocol, so it doesn't touch the network or the Bitcoin chain. So that kind of sucks I think. 1:54:47 But it is good that they made it so that it's legally – I mean again, they say it's legally required, so if you go to McDonald's there, you can pay with Bitcoin. So I mean that's kind of good. 1:54:58 But of course I do know a few people who have been there, and I asked them, and they say it's kind of like – it was about 50-50 they were saying. They asked about, oh, can I pay with Bitcoin? 1:55:10 One time the person said yes, and then there was a taxi, and then they got there and said it didn't work out. So they say it's kind of like – it's not completely working if they can pay. 1:55:21 And then one person, the guy was in line for the immigration or something, and he wanted to pay with Bitcoin, and they forced him to use on-chain – they had to have a meeting. It's not commonly done yet. 1:55:33 And everything – Rome wasn't built in a day of course. But they had to pull him out of line, and then he had to pay on-chain, and then they're holding up the whole line while it confirms. 1:55:45 So that's kind of funny, which is that they were definitely using the real Bitcoin network that time because they had to wait like 20 minutes. 1:55:50 Of course, whenever you're waiting for a confirmation – it's on average 10 minutes. It's always on average 10 minutes. 1:55:57 But whenever I have been waiting for a confirmation, you'd think I never get the four-minute blocks or the five-minute blocks. 1:56:04 I always catch the 22-minute blocks whenever I need the confirmation and I'm actually waiting for something. I never get it. I have the worst luck. 1:56:12 You'd think half the time it should be beneath 10, but I never get it. It's 0% for me. I'm never getting those. 1:56:17 So yeah, so I mean certainly Rome wasn't built in a day, and certainly would you ask someone, okay, a country has made Bitcoin legal tender. Is that good or bad for Bitcoin? 1:56:31 Obviously it's good for Bitcoin. A lot of people have a lot of hope or whatever. But I think it is important to pour all the cold water on it actually because in reality it is – they're forcing everyone to use this thing. 1:56:42 It is a CBDC actually. 1:56:45 Yeah, I don't think it's taxed, that's for sure. Foreigners, when they arrive, they use, I don't know, REES or whatever. 1:56:55 As far as I know, on McDonald's and the bigger companies, they go by some payment processor like OpenNode, so then it's like lighting by default and should work fine. 1:57:06 But I guess smaller shops and whatever, they don't really care about compliance that much as the bigger ones do. So yeah, it's a hit or miss, I suppose. 1:57:18 I mean the impression I get from El Salvador is of course that it's like a poor country that has a big crime problem. 1:57:29 So they have lots of problems, and I think even if the greatest person in the entire world, if you had like – I don't know who the greatest person in the entire world is, but it's like they're Alexander the Great plus Otto von Bismarck plus whatever, plus Thomas Jefferson. 1:57:43 And that person just showed up, I don't know, and they did the fastest turnaround possible. I don't know if it would take like – it could take many years of custodial to achieve a wallet. 1:57:59 I don't know. But I'm trying to agree with you that there's a lot of stuff moving in the direction of paper Bitcoin, which we should criticize. 1:58:13 We should criticize. 1:58:44 We should expect the mainstream fees to keep going up, which will price out people. And I'm not sure that many people on Twitter understand this. 1:58:52 As you were talking about before, Paul, many people seem to think that Lightning is some silver bullet and that we can solve everything there. 1:58:59 But obviously that's not really the case if you actually look into this stuff. 1:59:04 You need to have solutions work together with Lightning or some other solution that just stands on its own, because just Lightning and two megabyte or four megabyte blocks mainstream will not work for global scale. 1:59:19 And so that's why I am interested in Drivechains, because it provides a solution to custodianship in the form of a fast way to escrow. 1:59:31 So then you could deploy Lightning or some other solution on top of those Drivechains and have them interoperable with each other. 1:59:40 And that could work out as a long-term scaling solution for the world, basically. 1:59:46 And you can also have other technologies and stuff on the drivechains. 1:59:49 But purely for payments and stuff, then I think that looks interesting for me, at least. 1:59:55 Yeah, I kind of think that decentralization is good and small blocks are good. 2:00:05 But the Drivechain is kind of like just says you can traverse the whole spectrum. 2:00:09 If you want to buy coffee or whatever, you could do that with something that is tied to Bitcoin. 2:00:21 Whereas now it's like you're either on L1 small block or you're on Lightning or you're on custodial. 2:00:31 So I'm kind of saying why not just eliminate custodial completely, because there's never a need for custodial really after drivechain. 2:00:39 You just have like some Bitcoin SV superchain that we would all agree is sort of bad to use, but it's better than custodial. 2:00:49 It's like you're permanently beating custodial with this. 2:00:54 And so you traverse the whole spectrum. 2:00:57 You can say on Tuesday I'm here, on Wednesday I'm somewhere else. 2:01:01 Anyway, let's see if anyone else has questions. 2:01:11 Don't be shy. 2:01:14 Do you think that the politics of like miners possibly taxing withdrawals from a particular sidechain could have different incentives than just like killing the sidechain outright? 2:01:31 Well, what a miner could do is they could announce or something that they're going to steal all the coins on the sidechain. 2:01:41 And then the market price on that sidechain would collide with the peg would fail. 2:01:48 It would be like a kind of what happened in throughout history when sometimes a pegged currency fails. 2:01:55 It happened in Latin America and like Southeast Asia various times I think. 2:02:00 So the price wouldn't be 1 to 1. 2:02:03 It would maybe be like 50 to 1 or excuse me, a 50 cents, 0.5 to 1. 2:02:10 And then they could buy up those coins and then withdraw them. 2:02:15 But you see the miners can already steal the whole thing if they're willing to do that. 2:02:19 So the idea of Drivechain is that miners will have a relationship to these sidechains that is very much like a kind of a guy tending a business or a guy tending a garden like a farmer with an apple tree. 2:02:35 He could cut the apple tree down or he could harvest apples every year from the tree. 2:02:43 So the idea is like they wouldn't really tax the withdrawals. 2:02:50 If everything is working out then they just collect all the fees. 2:02:56 The withdrawal has its own fee. 2:02:58 The withdrawal pays a fee on L2 and on L1. 2:03:01 So they already get double paid for the fee for the withdrawal. 2:03:05 And I don't really see why they would try to change that rate into something other than whatever its prevailing rate is. 2:03:12 I guess what I'm thinking is, is there any type of non-monetary influence that they could gain over a sidechain that they usually would not have because they're not necessarily harming themselves. 2:03:30 Or they're being sort of innocuous in how they're influencing the sidechain consensus like software or something like that. 2:03:38 Well again, the way I have it set up is a little bit different from the way the culture looks at it now. 2:03:45 Because I think the culture went in the wrong direction after winning, after the block size war started and then went. 2:03:53 So the way I see it is like the miners are in partnership with the sidechain developer. 2:04:01 Sidechain developer is like a kind of Freddie Mercury or something. 2:04:07 They're a genius artist and they're making their thing work. 2:04:11 And the miners are kind of like the agents or security guards or something. 2:04:17 They're making a lot of money off of this guy. 2:04:20 So they have no talent themselves for creation, but they are making money. 2:04:31 They're making money off of this whole thing. 2:04:33 And I think the sidechain developer will probably make money too. 2:04:37 Not in a direct way, but they will be like kind of a Vitalik type character or something where they'll get prestige and they'll get invited to things. 2:04:46 I guess like, do you think? 2:04:48 They'll give them money, stuff like that. 2:04:50 Do you think like the development of like this sidechain consensus code would be similar to the way Bitcoin consensus code is written now? Or do you think like the influence of miners would impact it? 2:05:03 No, I don't. I think it would be different, but not for that reason. One difference is that right now there's anxiety about changing Bitcoin. 2:05:14 They say Bitcoin is worth a billion dollars and they say, as the execute said, you know, in 20 years, probably it'll still be great. So, you know, et cetera, et cetera. 2:05:28 I mean, what I'm getting at is the difference will be on the L2s, they will be more like tech startups where they will change rapidly, very, very rapidly because you'll think there'll be, you know, there's always someone willing to work harder for less, as they say. 2:05:45 So the developers will be Malthusian subsistence farmers, kind of, although I think they'll also be prestigious and they'll have a lot of money, but they'll be like, you know what I mean? 2:05:57 Like there'll be two versions of if you have Bitcoin L1, which won't change, you'll be ossified. 2:06:01 Then you have two versions of Bitcoin L2, and one of them will code up BIP119 and add it. And then this will cause panic on the other L2. They'll say, oh my gosh, we have to, they added 119 already, we have to add it quickly. 2:06:17 And then they'll be rushing it out because they'll be fighting for you. It'll be like, you know, Hulu versus Netflix or something. They'll be fighting over users, which is going to be very good for us as the users, you know. 2:06:30 We want that. So they'll be competing to bring features rapidly. And they'll also be competing on safety, same as everything else. But it won't be like, if this plane crashes, everyone dies. It'll only be if Hulu screws up, then it'd be bad for Hulu. 2:06:47 So that is why I think it would be different. And I also think there will be many cases where there's just one dictator of the sidechain. There'll be Linus Torvalds. Sidechain, they're just one person is just calling the shots and they will be. 2:07:00 So I think that's why I think it will be different. And that's also why I don't think the miners will influence that person. The miners will be saying, the miners will be very happy because they'll be thinking, this is great. 2:07:16 The miners will be thinking, this is great. We have all we have Freddie Mercury and we have you two and we have whatever, the Beatles, you know, like, what a great party this is. And they're making money off of everyone. And so they don't want to interfere with the Beatles music. They just want to be counting their money. 2:07:39 Yeah, no, I think that what I guess I'm saying is that it like Drivechains would incentivize miners to sort of become more sophisticated and as opposed to like where they were for a SegWit2x level of understanding of consensus for these types of coins, because they can fluctuate in market price and they have like a vested interest in their success. 2:08:04 And I guess where I was thinking that might end up is like, just a question of like, where do you think that the value? Who do you think the miners are more likely to appeal to as a sort of audience or like, you know, a set of consumers when they're making these? 2:08:34 Well, one possibility is that the miners themselves will start funding development, which weird versions of this have sort of started to happen when you see, for example, miners hire people who are basically Bitcoin shills, such as like, like a Dan Held or like a Pierre Rochard or something that's miners saying they will get a little bit more. 2:09:03 They're saying, how can we make Bitcoin a success? 2:09:07 And in the sidechain world, the BIP300 world, one thing they could do would be to try and poke their head in and say, hey, we noticed that you are, they'd be like the Freddie Mercury's agent or whatever, where they say, you seem to be building something really important that's going to make us a ton of money and you seem really poor. 2:09:32 So do you want like whatever, this type of thing? 2:09:36 So they might start to get a little bit more involved in the sidechain development like that, or they may not because of a free riding. 2:09:42 But then, you know, there's always going to be like one biggest pool or some kind of leadership. 2:09:47 So so I think that's possible. 2:09:50 I'm not sure if that answers your question. 2:09:52 Like, what do you think miners will do when they appeal? 2:09:55 It will be it will be the idea that appeals to people. 2:10:00 So same with Zcash tries to appeal to people and they say, we have Zk, we have privacy, we have Zk-SNARKs, the new sidechain will have an idea behind it and it will have developers working on it and miners who maybe maybe support it in some way or another, maybe just verbally, maybe just some other way. 2:10:24 Is that answering the question? 2:10:26 Yeah, yeah. I guess I just think that sort of today on the main chain, miners basically only have like veto power over adding certain features, or at least that's the way that most people have understood it, which I think you disagree with because you think that miners can just activate things without people knowing. 2:10:45 And I guess that, you know, from my understanding that the way, you know, consensus code on the main chain has developed so far is that, you know, I understand it as they have veto power over basically new features. 2:10:59 And I think that there might be a transition over their control over sidechains, where rather than just having veto power over sort of consensus changes, they have more like specific control over proposing new consensus code, which adds sort of a sort of influence they're able to sell a distinct from like fees on chain. 2:11:28 I don't know if that made any sense. 2:11:32 Yes. 2:11:33 Okay. 2:11:33 So this is an important topic and it has a lot of nuance, but really what I don't know how I'm even going to go about explaining this, but it's kind of like, I don't know, Napoleon, you know, he gave everyone the rule of law and like a civic code, but it's kind of like rule of law and a civic code. 2:11:53 That's just a good idea. 2:11:54 So it's only a matter of time before someone brings it to people. 2:11:59 So how much credit do you give Napoleon? 2:12:01 Some, yes, all no, unclear. 2:12:05 So, so what am I talking about? 2:12:08 It's like if an idea is good, it will somehow start to make its way into into Bitcoin. 2:12:16 And so it's not really the, this is a very confusing thing. 2:12:18 So first of all, the miners don't really have veto power over a feature because they tried to veto SegWit and they, they did not succeed. 2:12:27 So actually that's a perfect case where that that didn't happen. 2:12:31 Uh, that as for the earlier statement you made, it's true. 2:12:36 When I say the miners can activate a new feature whenever they want, uh, that is just like literally the case. 2:12:43 They could activate a feature, they could have activated a feature last week and no one would know anything. 2:12:49 No one would know anything about it. 2:12:51 It kind of depends on the feature. 2:12:54 But in the case of these op-nop type features, anyone can spend, they could have already activated it and, and have been using it. 2:13:02 They could actually have been activated. 2:13:03 They could have been activated 12 years ago or something. 2:13:05 And, uh, it depends on the feature. 2:13:08 Eventually, if you keep activating features, you will reach a point where you are in some kind of conflict with them. 2:13:17 And, uh, but it actually literally is the case that, okay, yes, ask, please. 2:13:23 Would you, would you see more like orphan blocks if they did that or at all? 2:13:27 Or, uh, well, uh, the answer is yes, but not necessarily because you would not necessarily know. 2:13:36 Which rules are out there to break, but yeah, if people were just kind of using the ops op-nops randomly or using the version bits randomly or something, then you would see that some of the time there would be orphan blocks. 2:13:52 Yes. 2:13:53 But, uh, actually what, what actually happened though is, uh, you would see more transaction censorship because actually if 95% of the hash rate, we're enforcing the rules. 2:14:05 Very rarely would actually the block be made that broke the rules. 2:14:09 If 100% hash rate, we're enforcing rules, it would just never get made. 2:14:15 And so, uh, you would see other weird things and maybe you would see a transaction could have two different versions or some kind of malleability and it's, uh, maybe one version breaks the rules, but another does not. 2:14:28 In the case of using new op-nops to activate a soft fork, no one's wallet would ever have programmed them to use those since they're being reserved for future use. 2:14:40 So you would really never see anything that broke the rules. 2:14:45 Kind of similar for SegWit, really, because SegWit is this weird other thing where it makes this different version of the block that has witness TX IDs and different signatures. 2:14:54 So, so no one would have made, it would have been so bizarre. 2:14:58 No one would have made their wallet in a way that it was capable of breaking those rules or triggering the new rules. 2:15:07 So the answer to your question is theoretically yes, but in practice, probably you would not see such a thing. 2:15:15 So, uh, now whether or not a feature activates or not, this is a rambling and confused answer, but, uh, maybe it makes some sense. 2:15:25 Like why did I start by talking about Napoleon or whatever? 2:15:28 It's kind of like, um, the reason SegWit broke through was because SegWit was a good idea that didn't really harm. 2:15:40 It did more good than harm. 2:15:43 It was a block size increase, of course, but the point is it was, it was popular and people widely believed that it would be best for the long run of Bitcoin at the time. 2:15:55 So that would, that's clear. 2:15:57 And let me just give you this last. 2:15:58 The other thing is the reason why the large L layer one large blocks failed was because it really was not the case. 2:16:05 Most people did not believe that that was the best thing for Bitcoin. 2:16:09 Some people did, but, but most didn't at the time. 2:16:13 And that's the only relevant thing is that it, it's just kind of like, uh, similarly, the reason why we don't have, we haven't had Drivechains until now is because people did not believe that they were the best thing for Bitcoin. 2:16:28 You know, they were incorrect. 2:16:30 They just didn't know anything about them. 2:16:32 Most people, but I'm not saying the system works perfectly. 2:16:36 And as soon as it's always a meritocracy and it always lets the best idea through, that's not what I think. 2:16:40 And that's not the case. 2:16:42 But what I'm trying to say is that whether or not a soft fork activates, the miners can either ram it through if it's a good idea all by themselves, or if the miners are making some kind of mistake, the mistake can be forced out of them eventually. 2:17:03 Is this making any sense what I'm trying to say? 2:17:06 I was going to specify exactly, I guess, my question originally, and then add one comment to what you said. 2:17:14 So originally, I guess a more specific question would be, do you think that miners activating software on a sidechain could be done in the same way they do on the main chain where nobody knows about it? 2:17:27 Do you think that them doing it on the sidechain behaves any differently? 2:17:32 And then my comment would just be that you said that miners can ram through changes on the main chain, but you said that SegWit proved that they don't have that ability. 2:17:44 Or maybe I'm misunderstood now. 2:17:45 I don't know. 2:17:46 SegWit proves that they don't have the ability to veto. 2:17:49 You said they have a veto. 2:17:50 Right, yeah. 2:17:51 But they tried to veto SegWit, but they didn't succeed. 2:17:55 If they were smart, I actually wrote a blog post about this called the UASF Contradiction. 2:18:00 And maybe you can read it, and maybe you'll get something out of it. 2:18:04 But what I said was all they have to do, if they really want, if they wanted to beat the UASF, all they would have had to do was wait for the UASF to trigger, signal for SegWit, and then censor every SegWit message from the blockchain permanently. 2:18:24 But this is where the nuance steps back in. 2:18:27 At that point, they are leaving a bunch of transaction fees on the table for no reason. 2:18:32 But they could still do it. 2:18:33 SegWit would never – there would no transaction that's spent to a SegWit output would ever make it into the blockchain. 2:18:41 And so you would never even know if any SegWit rules had been broken because it would never even get to that point. 2:18:47 So that was theoretically possible. 2:18:50 Of course, again, the nuance – this is why I brought up the thing about Napoleon. 2:18:54 What was I talking about? 2:18:55 Does this make any sense at all? 2:18:56 But what I'm saying is whether or not the idea is good or not has kind of objective quality, which is to say once you've reached this point, now the miners are just turning down transaction fees. 2:19:07 It's clear that people want this thing. 2:19:10 And so it just sort of makes you look bad. 2:19:15 So that was the second part. 2:19:17 And then the first part of what you asked was can the miners influence SoftForks on the sidechain? 2:19:22 The sidechain doesn't need – the sidechain can upgrade via SoftFork just by releasing a new version and having people run it. 2:19:33 And the blind merge miners are the – so it has to do with the merge mining. 2:19:40 On the sidechain, the people who are constructing the next sidechain block are not necessarily the same group of people as the mainchain miners. 2:19:49 So it's if those people build a block with the new version, then the sidechain will upgrade via SoftFork. 2:19:57 If you have something similar where you could say something like BIP-9, ancient BIP-9. 2:20:03 To me, BIP-9 is the normal thing, but to everyone else, BIP-9 is an ancient thing that has never been seen. 2:20:09 But you could do something on the sidechain where you say a new version of the software – you use CoinNews and you say a new version of the software has been released and people discuss. 2:20:22 And then the new version of the software could say something like we will enforce these rules, but only after having 30 days of 90% blocks being made with the new version of the software. 2:20:35 So everyone upgrade. 2:20:37 And if the people on the sidechain upgrade, then eventually so many people will have upgraded that new blocks will be built. 2:20:45 The sidechain blocks themselves have a version number. 2:20:48 The sidechain blocks can upgrade via SoftFork in that way. 2:20:54 And so the sidechain miners, because of Blind Merged Mining, will be some subset of the nodes. 2:21:01 They will not necessarily be the same thing as the L1 miners. 2:21:05 That is if people even care about any of this at all. 2:21:08 It may be the case that the sidechain never needs to upgrade or something else happens. 2:21:15 It could be that the – I don't know. 2:21:19 Maybe it's too in the weeds to keep talking about it. 2:21:22 Yeah, no, that answered my question. 2:21:25 Yeah, it answered it. 2:21:26 I think your analogy for Napoleon is pretty much what I was going for because I was trying to get at, I guess, the criticisms people make of the United States sidechain or something like that, which is kind of very vague and I don't know. 2:21:42 Yeah, it's kind of like the way I see it is human beings actually, they enjoy solving problems. 2:21:51 And so it's like the problem of how to upgrade. 2:21:54 Someone's going to only write the upgrade to the sidechain if they think it's best for the sidechain. 2:21:59 And people can certainly be confused about what is in their own best interest, but it's kind of like slowly the good idea will get out there because it's like all open source, it's on the internet, whatever. 2:22:13 It's a matter of kind of – it could be a long delay, but the good idea will get out, and then everyone will understand why they should upgrade on the sidechain. 2:22:25 Yeah, I guess I see it as basically a good thing that even if you do have this world where countries have their own sidechains, then you still have the main chain where basically the international community of miners can prevent certain, I don't know, 1984 or whatever style software updates on the sidechain from going in or something like that. 2:22:54 Yeah, well the good thing about the sidechain is of course is people would leave if it's not – the one-to-one peg lets people leave if it's not – if the sidechain isn't working for them anymore. 2:23:09 So even without using the BIP300 withdrawal, you could still like HTLC swap or you could swap out or the sidechain is badly run, people will leave, and they may even leave at – they may even pay 10% to get out as quickly as possible. 2:23:25 But that only affects the people who went to that sidechain, so it's a very ideal situation. 2:23:32 You say you're on this chain and then it becomes dystopian North Korea chain, and now you think this sucks, and then the price crashes and they're only giving you 50 cents on the dollar for that, the market is, because it's just – everyone wants to leave or you can't possibly leave quickly enough or something like that. 2:23:51 But the good news is I think even in that situation the peg would probably hold because the miners themselves can always buy the coin, the L1 miners can always buy the coins and then walk them back to L1. 2:24:07 So the miners will just be like thrilled that North Korea fucked up – there's a bad sidechain. 2:24:16 The users leave and go to different sidechains, maybe people spin up new sidechains on that occasion, and then the coins are just pulled out of that one sidechain and it just dies. 2:24:28 So it's actually – it's a pretty ideal situation. 2:24:32 Do you think that the security budget of the sidechain could be calculated? 2:24:38 Yeah, I think it's exactly equal to the fees paid on the sidechain. 2:24:43 It may be a little bit more because if the sidechain does something super great and it boosts the price for everyone, like if the Zcash sidechain provides this mixer for everyone to use, then miners gain more value of the coins they get on every sidechain. 2:24:59 The whole Bitcoin price exchange rate is up. 2:25:04 They get all that extra if the Zcash sidechain just makes an orderly progression of the blocks. 2:25:11 You know what I mean? 2:25:12 Like if they just find one block after another and there's no reorgs on the Zcash sidechain, then the miners kind of want to eventually – if there's a problem, the L1 miners might say, wait a minute, we're supposed to be making all this extra money. 2:25:27 They may poke their head into the Zcash sidechain and say, why are there stale blocks? Why are there orphan blocks? 2:25:35 And they might just – they can just – they have an enormous amount of strength over the sidechain so they can straighten that out. 2:25:43 You know what I mean? 2:25:44 It's kind of in a good way. 2:25:45 It's like they have – whatever, Vladimir Putin or Darth Vader, you send them down to the sidechain and say, let's get this back on schedule or something. 2:25:55 That's if the sidechain is very beneficial for Bitcoin. 2:25:59 You know what I mean? 2:26:00 Yeah. 2:26:01 That's an interesting scenario where it's like the Zcash – the presence of the Zcash mixer is good for everyone. 2:26:07 So it becomes a good thing, and then it starts to get taken away if the sidechain has bad forward progression because you're asking about security budget or you're asking about reorging or losing the confirmations. 2:26:23 So if that started to happen on the sidechain, the miners are like, wait a minute, wait a minute. 2:26:27 We liked this thing the way it was. 2:26:29 We like the Zcash sidechain. 2:26:31 We want all these trains to be running on time. 2:26:34 They can go in there and force that to happen basically. 2:26:37 So in that case, the security budget would actually be much more than merely the fees of the sidechain. 2:26:43 I guess that's what I meant by like miners are incentivized to become more sophisticated when I was talking about that. 2:26:50 Yeah, I think that is miners have more of an ability to increase their revenues. 2:26:58 I think this is the only big like what you might call change. 2:27:06 There's really fundamentally no change because the miners have always been maximizing their profits. 2:27:13 And the way that they do that, that has itself always changed. 2:27:18 Like it didn't involve natural gas flaring. 2:27:20 It didn't involve immersion cooling for a while until it did. 2:27:24 You know, it didn't involve ASICs until it did. 2:27:26 It didn't involve stranded power like these demand management contracts until it did. 2:27:32 So mining has always transformed. 2:27:37 And so the fact that mining is continuing to transform is that's exactly the same as it was before. 2:27:42 But I would say that this is the main new transformation would be the miners are only people who cut costs as much as they possibly can. 2:27:52 And in the BIP300 world, they would be getting a lot of money from the sidechains if they're successful. 2:28:01 And so now the miners actually, they wear yet another hat or something. 2:28:08 They say, I'm a miner. 2:28:10 I want to make sure like what can we do to get the usage up? 2:28:14 What can we do to get the transaction fees up? 2:28:16 What can we do to get more people using sidechain number three? 2:28:21 What can we do to get more people? 2:28:23 You know, they might take out an ad for the Zcash sidechain or something. 2:28:27 That's a silly example, but you kind of get what I'm trying to say. 2:28:31 Yeah. 2:28:33 And you get why that is. 2:28:34 That is the kind of thing that would be sort of a change. 2:28:37 Because before miners would not. 2:28:41 Miners are just cutting costs, but now they're also maximizing revenues for maximizing usage of Bitcoin. 2:28:48 So they're a little bit more active in shilling Bitcoin. 2:28:55 I think it's better because, you know, before people were saying, oh, what if the U.S. government bought all this mining hardware? 2:29:02 Like, how do you pick which chain if it's not the longest? 2:29:05 I think this maybe gives those type of people a way of deciding like, well, miners can now kind of compete based on how sophisticated they are, 2:29:15 which by like a market process will probably never be like a nation state or something like that. 2:29:25 Yeah, I think. Well, one interesting thing is if the government embarks on a project to buy all the mining hardware, then it. 2:29:36 This is a weird you're in a weird situation where if the. 2:29:42 Like, so what I'm trying to say is it's in a certain point you. 2:29:49 So it's in a certain point you you gain a lot of money by keeping your hardware secret, like if like let's say the government plans to confiscate all the mining hardware. 2:29:59 Now, the best miners are not only the ones that get the cheapest power, but the best miners are also the ones that hide, hide the physical location of their hardware the best. 2:30:11 But then if miners just want, I mean, if miners want to buy everything up, if they spend the security budget, they they can they can buy everything up. 2:30:18 They just build a parallel mining, but they will cost them. 2:30:23 One hundred percent of the security budget, like the people say security budget isn't real, I don't understand. 2:30:29 I think there must be some kind of mistranslation with that, because to me, the security budget is just the total amount of money we pay to miners. 2:30:38 And that is obviously real, and that is also obviously equal to the total amount of money that miners spend on hashing, and that is also equal to, in the long run, the total amount of money spent on fees in the whole blockchain. 2:30:51 So so all those are just the same number. 2:30:54 So it's obvious that that number is pretty important and pretty real. 2:30:58 But for some reason, a lot of people just say that it's not real. 2:31:01 They say there is no such thing as security budget. 2:31:04 I have no idea what those people mean. 2:31:08 Yeah, I think the problem with like people who say like we need ossification or stuff like that and then are against Drivechains or even yeah, like I don't know, there's probably a number of things wrong. 2:31:20 But like, immediately, if you add this sort of like way of miners maximizing revenue as a change, then you kind of dissuade any people from trying to attack the network because they don't really know what the security budget is. 2:31:40 It's much more difficult. 2:31:45 Well, we definitely want it to be high. 2:31:48 That also dissuades. 2:31:49 Like if it's like, you know, and then we also the more Bitcoin is used, we flip more and more people. 2:31:56 We're kind of like zombies in a way. 2:31:58 You know what I mean? 2:31:58 Where it's like you kill a regular human, but then they join the zombie team. 2:32:03 You know what I mean? 2:32:04 If we flip people from fiat into Bitcoin now, instead of contributing to the attacking team, now they're on the defending team. 2:32:13 So the more usage is very, very good. 2:32:16 More fees, more people in the group, more network effect, more popularity, like more people who are just victims. 2:32:23 So we want Bitcoin to be big. 2:32:28 But some people, I think for some reason, but I think the rational thing is to want it to be big. 2:32:36 Yeah, I mean, I think that just it maybe helps certain like smaller forks like Bitcoin Cash. 2:32:43 Like basically right now, they're pretty much have no chance of, in my opinion, like coming back from something because there is no like there's no mechanism of having miners benefit from maximizing revenue through like their own sophistication. 2:33:02 So if you do have a mechanism like this, it at least gives them an ability to say that, well, we might not have as much hash power and electricity, you know, dollar worth, but we have more maximizing revenue value. 2:33:24 We have a shiny see a dog with a tie and a hat. 2:33:30 Hello, hello, hello, hello, I'm just wondering what are the pros and the cons for you to interact in this Bitcoin maximalism like that, that you go these procedures like it has right now, for example, with a Drivechain that it takes so long that everything has to discuss that everything is serial. 2:34:00 And what is against the free market for you? 2:34:03 And what is a pro I mean, what is the pros and cons? 2:34:06 What is your standing point in this kind of thing? 2:34:09 Why not just launch a product and go for it and see how it develops and how it forms? 2:34:15 What's why why it should be Bitcoin only? 2:34:18 I mean, isn't the whole space some kind of the whole thing? 2:34:22 Why should be go so slowly always? 2:34:26 I don't know. 2:34:27 I don't get the point. 2:34:28 What's why you hold so long on this kind of thing? 2:34:32 And are you sometimes maybe even scared that you maybe even miss your own product because somebody else do it? 2:34:39 Just wondering what's your point on this? 2:34:43 Yes, of course. 2:34:44 Yes. 2:34:45 Well, the process is very slow. 2:34:48 And I think the word consensus is misused. 2:34:54 Like so Bitcoin core is consensus software because every node agrees down to the last byte. 2:35:01 And so we have this idea of consensus. 2:35:05 That's every every node agree. 2:35:08 But I don't think that I don't think it's good for humans to have consensus. 2:35:14 Humans disagree. 2:35:15 And that's a good thing. 2:35:17 And I think that the process is very bad, actually. 2:35:22 And I think it's you can see why. 2:35:24 It's just if any idea has any novelty or or even if an idea would make someone look bad by succeeding, then that that person can veto and hold the whole thing up. 2:35:35 There really should be there should be some kind of I don't know. 2:35:40 I don't want to say election, but there should be something where someone is a leader and then that leader should be vulnerable to replacement. 2:35:47 That is a good form of governance. 2:35:50 What we currently have instead is everyone denies that someone is in charge because we don't want that person to get arrested or something. 2:35:57 So I'm talking about the people on GitHub, Bitcoin Bitcoin. 2:36:01 So the process is designed around no one taking responsibility. 2:36:05 And that is why the technical decisions are made with consensus. 2:36:10 It is not to make the best decisions or even to make decisions that don't have errors, because decisions with bugs or with unexpected features or with mistakes doesn't make it through anyway. 2:36:24 So even trying to be conservative, we don't even do that. 2:36:29 But the reason why it is the way it is, is because no one wants to take responsibility for the software because that would make it look like they have some kind of authority over the software. 2:36:42 And we don't want anyone misunderstanding that such as a government or even like a very wealthy assassin or something like a crazy, like some kind of mafia organization or something. 2:36:57 So the right thing to do as far as governance would be to for Bitcoin to explicitly explain that everything must be everything. 2:37:05 Nothing can harm old nodes. 2:37:07 So everything must be a soft fork classically or whatever you want to call it and that have that one rule and then have the new versions driven by one person. 2:37:17 And then to have that person be subject to some kind of process where they can be fired and that the best governance. 2:37:25 But we don't have that and we're not ever going to have that. 2:37:27 So the really nice thing would be if we just had Drivechain in Bitcoin, then it wouldn't matter how slow or screwed up L1 development was. 2:37:35 We would just leave L1 where it is and then do it on the other chains. 2:37:40 The second part of your question is why not just launch an altcoin or whatever or fork or something. 2:37:47 Well, that idea has occurred to me a couple of times. 2:37:50 But I think the one reason why that's not a good idea is because the success of an altcoin, the success of anything with network effects. 2:38:02 Facebook, Twitter, whatever, Craigslist, the success of those things depends on its inherent features. 2:38:14 One, just like everything else. 2:38:16 But also its success depends on which other people join the network. 2:38:23 And the problem with forking off to make a new network is other people may then fork off that network and you don't have the loyal people. 2:38:34 So you need to have loyal people. 2:38:37 And so what you would need to do is, it's kind of difficult to explain, but you would need to fork off in a way that could never be forked off again. 2:38:47 Which is, I think, possible, but difficult. 2:38:52 And so it's like the, one thing, so the large blockers, I think, ruined their own case. 2:39:03 Because they forked off to do large block version. 2:39:06 The version didn't work. 2:39:08 Now there's no one, there's no political movement in L1 that is just, that would have either been critical of Lightning or just pushing large block sidechain. 2:39:20 Or just pushing merchant adoption and these other things that that group used to push. 2:39:26 So now, because that group forked off, Bitcoin is further away from large blocks. 2:39:33 And again, I want to stress that large blocks on L1 is a mistake and it should have lost. 2:39:37 So they did lose. 2:39:38 But just also other things that their group emphasized, such as the medium of exchange, merchant adoption, actual people using Bitcoin. 2:39:49 Those things are all further away in BTC because those people split off. 2:39:55 Now they are very far from where they were in 2017. 2:40:00 So let alone where they would have been if those people had stayed and kept advocating for them. 2:40:05 So splitting off has backfired and had the opposite effect. 2:40:10 So if you're pro-Drivechain, it does not necessarily follow that you launch a Drivechain altcoin and then that will help drivechain. 2:40:19 Because all the evidence for that is in reverse, I think. 2:40:24 Everyone gets sour grapes. 2:40:26 So it's just because of network effects. 2:40:29 It has to do with what other people want. 2:40:35 And so that's why I'm here doing this space and not launching the... 2:40:42 We kind of need to all talk first and then we need a giant group of people. 2:40:47 If anything like that would even have a chance of succeeding. 2:40:52 By the time we get a large group of people, we'll probably just activate it on Bitcoin Core. 2:40:56 But isn't the free market some kind of a consensus? 2:41:00 Isn't even life making about false? 2:41:03 Isn't it even sometimes the right feeling to make false, to feel alive? 2:41:10 Well, I do think you're right. 2:41:12 If you take the efficient markets hypothesis the way I do, I take it very seriously. 2:41:17 But if you take it too seriously, then you just never do anything. 2:41:20 Freddie Mercury would just say, well, I'm not going to write any new music because... 2:41:28 What's the point? 2:41:29 Well, I mean, music is not something that has network effects. 2:41:31 So I should retract that. 2:41:33 That didn't really make any sense. 2:41:35 I retract what I said. 2:41:36 But I think the... 2:41:38 Didn't I just give you an example with Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV 2:41:42 where someone tried the market and nothing... 2:41:46 What result did it really have? 2:41:50 So that was the market path, right? 2:41:56 Yes or no? 2:41:57 I mean, what do you think? 2:41:58 Yes. 2:41:59 I mean, it's... 2:42:00 They tried the market, yeah. 2:42:01 But it's also hard to say if it would be applied on the same, like on Drivechain, 2:42:05 because it's so individual also. 2:42:09 Yes, it is hard to see if it would be the same. 2:42:12 I agree. 2:42:13 It's also the case that Drivechain kind of gives you everything. 2:42:16 So it's kind of... 2:42:17 It could be the last fork of any kind. 2:42:21 Hard fork, soft fork, whatever. 2:42:23 New altcoin would be the last new altcoin. 2:42:26 So I think that is the case. 2:42:28 There's a lot of truth to that. 2:42:30 But I think that it's like... 2:42:38 Well, there's a game in Game Theory called Boxing Opera, 2:42:43 which is sometimes called Battle of the Sexes. 2:42:47 And maybe you're familiar with it. 2:42:49 I don't know. 2:42:50 No, I'm not. 2:42:51 It's like if each of the players choose something, 2:42:56 if they choose differently, 2:42:59 they both get the lowest score of zero. 2:43:04 And this is like two people going on a date. 2:43:07 The guy wants to go see a boxing match and the girl wants to go to the opera. 2:43:11 But if they end up in the wrong spot, they get zero. 2:43:16 Because they were supposed to go there together. 2:43:18 But if they go boxing, the guy is happier than the girl. 2:43:23 The guy gets five points. 2:43:25 The girl gets one point. 2:43:27 And it's the reverse if they go to the opera. 2:43:29 The girl gets the five points and the guy gets the one point. 2:43:32 So I guess what I'm saying is, 2:43:36 right now, I'm not getting what I want, 2:43:39 but I'm not getting zero points either. 2:43:41 I'm getting actually a lot of what I want, 2:43:44 which is to be in the biggest team with everyone else. 2:43:47 And that's what most other people want, too. 2:43:50 So that's kind of me trying to articulate what I'm saying. 2:43:55 But I think that it's definitely the case that, 2:44:00 I mean, I can see it happening where 2:44:03 Drivechain gets really big. 2:44:07 Everyone understands correctly that it has no downside 2:44:10 and enormous upside. 2:44:12 And eventually a high enough. 2:44:14 So many people believe this. 2:44:16 And such a small minority does not believe it, 2:44:19 that I can see the ability to, like, whatever, 2:44:24 launch an altcoin or a hard fork 2:44:26 would then be the right thing to do. 2:44:30 So I don't know. That may be very soon. 2:44:32 But probably not. 2:44:34 Because I think it depends. 2:44:36 It's kind of hard to say. 2:44:37 It depends on how the awareness is. 2:44:40 What is your opinion about the pull request? 2:44:42 Do you have already a feeling how it will be? 2:44:46 Yeah, I think if the pull request is just, like, 2:44:49 flatly denied, 2:44:51 then I think that would be a good occasion 2:44:55 to do something else. 2:44:57 Because I think the, or just say, like, 2:44:59 they have passed on this idea, 2:45:02 like, permanently. 2:45:04 But I think the pull request, 2:45:06 we're still working on it, so we haven't done it yet. 2:45:08 But yeah, I think the pull request would be, 2:45:10 that would be a pretty good moment to just say, 2:45:13 either the Bitcoin community has just decided that 2:45:17 even an idea that has no downside 2:45:19 and enormous upside, 2:45:21 they just don't want anything. 2:45:23 Even an idea that's, like, packaged up 2:45:25 and given away for free. 2:45:27 The Bitcoin community just does not want anything. 2:45:29 It does not want 119. 2:45:31 It does not want... 2:45:33 It just will not... 2:45:35 It just decided that it just won't do anything. 2:45:37 Then I think that would be, 2:45:39 maybe, an occasion 2:45:41 to, like, run a demo. 2:45:44 Run, like, the demo coin or something. 2:45:46 And just, you know, see if... 2:45:49 That would point to it being very bleak. 2:45:51 For any new... 2:45:53 Just anything. 2:45:55 But I don't know. 2:45:57 That's sort of my thought. 2:45:59 Okay. Is there already a timeline? 2:46:01 I mean, Hampus has a question. 2:46:03 Sorry. Just this question. 2:46:05 Is there a timeline? 2:46:07 Like, I don't know. 2:46:09 As soon as the pull request is done, 2:46:11 I think I will probably do a little bit 2:46:13 of, like, some last-minute 2:46:15 education and then just 2:46:17 throw it in there 2:46:19 and see what... I think a lot of people 2:46:21 would be surprised if there was a pull request. 2:46:23 But I personally 2:46:25 think... 2:46:27 The pull request is, like, for people talking about details 2:46:29 So if you want to comment on the pull request, 2:46:31 you should already just say, 2:46:33 take it for the sake of argument that 2:46:35 the idea is good. 2:46:37 So is this a pull request about BIP300/301? 2:46:39 Yes. 2:46:41 Okay, so 2:46:43 I would like to suggest then that 2:46:45 maybe you know about this already, 2:46:47 but instead of going with the 2:46:49 blind merge binding BIP301, 2:46:51 you should probably look into 2:46:53 Ruben Somsen's, 2:46:55 like, space chain 2:46:57 covenants via blind merge binding 2:46:59 construction, which uses, like, 2:47:01 sig-hash and... 2:47:03 That requires APO, though. 2:47:05 Yeah, that will require 2:47:07 APO, yes, but... 2:47:09 So, I mean, I'm fine with that, but you're saying 2:47:11 BIP301 has already been 2:47:13 coded and is already in the example sidechains 2:47:15 and then APO is 2:47:17 yet another soft fork to mix in. 2:47:19 Yeah, I would 2:47:21 suggest soft forking that 2:47:23 instead than go with that construction 2:47:26 because it's more, like, 2:47:28 that will also benefit 2:47:30 lightning and space chains 2:47:32 among other things, and it's a pretty 2:47:34 generic 2:47:36 solution for these things. 2:47:38 So that's just a suggestion. 2:47:40 Yeah, but I think the pull request should be 2:47:42 very modular, don't you? Each pull request 2:47:44 should be, like, the 118 pull 2:47:46 request, the 119 2:47:48 pull request, right? 2:47:50 Yeah, well, it depends 2:47:52 if this is a pull request about the 2:47:54 soft fork. Yeah, I suppose 2:47:56 there could be multiple pull requests 2:47:58 then, yeah. But, like, there will be, 2:48:00 like, I suppose there will be one soft fork 2:48:02 versioning bit 2:48:04 proposal for the actual 2:48:06 deployment activation. 2:48:10 Yeah, I mean, I don't have any problem with 2:48:12 APO at all. I think CTV, APO, 2:48:14 whatever, OpVault should all already 2:48:16 be in Bitcoin Core, 2:48:18 as should BIP-303 and BIP301. 2:48:20 I think people have a weird attitude 2:48:22 where 2:48:24 if an idea 2:48:26 is a soft fork, people just don't think 2:48:28 about it, whereas if instead they just 2:48:30 didn't have that attitude, they would just say 2:48:32 they would work on it more, and it would 2:48:34 be done faster or something. 2:48:36 But, yeah, I don't know if that's a great idea. 2:48:38 I think Ruben Somsen's 2:48:40 version of 2:48:42 Blind March Mining also requires you 2:48:44 to make, like, this huge tree of 2:48:46 pre-signed transactions or 2:48:48 something. 2:48:50 Yeah, that is true for the 2:48:52 space chain 2:48:54 construction, at least. I'm not 2:48:56 sure exactly how it would work 2:48:58 for, like, 2:49:00 Drivechains. I suppose it will be the 2:49:02 same, yeah. But I'm not sure about that. 2:49:04 That's a very good point, actually. 2:49:06 If it will require a 2:49:08 pre-computed list of 2:49:10 transactions, then it might not be the 2:49:12 optimal solution. 2:49:14 I don't think that's better. 2:49:16 Sorry, what? You think that's better? 2:49:18 I don't think that's better, because that's 2:49:20 an annoying step. 2:49:22 That's definitely annoying for, like, Drivechains, for sure. 2:49:24 It's kind of like a bummer for 2:49:26 the space chains, because I don't think you can 2:49:28 I'm not sure you can do it another way. 2:49:30 I haven't figured out the list, but, yeah. 2:49:32 So, that's true. If it 2:49:34 needs a pre-computed 2:49:36 list of 2:49:38 transactions for Drivechains, 2:49:40 it will not be... I would agree 2:49:42 that it won't be optimal for that. 2:49:44 But, as you said before, 2:49:46 we already have a bunch of 2:49:48 software that we have been using 2:49:50 that uses the normal Blind Merged Mining. 2:49:52 Not that that's, like, 2:49:54 you know, I'm not really married to Blind Merged Mining, 2:49:56 but it also does seem like 2:49:58 with one exception, no one really 2:50:00 complains about Blind Merged Mining. 2:50:02 And that one guy who complains, 2:50:04 who's a very interesting character, 2:50:06 and he fully supports BIP300, 2:50:08 but the problem 2:50:10 with BIP301 is something along 2:50:12 the lines of, it may create 2:50:15 these large transactions 2:50:17 fees on L1 that 2:50:19 miners fight over. 2:50:21 But that is 2:50:23 kind of a weird thing to complain about 2:50:25 since that could already happen at any time 2:50:27 and also the Blind Merged Mining is the idea 2:50:29 is that the fees would be trickling in 2:50:31 in a continuous drip 2:50:33 and they would not be, like, 2:50:35 a weird fluke fee. 2:50:37 So, that guy is an interesting 2:50:39 point of view, but really 2:50:41 no one has really complained about Blind Merged Mining. 2:50:43 I think part of the reason is that it's very difficult 2:50:45 to complain about it since regular 2:50:47 merge mining already exists. 2:50:49 But for whatever the reason may be, 2:50:51 very few people complain about it. 2:50:53 I suppose I've seen 2:50:55 some complaints about, like, 2:50:57 MEV and stuff, but 2:50:59 there's some weird contradiction 2:51:01 going on, because as far as I 2:51:03 can tell, if you do Blind Merged Mining 2:51:05 with space chains, 2:51:07 that will basically be equivalent 2:51:09 to doing 2:51:11 Blind Merged Mining with Drivechains. 2:51:13 So, if you're okay with 2:51:15 space chains, then you 2:51:17 really should be okay with Drivechains, 2:51:19 at least as far as blind merge 2:51:21 mining goes. So, I've 2:51:23 seen some weird contradictions going on there 2:51:25 and stuff, and I don't personally think 2:51:27 MEV is a problem, but some 2:51:29 people do, and then they should be okay with 2:51:31 Drivechains and space chains 2:51:33 BMM. Like, they can't just pick 2:51:35 and choose there. 2:51:37 Yeah, a lot of people are just 2:51:39 you know, it's like motivated reasoning. They just want 2:51:41 to 2:51:43 come up with something 2:51:45 negative to say. 2:51:47 Like, the problem 2:51:49 incentives should be the same 2:51:51 as far as I can tell between 2:51:53 BMM on the Drivechain and a space chain. 2:51:55 So, like, if you have 2:51:57 a solid BMM, it should be the same. 2:51:59 Yeah. When people say MEV, 2:52:01 it's just like... 2:52:03 What they end up 2:52:05 meaning is layer one 2:52:07 transaction fees will go up. 2:52:09 That's what they end up meaning. 2:52:11 So, it's like, whatever. 2:52:13 Like, I think 2:52:15 they're just trying to staple 2:52:17 something that is bad sounding 2:52:19 onto the idea. 2:52:21 The whole thing is dishonest, I think. 2:52:25 I think this Bitcoin 2:52:27 rooster came up first and then 2:52:29 had their hand. Yes? Is that the case or no? 2:52:31 I hope so. I think so. 2:52:33 I just had a question 2:52:35 about the peg out process. 2:52:37 Would the dust limit be the same? 2:52:39 Could a small user 2:52:41 always opt to peg out of a 2:52:43 sidechain or 2:52:45 are the rules 2:52:47 set by 2:52:49 the sidechain? 2:52:51 What was the question? 2:52:53 If you're trying to withdraw and you want to withdraw 2:52:55 a tiny amount, like below the dust limit 2:52:57 on L1? 2:52:59 Is the dust limit 2:53:01 for withdrawing the same 2:53:04 as L1? Or if you are in a 2:53:06 sidechain, is there like 2:53:08 can the sidechain restrict 2:53:10 pegging out? 2:53:20 The question has a couple layers. 2:53:22 The sidechain developer is free 2:53:24 to make any mistake they want. 2:53:26 They could write a sidechain 2:53:28 that has terrible withdrawal software that never 2:53:30 works. 2:53:32 We have created 2:53:34 templates and default software 2:53:40 and what that does 2:53:42 is it allocates 2:53:44 a fixed amount of space for the withdrawal 2:53:46 which is like 2:53:48 20,000 or 30,000 or 40,000 2:53:50 something like that, 20,000-ish 2:53:52 withdrawals 2:53:54 that each use 2:53:56 43 or so bytes or whatever 2:53:58 it is, I think, dbytes. 2:54:02 Something like that. 2:54:04 It's been actually a long time 2:54:06 since that was in 2019 2:54:08 that we did that part 2:54:10 but it's something like that 2:54:12 where the withdrawal transaction 2:54:14 could pay out to 20,000 different people 2:54:16 and as a result 2:54:18 it will never use up, for example 2:54:20 the entire, it won't 2:54:22 you can see how it would be a disaster 2:54:24 if the withdrawal transaction 2:54:26 was bigger than the block size limit 2:54:28 so the block size limit on L1 2:54:30 is 1 megabyte in one way 2:54:32 and 4 megabytes in a different way 2:54:34 if the withdrawal transaction is bigger than that 2:54:36 it will never be able to be included in L1 2:54:38 so the L2 sidechain is 2:54:40 programmed to construct 2:54:42 algorithmically and procedurally 2:54:44 it constructs the same withdrawal 2:54:46 transaction for everybody 2:54:48 it does that automatically 2:54:50 it does that automatically and it will make you pay a fee on when you want to 2:54:54 withdraw and it makes you allocate part of the withdrawal as an L1 transaction 2:54:59 fee so when you do the withdraw on L1 each of those things in that list of 2:55:05 like 20 or 30,000 each of the each in that list is paying an L1 fee also and 2:55:15 so how does that answer your question well if they want to it's actually L2 2:55:23 where you initiate the withdrawal so if you want to withdraw something that is 2:55:27 below the dust limit that is also that is allowed because just like you are 2:55:33 allowed to make a Bitcoin transaction on L1 L1 Bitcoin transaction that pays 2:55:40 below the dust limit in fact you can actually make a zero valued output 2:55:45 that's what the upper returns are but you could make a zero valued up return 2:55:49 and unless this has changed I'm pretty sure those are all spendable and they 2:55:54 actually cannot be pruned because they they are a valid output just like 2:55:59 anything else even though that the coin value is zero so that's allowed on L1 2:56:05 and it's also allowed in the form of a withdrawal it's obviously a bad idea to 2:56:10 withdraw something below the dust limit because you will basically never be able 2:56:15 to spend it on anything that you actually want to buy yeah no I'm just 2:56:23 I'm just more curious how tyrannical a sidechain can be on its users like can 2:56:29 they you know restrict withdrawals and then like I'm not sure how the process 2:56:38 if you have to initiate it on L2 does that mean that like you know you as a 2:56:45 user potentially can't get out of it I mean you as a manager of L2 can well 2:56:57 would be possible in the extreme case for someone to write a sidechain where 2:57:01 all the withdrawals have to go through some individual some tyrant and that 2:57:07 would be weird I don't really know why people would use that but that's 2:57:13 theoretically possible and so if they did then so the way the withdrawals work 2:57:18 is on L2 you kind of say I have these coins I select eight coins and I want to 2:57:23 withdraw three so you have three and you basically you send three of the coins to 2:57:29 a kind of like like a train station or something that's when you initiate it on 2:57:35 L2 and then the the L2 blockchain it looks at every everyone who has sent 2:57:40 coins to the train station and it sorts those people on their main chain fee so 2:57:46 they have like carrying the main chain fee with them the the withdrawals each 2:57:50 withdrawal has like a little pocket and they have their main chain fee and each 2:57:54 main chain is takes up the same amount of space same amount of bytes so you 2:57:57 just sort it on that and it sorts it on that and it does is it sorts them there 2:58:04 at the train station and then when the next train is ready to leave it opens up 2:58:08 the doors of the train and it loads in all the people it can fit and then 2:58:13 closes the doors of the train and then it sends the train on its way and that's 2:58:20 actually a slight oversimplification what it really does is it closes the 2:58:24 doors of the train and then it holds up a sign with the hash of that train it 2:58:29 holds up that sign up into outer space and then on L1 the L1 miners take out a 2:58:35 telescope and they look over and they see the hash and then they they put that 2:58:41 hash in L1 Coinbase and then the train in its ghostly form kind of appears in L1 2:58:49 and the train slowly starts to move conceptually from one planet to the 2:58:55 other planet or whatever you know this is a metaphor but so that's kind of what 2:59:01 happens as the upvotes accumulate on L1 for this train it eventually is pulled 2:59:08 from the sidechain planet to the L1 and then it lets the people disembark at 2:59:14 the very end so that's kind of what happens and the I guess you were asking 2:59:25 how tyrannical can they be the most tyrannical thing of all is to release 2:59:28 terrible software so that the withdrawal process never works and you can never 2:59:31 figure out who's supposed to be on this train or not and then you'll never know 2:59:37 what to do like no one will know which withdrawals are real or not and so at 2:59:43 that point the coins are just in limbo and the miners could just take them and 2:59:48 whether or not that would even be considered taking them is ambiguous 2:59:51 because know that the true owner is like unknown so it's kind of abandoned 2:59:55 property so but the sidechain I think could be pretty tyrannical if it wishes 3:00:00 but of course users have to choose to send money over there in the first place 3:00:05 so in a way it's kind of a good thing it's kind of like how the manager of the 3:00:09 Four Seasons or the manager of a nice hotel they're the tyrant of the hotel 3:00:14 but you have to choose to stay there so so it's kind of a good thing in a way 3:00:23 but the sidechain is should be automatically doing the withdrawals it's 3:00:27 not like these the sidechain automatically groups the withdrawals so 3:00:31 the each individual user goes to the train station and then the sidechain and 3:00:37 is watching it sees when the last train docked on L1 then it knows to release 3:00:44 the next train and that's what it does so it should that that part is totally 3:00:50 automatic I mean it should be of course you could screw it up so anyway shiny 3:00:55 cakes you were going to say something yes I was wondering if the scenario 3:01:01 happens that you launch for example like a demo coin or you would go out 3:01:07 like a layer one would you do exactly the same would you just fork Bitcoin or 3:01:12 what would you what would be your approach as a layer one then oh well you 3:01:21 know I think right now we're just not focusing on spreading the idea but I 3:01:28 think it would probably be the good thing would be to do the hard fork 3:01:31 because in that way every Bitcoin user is indifferent and it would probably also 3:01:36 be good to keep shot 256 D so that every minor is indifferent also that makes it 3:01:43 so that if you launch something no one in Bitcoin is really harmed if it were 3:01:48 to succeed and do very well you see what I mean because it's the same set of 3:01:52 owners and the same set of miners so that just by a snapshot for example or 3:02:00 if they take it take the tech then later on or how would it be then I think it 3:02:10 would just be like literal hard fork like you would have I mean that probably 3:02:13 snapshot is better than a hard fork because hard fork it has all this block 3:02:17 history but on the other hand you would want all the block explorers and stuff 3:02:21 to be consistent so maybe hard fork is better I don't know okay probably okay 3:02:28 so in general you are happy with the ideals and you don't scare that a 3:02:32 scenario like this happened again happens again that could take what could 3:02:37 change the world getting stuck because of such infrastructure structure well I 3:02:45 think what has happened has been pretty bad yes I do think so I think that you 3:02:49 know Bitcoin should probably have taken over the entire world by now and it did 3:02:54 not yet so I really think it's been particular we the scaling war being 3:03:01 fought from what you might call it depends on exactly when you think it 3:03:07 began I guess I would say I think it began at scaling 3 so that would be 3:03:11 October 2016 until maybe I'll call it like a year after Bitcoin cash was 3:03:21 affirmed as the thing so it's in November 2018 so I think from October 3:03:30 2016 to November 2018 we fought the scaling war and won and then since then 3:03:36 there has been just basically a lot of stasis complacency overconfidence 3:03:45 hatred of anything new or even just creative and you see that in 119 over 3:03:54 emphasis on lightning over emphasis on developers can't developers you know can 3:04:02 never do anything wrong and we have to do whatever developers say because if we 3:04:08 lose them we will lose everything also that was the period where everyone just 3:04:13 started hating the miners for no reason well I mean for some reason but the 3:04:17 miners because they held up SegWit for a while but the hate was kind of 3:04:23 disproportionate and it even persisted long after like everyone hated Jihan Wu 3:04:27 so they say but Jihan Wu was eventually just forced out of Bitmain but still 3:04:33 people hate still the hate remains so so yeah I think I think it's sucked kind of 3:04:42 since then everything is things have been very slow what really happened 3:04:46 between now and then was like some like the COVID lockdowns and COVID inflation 3:04:52 so that was great for Bitcoin in both senses of being huge amount of inflation 3:04:58 and huge amount of money printing and huge amount of just like government 3:05:02 tyranny but even then you see that we totally failed I think we did not do a 3:05:06 good job at all of like the Canadian truckers example Bitcoin the way it 3:05:12 works with Bitcoin it should be possible for someone to start some kind of cause 3:05:19 some kind of political dissident somewhere in Albania or something 3:05:24 anywhere they should have some kind of cause it should hit Twitter and we 3:05:28 should all learn about it and that guy should be able to like something like 3:05:33 write something on a piece of paper and hold it up and take a picture of 3:05:36 himself with it or hold up a QR code or whatever and we should be able to just 3:05:42 send that person money that they know how to spend and that we know goes to 3:05:48 them and that we it seems like a very very very easy task but we did not 3:05:52 succeed with the Canadian truckers we did some kind of crazy convoluted other 3:05:56 thing it took a really long time and then ultimately most of that money was 3:06:00 confiscated by the Canadian government as I understand it so how could we screw 3:06:06 something like that up so badly I don't know but whatever it is until we fix 3:06:10 that and we aren't doing very well so even that was a that's a big 3:06:16 opportunity for that would have been huge for if we had our act together that 3:06:20 would have been really big you know how can that not be I mean like I don't I 3:06:27 just don't understand what how do we face ourselves in the mirror it's a 3:06:33 complete failure so yeah those people all should have had tons of Bitcoin 3:06:39 especially as soon as the Canadian government started talking about like we 3:06:43 will freeze their bank accounts and stuff that was it like we should have 3:06:47 just flipped Canada into like a Bitcoin country but instead people are 3:06:54 interested in yeah I mean you have people like certain people are working 3:06:59 hard against that I don't think so like I think Michael Saylor is a very smart 3:07:03 guy and I think he's very good for Bitcoin and certainly who can doubt his 3:07:06 earnestness when he puts down such a huge percentage of his net worth but 3:07:15 yeah he's against like this subversive aspect of Bitcoin he's against the in a 3:07:20 way he's against the self-sovereignty because he's against privacy also says 3:07:24 that all be regulated it'll all be a US dollar stable coin or something so where 3:07:32 does that leave us exactly I'm not sure but I think what I would say is that I'm 3:07:40 pro pluralism so we should be trying lots and lots of different things but 3:07:45 would the people do better with the same code if it start again from scratch I 3:07:51 don't think so well what a lot of people say if you talk to technologists they'll 3:07:57 say we should just rewrite everything in rust and just redo it that's fine but 3:08:03 you know like people said that too about that many people said that about like 3:08:07 live Bitcoin live Bitcoin is much cleaner they're right about that live 3:08:11 Bitcoin is sort of much better but of course there was this recent news that 3:08:16 happened whatever a week and a half ago right the live Bitcoin randomness 3:08:24 sources was not good 3:08:28 excuse me I did just sneeze there but the live Bitcoin so this is the thing is 3:08:33 you're not having a standard that everyone that has been in use for a long 3:08:38 time and that everyone is familiar with and that a lot of people have looked at 3:08:43 a lot of people have tried to break that itself is much better than almost any 3:08:49 improvement could be so writing the code from scratch I think is like the kiss of 3:08:54 death basically so but I do think that they're ruining I think Bitcoin core is 3:09:02 the code is getting worse it's getting more complicated to do things I hate 3:09:08 descriptor wallets I hate basically everything like the frivolous 3:09:13 refactoring and just it's like I think it's much worse than it has been but 3:09:20 still I say you have to you have no choice but to use the latest version of 3:09:23 Bitcoin core really but I this is another reason why I actually am pro 3:09:26 ossification I think most of the recent changes have been terrible I really hate 3:09:30 the batch 32 and batch 32 M address formats I think I don't like them at 3:09:38 all so I really hate that they start with they all start with the same 3:09:44 prefix that's like five letters long and that the version number kicks in on 3:09:49 something that is a letter it's not a number I honestly think that this is 3:09:54 some kind of like psychology experiment that I'm trapped in like I don't 3:09:59 understand why people do this made these decisions I think they're just awful but 3:10:04 everyone's got an opinion so I think most many of the changes have been bad 3:10:09 but I still think like you cannot you can't leave the as soon as you say well 3:10:13 instead I'll use Bitcoin or I'll use something smaller that is when you get 3:10:18 this terrible news like the Bitcoin head so that's not any standard is good 3:10:24 you know what I mean like if everyone is using the same Wi-Fi standard maybe you 3:10:29 have a standard that's better but it doesn't matter you know it's just like 3:10:33 the it's the boxing opera thing all over again you have to weigh that 3:10:39 consideration against how bad how much better the new feature is because 3:10:43 certainly a better feature is better but what's really good is going on a 3:10:50 date with someone and not being alone the whole point of the date is that 3:10:55 you're there with someone else could you imagine that even Drivechain go into a 3:11:00 direction where you think okay we're in which direction it's going I'm a little 3:11:06 bit worried about do you think this is really like a proof a framework where 3:11:12 things like this couldn't couldn't happen 3:11:17 we mean an individual sidechain or the Drivechain idea it's the idea itself if 3:11:23 you launch launch it just from scratch if there could be maybe some kind of 3:11:28 scenario like this what we have right now here in Bitcoin where you get stuck 3:11:33 could you imagine that it could also happen somewhere there was a Drivechain 3:11:37 tech on top well Drivechain is kind of like a completable project so it's kind 3:11:44 of like segue where it's kind of like it would just be finished kind of just is 3:11:49 finished so it's either finished or it's not which it it is in that scenario so I 3:11:56 can see myself saying well with hindsight I would have changed something 3:12:00 about the 300 but I guess not really because what we're talking about are 3:12:07 two different things is one is like the process on Bitcoin core being very bad 3:12:17 but still much better than everything else because other things are not 3:12:21 viable and so that's one conversation but then a different conversation is 3:12:30 just like could we come up with a still better idea eventually someone will get 3:12:37 the lightweight L1 using ZK proof cross-chain bridge to work and that 3:12:49 works with every future sidechain and it doesn't matter what the sizes of that 3:12:53 sidechain or whatever it'll just always be the perfect peg and there'll be no 3:13:00 bike-shedding over what is ZK prover algorithm to use blah blah blah so maybe 3:13:08 some someday eventually we'll have that and then people will just not use bit 3:13:12 300 anymore maybe but I kind of doubt it because miners can already censors you 3:13:19 can proof knowledge they can already send so sidechain knowledge they can 3:13:22 already do lots of things even in the ZK world so it's kind of like it's also the 3:13:29 ZK world is impossible for normal people to understand whereas the 3:13:33 drive-chain ACK system is just an integer that counts up to 13,000 so in 3:13:41 those ways it's just better but you know people could always come up with a 3:13:47 better idea do we have any other questions thank you very much and I will 3:13:54 for sure listen maybe and repeat sometimes with the drive-chain talks I 3:13:59 need to hear them at least once or twice to get everything sometimes really a lot 3:14:04 important okay cool great well yeah if anyone has any questions feel free to 3:14:12 come up 3:14:21 campus what did you think about my I saw you gave a reaction to I was talking 3:14:27 about why you can't leave or something I don't remember reactions but in general 3:14:37 so okay well this has been three hours and 15 minutes so maybe we should if no 3:14:51 one has anything they want to say yeah I might have something to please ignore it 3:14:57 but we could take another time but I have some disagreements regarding the 3:15:02 soft-forking stuff like if I remember correctly you said that like drive-chain 3:15:09 or activation of drive-chains or whatever are similar to a soft fork but as far as 3:15:15 like my view on that is that like main-chain full nodes they will have to 3:15:21 activate PIP 300 right so that means they will need to like check the 3:15:25 drive-chain messages for like axe for the peg outs and creations of new side 3:15:34 chains whatever but they will not need to of course validate the rules of the 3:15:40 other chain they will only watch they will follow the PIP 300 like PIP 3:15:46 basically the specification so that's for any creation of a sidechain that 3:15:52 would be the requirements but if you look at for example like a new OP code 3:15:59 like op-nop5 whatever that it will have a new meaning but then I think that's 3:16:05 every like full node or main-chain full node should really interpret and follow 3:16:10 the new like rules of that OP code do you disagree with that or do you think 3:16:19 that only the miners should interpret the new like soft fork rules does my 3:16:29 question make sense yes the question is about whether or not miners can 3:16:37 unilaterally activate PIP 300 it's a paradox that actually sort of only 3:16:41 applies to sorry yeah no it's it is run on sorry just continue that I wish 3:16:50 people would understand better is that what PIP 300 does is keep the miners on 3:16:57 a short leash and this is the miners constrain themselves with PIP 300 they 3:17:03 say if the coins are sent here then we miners can send them anywhere but we 3:17:07 have to send them through this long hallway and and that is good because 3:17:13 this helps build the trust between the miners and the users of the sidechain 3:17:19 and so the miners are keeping themselves PIP 300 keeps the miners on a short 3:17:23 leash PIP 300 is miners being handcuffed to some extent and that's 3:17:31 why the system would work well enough that users would actually pay 3:17:36 transaction fees over there so it's kind of like PIP 300 specifically is a weird 3:17:46 one for miners to activate by themselves 3:17:51 that's kind of a weird quirk of PIP 300 that wouldn't apply if the miners just 3:17:56 unilaterally activated something like 119 so it's kind of just strange like 3:18:04 that it's a strange situation but yeah if only the miners do it and no one else 3:18:08 enforces it there's also the question has a couple nuances because again the 3:18:15 old soft fork idea was when the network is ready the whole network updates and 3:18:20 when is the network ready when miners have activated so the question of the 3:18:28 miners could activate it at first enforce it for a while as this time 3:18:33 period is passing of it being active minor only active a couple other full 3:18:38 nodes activate to be in compliance like in synchronous synchronicity with the 3:18:44 miners version of the nodes so in that state in that case the it was activated 3:18:54 by miners first but then a couple other nodes activated later there's no real 3:18:59 way of knowing whether or not they have because it's very hard to measure the 3:19:04 node situation unlike the mining situation it's very easy to measure so 3:19:12 what I'm trying to say is miners activated first but then maybe they 3:19:15 they're stuck with it they can't actually unilaterally unactivated in the 3:19:21 first you know five minutes maybe they could but as time goes on they don't 3:19:25 know they have to worry who else is activated this because they don't even 3:19:30 really know there's not even a way for them to tell so it might be nobody but 3:19:34 it might be a lot of people might be coinbase and now you're a minor you're 3:19:38 kind of trapped so there's a little bit more nuance to it like I think how to 3:19:46 explain this 3:19:48 how to explain this activation so like can you repeat you were saying can you repeat what you 3:19:54 yeah my question my question discuss was actually about something else completely but I do enjoy the 3:20:02 the current like but you know I think that's like my my view on the whole thing but regarding 3:20:11 mining a minor activated soft fork and like a normal soft fork is that like I the miners can probably do it 3:20:19 themselves right it's totally possible to coordinate in some way I'm mostly worried about like the social fabric of 3:20:26 things like it will be better if you could try to convince shinobi and whatever and they will stop like 3:20:35 we invite these people to come to this space or to do a debate and yeah I know 3:20:42 so they you know what I mean like they don't yeah so what else can I do other than that 3:20:48 I would agree I'm just I'm just saying that it will be better to first try to convince people and I think it's inevitable like you 3:20:59 said in a tweet that's like as as Drivechains are one of the only like L2s that directly benefit the miners like 3:21:09 themselves it's there is reason to believe that they will choose to activate like Drivechains eventually anyway so 3:21:18 like coordination of that might be messy but it's I think it's fully likely that it will happen I just wish that we 3:21:26 somehow could like get people on board eventually before we start another like big war regarding forks or whatever 3:21:37 like we had in 2017 so yeah that's just my general rambling rambling about these things 3:21:44 yeah I agree that is we're trying to do that I think yeah we're trying to do that we do these spaces we put out info on the sites 3:22:02 we put out at the demo software so all of that is good so yeah I'm trying to do that I do think that a lot of these people are like 3:22:14 there are they're not in good faith like they don't they just don't want to like they're not interested in the truth they just 3:22:28 they decided a long ago that this idea was bad and now they can't they can't back down so I'm not sure exactly what I should do I 3:22:38 don't think in that case I I'm kind of obligated to ignore those people and focus on everyone else 3:22:45 yeah it's it's quite messy with some of some of the discussions going on I've definitely seen that but that's like my view like just reading 3:22:59 stuff is that like I think that the drivetrain proponents like are winning in the discussions at least mostly and I'm not sure I'm not sure that 3:23:11 people really care about these like long toxic Twitter threads with stuff but yeah I mean one kind of funny thing to point out 3:23:22 one kind of funny thing to point out is everyone hated Bitmain so much like on Twitter like the most hated but Antpool is still like the number two pool 3:23:33 or whatever so it doesn't translate to like it's like so you're like how misleading is Twitter anyway it must be pretty misleading I think 3:23:46 probably that's true but just a question to you like let's say there's like a generic soft fork like bit 119 do you think that every main chain node 3:24:00 needs to upgrade or just like those who want to use 3:24:05 well I don't think so I don't agree with that I like I love Luke Dashjr. and I actually love spending time in his head had the opportunity to talk to him a lot online and in person 3:24:17 but I think his point of view on this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever I just don't know 3:24:22 so what is your point of view regarding like soft forks 3:24:26 I again I see it all as problem solution so like I'm driving down the road I notice my car is drifting too far to the left okay I turn the steering wheel a little to the right 3:24:37 and then oh a stop sign is coming I press the stop I press the brake you know okay it's time to go again I don't have this like grand thing so to me it's like you run a node like in practice how does it work 3:24:50 you do your Bitcoin research you decide to run a node you run a node you do not touch that node again because this node is your lifeline it's telling you if you have money or not you you don't even upgrade this node until you have to 3:25:07 so you're gonna skip like three four or five upgrade cycles you know you're gonna upgrade it like once every three years maybe and when you do maybe you don't even upgrade to the latest version you say you know I don't know if I trust the latest version yet I'm gonna pick a version that's like six seven months old 3:25:26 and in that way not everyone can do this of course because this is a kind of a little bit of free riding but I say don't upgrade unless it solves a problem for you and if you do that if you do as I suggest then nothing bad will happen to you people say like immediately up downgraded to SPV this is this is so misleading as to essentially be a lie I think but this is what Luke said 3:25:50 I don't think Luke is a liar Luke is a very honest person but you know what I mean like what are they talking about like that's not actually the case 3:25:57 Well I do agree with Luke or I can explain my point of view then I see your point like there can be free riders right because like if the majority of hash power like the full majority of hash power follows the new rules then it should not be any problem 3:26:19 But to try to illustrate my point of view or point is that let's say there's a new OP-CHECK-SIG, OP-CODE like OP-CHECK-SIG2 or whatever and let's say that you get cookies if you use that OP-CHECK-SIG2, OP-CODE for your transactions so that means that a lot of users will start using this new OP-CHECK-SIG2, OP-CODE and you know make transactions with that 3:26:45 So if you stay behind on the old software that means that you won't validate transactions anymore at least the vast majority of them right so in that case I don't think it makes sense to stay like on the old software because you're not really a full node anymore if you don't follow the rules of network 3:27:09 So that's how I see it like you need to, you're not a main chain full node in the same capacity as before if you don't follow all the new softworks 3:27:20 And I suppose you're right that you can free ride and stuff and it's not a danger if the vast majority of the hash power like and the full nodes in the network do follow the rules but just on principle I do think it looks like you're degraded to SPV like security if that makes sense 3:27:43 So but it depends if there are soft forks and then there are other soft forks so like for example the tighten the rules soft fork you're the it's a very good example the OP-CHECK-SIG example because and if you if you read the post I wrote did you read it I wrote those two posts about how the soft fork terminology is screwed up 3:28:06 Is it a recent post? 3:28:08 Sorry 3:28:09 Is it a recent post or 3:28:11 No they're like literally from like 2017 or something they're from forever but they're they apply more now than they ever did and so but but I discussed a similar example where it's like did coins flow through an opcode that you didn't understand to you and now if so is that does that count as a confirmation or not you know because like you don't know but I think 3:28:38 So that's a good example 3:28:40 Yeah 3:29:09 So you could just keep adding to that and the signature would the transaction would stay valid 3:29:15 Signature would stay valid but the transaction ID would change and this was just trolling the network so you had a situation where there was a soft fork to ban that 3:29:31 But then I had an old Electrum wallet that only made the transactions with a value that happened to be like not in the valid range so to me I was required to upgrade my Electrum wallet back then 3:29:52 This DERS value fork and that was not like 3:30:01 So what I'm trying to paint a picture is that the word soft fork is used to describe many different situations and so what I'm trying to say is in some situations 3:30:15 Yeah but it's like a sensitive soft fork right because you cannot use certain test values so that's like a strict enforcement potential 3:30:27 Yes and it's like it would also be a soft fork if they said every transaction is now banned until you upgrade to this particular software 3:30:36 It would be like an evil variant of a soft fork 3:30:38 Yeah 3:30:39 That's really scary 3:30:40 So that is what I'm getting at and in those posts I describe different dimensions and so let me take you back if I may on a boring story 3:30:52 But the original usage of the first time soft and hard fork the distinction was made was by Gavin Andreessen in 2012 3:31:02 And he said there's too many people running different versions of the code and they said a version that requires everyone to update is probably dead on arrival 3:31:12 So we can never do that we'll call that a hard change that's what he said 3:31:15 And he said but if we do a change that does not require everyone to update then we'll call that a soft change 3:31:23 So that's the original meaning is actually a soft fork is one that does not require everyone to upgrade 3:31:31 Now you see this is just like completely incompatible with Luke Dashjr's version which he says that you are not unless you run a network something that enforces every soft fork you are not even running a Bitcoin Core node 3:31:45 So he is like they're just 180 degrees separated 3:31:49 I think it depends on usage of the soft fork and validating the rules of network because I think I'm on Luke's side although I don't fully understand I don't know his point of view 3:32:03 But from my point of view at least it's not good if you see anyone can spend opcode that you don't understand 3:32:13 I agree with you on that 3:32:21 One reason why you're certainly correct and I presented about this exact topic at Building on Bitcoin in Lisbon I think it was like June, July 2018 or something 3:32:31 So I gave a talk on this exact topic and one reason why you are especially correct that you shouldn't if you see opcodes that you don't understand and you don't know the rules being enforced that's bad 3:32:43 One reason is that if two different people try to soft fork on OP_NOP5 or opnop7 or whatever but they use different rules then that actually one of them is you know it triggers a hard fork in practice 3:32:59 Because they are just like one thing 3:33:04 So that's a case where soft fork plus soft fork equals hard fork which is the whole point of soft fork is to not do the hard fork 3:33:11 There's one thing before I continue my story though I mean well I mean so you're completely right and what I was saying in the 2018 talk is that what we should actually do is we should have a range of behavior where we know that it is unknown 3:33:28 And actually sidechains are one of the few things that meet this criteria 3:33:33 But the intriguing thing actually is the opnop because you understand why with sidechains is you say I know that there's a sidechain in slot 9 I know that I don't know what the rules are I know that a Bitcoin 100 withdrawal has to do these criteria 3:33:49 So the sidechain is actually a solution to this problem and that's why I call it consensus and dissent 3:33:54 The problem of dissent like if people fight over OP_NOP5 what do we do like how do we know what happened 3:34:01 But one intriguing thing is not only do sidechains do that but the opnops themselves were put in there by Satoshi and they were deliberately it was deliberately like explained that they would be reserved for later use in that way 3:34:19 So it's kind of weird like you say well I don't know what OP_NOP5 is but actually when you downloaded whatever version of the software you did download that version of the software came with like the understanding the fully and unanimously agreed on understanding that these are the things that have not been used yet so watch out for that 3:34:46 It was kind of like you see what I'm saying it's not really like it was completely undefined it was like saying we reserve these for future use so if they start being used then you just conclude oh I'm living in the future now 3:34:58 I think the SPV like the SPV comparison comes from like as you don't know the rules of the new like the new as you don't know the rules of the OP_NOP5 3:35:10 You do know that it was reserved for future use though and so you say well I guess I don't care 3:35:15 Yes but there is a risk that if there is an incorrect spend from the like transaction that uses the opcode you risk yourself having going on a like a chain that is not valid right 3:35:35 Like if the hash power one option is to try to cheat you you could end up in a wrongful chain so to say so that's why like from a principle standpoint I do like it looks similar to SPV to me as in SPV you don't like you trust the hash power as well there you don't really validate the transactions so yeah 3:36:02 It's a very interesting philosophical conversation but let me lay down some weird paradoxes for you to resolve if this is your point of view which is that every protocol that exists has any protocol that could have a full and SPV version it is an SPV version of something 3:36:25 So every protocol is an SPV protocol of something else and a full protocol of itself SPV just means you're not checking all the rules so for example I could have a rule I could get together with the miners and I could say we're going to have this mandatory 8 terabyte extension block that we know is mandatory but everyone else we're just going to put the hash of it in the block the blockchain 3:36:55 you must have it or the block is invalid and I get 100% of the hash rate to upgrade 100% of the hash rate plus me I'm just myself and we we secretly do this you have no see this is why I tried to say before I return to this example let me remind you that I tried to say there are different types of soft fork 3:37:19 So the ones and this is what I presented on in Lisbon where ones where you say we are taking something that was reserved for future use that is a kind of a different kind of thing than the wrong S value the our signature and that is a different kind of thing from like just censoring transactions which is a sort of a tightening the rules soft fork 3:37:43 I think the S value thing is a censorship soft fork 3:38:14 You don't know that there's the new thing all the miners have upgraded to it now you have been quote degraded to SPV but you didn't even know that you were 3:38:25 Yeah I agree like it's there could be secret like rules that miners enforce right like we cannot possibly know if they enforce certain rules themselves that is actually problematic especially for censorship and stuff 3:38:40 Well it is it is kind of problematic but what I'm actually going to argue is that it is completely and totally unavoidable in every possible way so now let's imagine a situation where once every 4000 times miners take to become offended by a certain transaction and they're determined to reorg it out of the blockchain 3:39:07 So this is the miners insult paradox I give you my first paradox which is the mandatory 8 terabyte extension block that no one knows about paradox one then paradox two is occasionally miners will become irrationally offended by a transaction it has a transaction that has too many fours in the TX ID and they just decide how could this have happened I hate this transaction 3:39:37 And they reorg the blockchain to get rid of it 3:39:40 Well in that case every single human in the world that's not the miners is in SPV mode relative to that because there is a new rule that no one knows about it's just an onset of a psychology 3:39:59 It's just something that could happen they could just decide they want to you could say well they won't reorg because reorg costs them money but then you're just arguing for SPV mode the whole time because then you're saying nothing will reorg and everything will be fine and blah blah blah 3:40:15 So it's kind of like these are paradoxes that to me these paradoxes mean that Luke Jess Jr. cannot be right but maybe not to you but to me they think they mean that something like we don't actually know I have no way of knowing if I'm running a full node or not 3:40:37 I take my best guess but I agree that is problematic but I'm not sure like I see your point of course but I'm not sure why you would not choose to upgrade the core software to support the new opcodes to be more certain that you are following all the automation rules and thus are a full node 3:41:04 Yes you're right that you would if that was your goal but remember that isn't always people's goal people are complex so for example 3:41:17 I would argue that you should run SPV then right? I would argue that you should run SPV instead if you don't want to like that seems like the best option if you just want to keep it 3:41:26 Could you repeat what you said? 3:41:29 Sorry I was just saying that if they don't want to follow certain rules I don't see why you would follow any rules then like it makes more sense to just run like an SPV client because that's much cheaper than validating the signatures right and stuff 3:41:46 So for me it's either like follow all the things or just follow nothing like I don't see why you would pick and choose which like softworks you want to enforce that does make sense to me at least 3:42:01 Well indeed okay so first of all you're absolutely right about that which is that in practice none of this actually really matters because what people do instead is they don't run they don't like enforce they don't go a la carte with the rules they basically say do I want to upgrade to version 25 or not and so version 25 comes with innumerable changes one of which might be a new version 28 or whatever version 27 3:42:28 But I'll answer your fundamental question because you say why wouldn't someone want to be on the absolute most synchronized version there's two important answers to that question very important one is philosophical and one is practical 3:42:46 The practical one I already gave you at the very beginning of the story where I said what you should do is you upgrade to the node and you wait and you just run your node and you're not doing anything fancy you're just receiving payments and you don't want to touch your setup because every time you touch your setup you're at risk of being hacked so people don't upgrade and that's even back in 2012 that's how Gavin Andreessen started all this 3:43:10 It's where he said listen not everyone upgrades a lot of people just don't upgrade so it's probably too late if we were relying on everyone to upgrade we're probably dead so we can't do that anymore 3:43:22 It makes sense for miners to upgrade those are the guys that really need to upgrade in a soft fork right? The majority of hash power needs to import the rules otherwise you risk chain splits and stuff but you're right that a soft fork means that not everyone at once needs to be coordinated and up to the software 3:43:48 Well that's what it meant in the past and that's what it sort of still means to me but now it means something else 3:44:18 I mean according to Luke's point of view he has various intriguing ways around this that I can try to regurgitate if you're still interested but you have to upgrade to the latest version so what if the latest version is bad what if the latest version just has a keylogger or whatever run by you know 3:44:42 North Korea or something we have but now we have to upgrade to the latest version like no matter what and then or we're in SPV and Bitcoin has failed like so Luke has a weird Luke's view about this is that you slowly expand the concept of what is or is not a full node to like include the entire Bitcoin development process and the open source software development process and like the entire community development process 3:45:09 so he's he's kind of asking for kind of a lot but that's kind of the road that he goes down and maybe maybe he'll show up and he can talk about this or maybe I don't think he probably doesn't do because I bet he doesn't 3:45:23 I try to make some like what I see some people on Twitter and other places claim is that that they don't that software doesn't concern them right like it's because I don't see it that like I see Bitcoin as a consensus system right so full nodes for the network should follow and enforce the rules and it's true that softworks makes it possible to like kind of circumvent this because you rely on the hash power maintaining a single 3:45:53 chain right and there is no like split in half and stuff but like even if you don't use a soft fork you still are affected by it like indirect and indirectly like you could introduce a soft fork that's has some kind of bug in it that that will split different nodes in half like like 3:46:17 but you know that that actually is the advantage of the soft fork is that in that particular case if you split off then it must be the case that your bug actually caused a hard fork and you are on the wrong side the side that's going to lose and this is exactly what happened in July 2015 3:46:35 Right but then what I'm saying is that it would still affect you even if you don't necessarily run the... 3:46:41 I think you can go through all the actual examples like take your whatever your op checksig example and the scenario would be something like it starts as it's a new opcode that started as anyone can spend and it turns out though people we make it so that you can only spend if you do x, y, and z you know during the day 3:47:04 you know during a full moon or something we soft fork some new rules onto it and now I'm a merchant I'm a merchant running an old version and someone spends they have received money to this new opcode and they spend that money to me and to me it looks like anyone can spend but actually the rules are being broken 3:47:28 this is a transaction that breaks the whatever it's not spent during the quarter moon or whatever I just said so it's not going to work 3:47:40 So if I receive this you're not talking about the case where 95% of miners are enforcing this because then obviously it will not get 6 confirmations you understand that? 3:47:57 Yeah I think that's if miners are enforcing 95% then there's no problem really with not upgrading right because the miners will ensure that there's only one chain and like a temporary split will be resolved very quickly probably 3:48:19 Yeah so your software may warn you it may say listen I'm being spent something that uses one of the opnot5s so maybe I should wait for more confirmations 3:48:31 But how many confirmations you wait is kind of up to you and you know reorgs are always possible we don't want to do anything to encourage reorgs of course we want to discourage reorgs but it's not like reorgs like reorgs predate reorgs certainly predate like opnot5 or whatever like those are always compound 3:48:57 So you're not really saying that you're kind of saying something like I don't know how I got these coins but the real failure mode is kind of to say the failure mode is mostly the people who it's like the people who receive them to the new opchecksig 3:49:21 They're the ones taking the risk because they could be in a situation where this rule is actually not enforced and then they're just going to straight up lose their coins because they started as anyone can spend coins 3:49:34 Well the lost receiver will also like risk it even if they use like opchecksig1 or whatever like the whole chain might break if there's a really bad situation 3:49:46 The chain of the coin yes but that's like the reorg case 3:49:51 Yes yeah 3:49:53 So but you see that's kind of the point though isn't it it's because the what they decide what was the old thinking was if there is a split on how this rule is enforced 3:50:07 If it's a soft change then it will always then if the miners are up in enforcing it then it will always the blocks will only be found on the side the longest chain will always be on the side that enforced the rules 3:50:23 So this is kind of intriguing that the original soft fork logic is really kind of very different from what people seem to have in mind today which is something like the UASF SegWit thing where people think like it's something like something the community does and the miners play no role but in the past the miners played the absolutely no role 3:50:48 So you know that's fine but I'm just saying like that was how it was 3:50:54 I think people in Yandron are very confused about soft forks and even hard forks probably like there is a lot of confusion after 3:51:02 An important thing to point out is that the two different the many different versions of the soft fork are sometimes opposite of each other actually because the soft fork used to mean tighten the rules I mean excuse me the tighten the rules thing kind of came later 3:51:18 The soft fork used to mean this is a chain split that will resolve itself without anyone doing anything and it's because the new opcode the new chop checksig you could either break the rules on an old node or you could enforce the rules with a new node 3:51:37 And this is exactly the logic of what happened in July 2015 where you can only since it works on both since breaking the rules works on the old nodes and enforcing the rules works on the old nodes that is why the old nodes have the biggest advantage 3:51:53 So if you have the miners plus something that works on both networks you'll always win maybe this is a little rambly but if you have something that works on both networks if it's backward and forward it's really forward compatible this is another thing that people don't really know 3:52:08 It's really the the feature is forward compatible which is a very rarely used term forward compatible is when you you the feature will work on a piece of software that is in the past backward compatible is the other way around 3:52:30 So this is another thing that everyone describes as backward compatible but they really mean forward compatible but it doesn't matter because everyone knows what they're talking about so anyway so where I'm getting with this is it used to mean that if the miners were with the change that worked on either version that the old nodes would have would be could safely use the new version 3:52:53 And whereas if you if you had a change that such as Bitcoin cash block size increase in that scenario everyone must upgrade so no matter what the miners do there will be two chains and everyone must in order to recombine into one chain which is of course the whole point of Satoshi software is to keep everyone on just one chain 3:53:23 And in a sense altcoin every altcoin is like a weird orphan block of some kind in a vague abstract sense because it's all consensus to deter double spending and to deter inflation 3:53:36 So in the case of a layer one block size increase everyone in order to get back on the same network everyone must upgrade their software to change that one to an eight or change that one to a 16 or whatever the number is you know so 3:53:56 So what that was the old definition and then later on people and kind of came up with the tighten the rules which I think I regard as a kind of rule of thumb because actually the evil fork showed that that was not the case and the other things were also like the S value signature thing was technically it reduced shrank the 3:54:20 The S value soft fork shrank the values of S that were allowed but it's not like I freely chose an S there was a piece of software doing it so in that way it was actually basically a hard fork because it required me to do something 3:54:36 It gets weird with the S value right because I would say it is the tightening of rules but as everyone needs to upgrade it basically becomes a hard fork as well then because like yeah as we talked about like 3:54:49 The enforcing, the impelling, the you know kind of like whipping the user you must upgrade you know 3:54:57 Yeah so that becomes a hard fork in practice then because you have to upgrade right so that's by the old definition 3:55:02 Yes but you see now that the old definition and the new definition are actually in conflict sometimes 3:55:08 Yeah I see it in conflict yeah 3:55:39 But there's actually some nuance to it I'm going to try to explain it again like BIP300 is good because you turn it on with a soft fork that is harmless to everyone else 3:55:49 You can also turn it off with a second soft fork that is harmless to everyone else and both of these soft forks are actually soft forks in both the tightening the rules sense and in the if a majority of miners do it then it doesn't affect anyone else sense 3:56:06 So because you have first BIP300 is activated you take OPNAP 5 or something and you enforce it you use the soft fork but then if for some reason people decide oh wait a minute BIP300 was a mistake we don't we need to purge this forever 3:56:23 The miners just say OPNAP 5 is banned henceforth you tighten the rules again you soft fork it again and now this doesn't matter if you ran the pre Drivechain version the post Drivechain version the pre anti BIP300 version or it doesn't matter which of the three regions of time that you're in 3:56:46 Any of those since if you run any of those nodes they will just be all on the same network and they all see the same thing and they all just see no more OPNAP 5 OPNAP 5 will be gone and everything else will be 100% fine and completely and totally unaffected 3:57:04 But what some people have in mind is they say if BIP300 is activated by miners we will run a soft fork to tighten the rules to fight the miners to tighten the rules and eliminate like OPNAP 5 3:57:22 We will say we refuse to allow OPNAP 5 into any block if we do it's invalid if we see that the transaction is invalid that block is invalid 3:57:36 Now what would actually happen in practice is the miners would try to figure out like how many you know what's the economic value like at stake like who are these people you know what I mean like if it was coinbase that's different than if it's like some guy 3:57:49 But I'm just saying since you asked all these philosophical questions I'll say we'll say imagine some people do run that software but the miners in quotes which is to say more than 50% of the miners or 100% of the miners if the 100% of the miners do not 3:58:06 So let's say BIP300 activates with classic miner activated soft fork that new thing the user resisted thing to ban OPNAP 5 that is a soft fork in the tighten the rules sense but actually it is a hard fork because the only people joining those people in the old sense it's a hard fork in the old sense because only the people who run that 3:58:31 Those people who run the user resisted fork they will eventually see an OPNAP 5 mined in a bitcoin block they will reject it as invalid they will be on their own network with like a little their own little nub or whatever you want to call it their own little tip 3:58:50 And the other network will proceed without them because they'll say that's invalid but everyone else everyone who ran an old version everyone who's indifferent all the miners those people be on that network so is this making sense 3:59:07 Yeah it does this is something I've also been thinking about yes like UASF whether it be in SegWit or BIP300 like if you are a minority group you will make a chain split right and that will be a permanent chain split because you would expect the hash power to keep going with BIP300 so it effectively becomes a hard fork as well even though as you said the user resisted soft fork will be a tightening of rules or soft fork 3:59:37 In practice it becomes a hard fork because it creates a chain split where the majority hash power stays on the 100% stays on the BIP300 so that was actually the same thing could have happened with SegWit in 2017 like if the BIP 148 people would try to block the non signaling blocks and stuff 4:00:04 But in that case we also had like BIP 91 I think it was called that also did censorship stuff to enforce the 95% threshold so yeah I see what you're saying that's like in some situations soft fork becomes like hard forks or I like to call them chain splits like the permanent chain splits like they become it in practice 4:00:27 Yes by the old definition and the new definition both the loosening the rules definition and the fork that does not resolve itself only the hard fork is a chain split a soft fork is never a chain split which gives it a very ironic name since of course every other fork we see a fork in the road a culinary fork those are always splitting things but a soft fork would never do that by the original definition 4:00:55 Yes because you can't just go your own without the miners right so that's why it becomes weird like a UASF thing 4:01:08 There is a similar situation to Bitcoin Cash where if you upgrade then you are on the new network if you do not then you are not so that would be just an interesting situation where they are the same 4:01:23 I think you were saying okay so like whether or not it could have happened with SegWit yes this is another important point which is that as I told the story before this is just me telling what I think happened but there was really no case against SegWit it was just the miners were frustrated and they were going to withhold SegWit until they got the block size increase that they wanted which was also not popular because it was 4:01:53 some people wanted it but not very many and also the block size increase itself was fraught with unanswered questions like are we going to continue to do a hard fork like every time the blocks fill up or when will we stop increasing the block size none of these questions had really been answered and this created a little bit of 4:02:17 I mean I think this was also all of this stuff was the kiss of death for everyone who wanted the L1 block size increase if you wanted the L1 block size increase what you had to do was propose one complete permanent like schedule or something to do instead you say this is what we'll do instead 4:02:37 instead they were like we want to hard fork to two megabytes now and then with it presumably being the case that when the two megabyte blocks filled up they would then want to hard fork again and all the reasons for doing so would just apply double so they would probably get what they wanted so that was why I think people didn't didn't actually like the block size increase it was like just not I don't think it was presented or thought out or even 4:03:03 there was a couple of other proposals out there like 17% increase every year or something like that and then there was some kind of dynamic schedule but I think all of them was pretty insanely like aggressive like the only one I think in hindsight was like Luke Dashjr. also had like a proposal that will actually decrease the block size initially and then over time it will actually go past one megabyte 4:03:31 but that one was really really unpopular like back in 2017 and for good reason because the opinion was different back then but I think now in hindsight his proposal actually looks like the best one of the bunch but yeah none of the proposals got any traction unfortunately so we're stuck with this strict mindset of hating on block size increases 4:03:57 and I don't think they're bad like they're not necessarily bad it's just a matter of how aggressive you are 4:04:27 that's not a reasonable thing to say that's that's a kind of so that's there's a fork is very expensive and so yeah and people took Luke Dashjr.'s thing as like a sort of insult which of course it wasn't and of course Luke was the only people to have the only person to have any kind of principled take on what what is the correct number what should the block size be back then no one else really had anything including me I was saying basically at the time 4:04:57 the hard fork this isn't worth 2x is not worth the hard fork because I think the hard fork is not good and as you heard me just say to that other guy the other guy who came up here cakes or whatever shiny cakes the dog and so so that was the stage was just that actually people wanted SegWit people had worked on it there was an enormous amount of like thought put into SegWit 4:05:25 there was enormous amount of excitement around lightning like it was being held up for no reason the block size increase was not as popular as it was it had legit many legitimate supporters but it was just not it would it was not like in the same state there was all this SegWit2x SegWit2x stuff was like people thought SegWit2x was still coming so there was a weird perplexing situation where miners signed that SegWit2x document that everyone hates 4:05:55 which they sort of should in some extent but the document says that they'll activate SegWit or whatever so which they did it just said like SegWit then so there's a lot of stories about that but what I'm what I'm getting at and why I bring it up and why I react to it because you brought it up which is actually relevant to BIP300 which is to say because we were talking about what could have happened with SegWit and why what happened did happen and this is actually related to this Napoleon thing that I was saying before about like 4:06:25 the good idea is just a good idea and it's kind of a matter of time it's a matter of when you know not if so where I'm going with all this rambling is people actually wanted SegWit and they didn't want the large block increase in that way like on August 1st or whatever and that's why the UASF could have gone the other way but if you if you had stayed you would really have been on the minority because you would be 4:06:55 even if you were a minor and you decided I will break with the UASF well so many people had run the you so many people wearing the hats and they had it in their thing and so many people wanted to move forward from the controversy remember SegWit itself was a block size increase from one to four megabytes so it was the 2.3 megabyte compromise so if you compare 4:07:25 if you had to compare them like how popular was SegWit versus how popular was this 2 megabyte hard fork it's very disproportionate but you see this is relevant to the conversation we just had about BIP300 and whether or not it could be activated under a similar circumstance because now you have to say who would you be against if the if some some people run the user-resisted soft fork it's that it's the people who run the user-resisted fork versus 4:07:56 everyone the pro Drivechain people plus everyone who is indifferent which is like 99% of the whole group most people are indifferent of course so in that case it's a lot easier to see why 4:08:09 miners could activate BIP300 via soft fork and why the user-resisted soft fork would not work because the user-resisted soft fork is not doing anything it's just mean-spirited 4:08:21 it's very similar to like being against gay marriage or something where it's like they're just stopping other people from using the feature a feature that should make the coin more useful and generate more transaction fees and more users the people who are against 4:08:39 Drivechain just you know I don't think there's any case of anyone actually knowing anything about Drivechain and being against it it's just people repeat what they hear on Twitter or something but anyone can come up come on up and say whatever 4:09:09 no no one 4:09:17 Henry are you there you're on mute 4:09:21 yes I'm here 4:09:22 okay 4:09:28 anyone want to come up and say anything no no one 4:09:39 I think the code is connecting 4:09:52 we've gone for four hours I want to mention that I have a hard stop at five 4:09:56 so we can go for one more hour if you want 4:10:03 okay great on the East Coast it's already 510 but maybe I mean something 4:10:12 else 4:10:14 no I meant six okay yes we have someone else doing moon this year yes is a 4:10:29 chakra open 4:10:39 yeah sorry thanks for letting up just a quick question so I admittedly haven't 4:10:48 been following it too terribly closely but you had made a comment about the 4:10:52 demand for for these features and that that would maybe drive part of fun this 4:11:01 change eventually anyway and then there was like it as an inevitability if that 4:11:06 is the case why why is there such an urgency now why are you why is it seem 4:11:12 like it's being portrayed as something super urgent to change and get activated 4:11:18 now as opposed to letting that natural demand kind of push the issue later yes 4:11:27 well I don't that's an interesting question it has some nuance I mean one 4:11:34 thing to say is this idea is from November 2015 so in general it's moved 4:11:39 very slowly but I bet doesn't really answer what you're really saying is is 4:11:44 that now people are more anxious about it I think activating it quickly which I 4:11:51 agree with you about that and I think if I had to guess I would say that it is 4:11:59 actually I think part of it is that the culture has stagnated for a little while 4:12:09 and people want they're becoming frustrated with the old things and they 4:12:16 are more interested in they want something new and this is a type of 4:12:19 thing that would just like open the floodgates of novelty because you could 4:12:26 just have you have the ETH sidechain and then it's just kind of like you don't 4:12:30 need to participate in the old slow Bitcoin core development process but 4:12:40 yeah I don't know I don't really think that it is I think I mean I think 4:12:46 there's some truth to what you say I mean my point of view is like I had this 4:12:51 idea a while ago I put out stuff pointing out that the idea is good I'm 4:12:59 kind of proven right every year and the critics become crazier and crazier and 4:13:05 they argue for weirder and weirder things like they used to argue that 4:13:10 people aren't in control of their own Bitcoin and that someone the security 4:13:15 officer should be able to stop them from spending their Bitcoin to a certain 4:13:19 script which is like a weird idea and now the idea is something like it's bad 4:13:27 when miners earn more revenues so it's kind of like I think now it's kind of 4:13:32 just like played itself out and it's kind of like why are we still waiting I 4:13:37 don't really know I don't really think there's an urgency per se but I do think 4:13:44 that every year the competing coins get a little me namely aetherium I think 4:13:54 they continue to make progress and it's only a matter like for example aetherium 4:13:59 could decide that they are going to make a small block ossified l1 and then do 4:14:03 various other kinds of things roll ups or whatever things that are very 4:14:06 drive-chain like and then they could say we want we have the l1 ossified I mean 4:14:14 aetherium is now proof of stake so it's pretty different but yeah I don't know 4:14:18 what do you mean like you mean anything specific when you say urgency well I 4:14:24 guess since you brought up aetherium I guess a lot of critics would point to 4:14:29 the lack of utility that have been demonstrated so far in real terms 4:14:35 apart from you know the various pump-and-dump schemes and so if that 4:14:42 utility hasn't really been realized on aetherium really like truly then why 4:14:48 the urgency in opening up something that could replicate that in some fashion on 4:14:53 Bitcoin just yet when there's all kinds of possible hydrogenics that would come 4:14:59 with that change well perhaps right that we don't know the future I know that 4:15:04 you've thought it through very you know exhaustively and you're very very very 4:15:08 certain but the truth is we don't really know how this complex system will react 4:15:14 to having this you know incremental new functionality with you know people have 4:15:20 brought up the miner incentives and all that jazz so since we don't know that 4:15:24 future there's still a chance that you know despite your exhaustive thinking on 4:15:28 it it will cause something to go awry and without that actual real tangible 4:15:35 benefit or urgency or demand you know that is tangible right there like that 4:15:40 has maybe you know been demonstrated in some fashion even in a small way in 4:15:45 these other points we talked about then why go why take that risk it seems like 4:15:51 a foolhardy systemic risk to take for no reason at this junction yeah well I 4:16:00 completely disagree I mean first of all the the miner incentives thing isn't 4:16:05 real it just means that miners may get paid more money but the more important 4:16:09 thing is that we take the risk either way so if you have a risk of someone 4:16:16 inventing something new that's better and it replaces Bitcoin this is all open 4:16:22 source software then that will obviously affect Bitcoiners and they will 4:16:25 obviously also infect mining incentives because if Bitcoin goes to zero than the 4:16:30 miners are they're cut out so they go to nothing so the risk is kind of there no 4:16:36 matter what and the 300 you know it could be turned on with the soft fork as 4:16:41 I mentioned and then just turned off so it actually also is no risk even if it 4:16:48 did hypothetically could do something bad which it really can't so it's 4:16:54 actually the reverse of the way I see it because I think that the risk is 4:16:58 basically zero and the upside is enormous like the upside is very big you 4:17:05 say that you don't really see it but it's like wrapped Bitcoin is basically 4:17:09 this idea just on ETH and only a much worse version but it has billions of 4:17:15 dollars of mark five six billions of dollars in market care maybe not I don't 4:17:19 know what has today four billion maybe but that's one thing you have the fees 4:17:25 paid on aetherium are 50 times what they are in Bitcoin or this they were 4:17:29 recently you have people building these things that they would want to use it's 4:17:38 like the whole file coin and that file coin specifically but that whole family 4:17:42 of things the storage see ya whatever the large blocker people and all of this 4:17:49 is ruined by Metcalfe's law because it's all the square of the number of users we 4:17:56 want if we had everything focused in one coin it would be much much better 4:18:02 than having it spread over many altcoins so we have a situation where the upside 4:18:09 is enormous the upside is making every transaction in the world a Bitcoin 4:18:14 transaction and taking over completely which we can't do so that there's the 4:18:22 the gains the potential gains they're like the upside is there you know 4:18:26 potentially like it will build out at some point in these in ways that we're 4:18:30 not even aware of right now I'm just talking about the current kind of you 4:18:36 know state of things in all the altcoin land where you mentioned file coin you 4:18:43 mentioned some of these other projects they haven't they haven't actually 4:18:47 provided any like real scaled utility they've seen to just result in a 4:18:53 pump-and-dump scheme and a failed project that does can't scale can't do 4:18:57 the thing that was initially set up to do it's a bunch of experimentation and 4:19:00 yeah you're going to expect a vast majority of things to fail but like what 4:19:03 beyond like I don't know just the ability to provide a Ponzi scheme what 4:19:10 utility are we trying to really emulate here so far right I mean we can't what 4:19:16 about Zcash? Zcash is an example where it's the organization is weird and it 4:19:21 has a dev tax and everything it has inflation but the the core idea of 4:19:28 having one reusable address that has unbeatable privacy that is an idea that 4:19:34 everyone in Bitcoin used to want I don't know maybe I think now maybe some people 4:19:38 pretend like they never wanted it but that's they're just lying to themselves 4:19:42 so what do you think of privacy it's privacy it's real yeah no I'm saying 4:19:48 there's definitely like potential game like juice there's juice there to 4:19:52 squeeze for sure privacy just like a pump-and-dump scheme or something what 4:19:57 about the fact that you said everything well you mentioned you mentioned I mean 4:20:03 if you look at its core its history it looks like if you if you look at the 4:20:07 chart it looks like a sequence of pump-and-dumps all the old coins but I 4:20:11 know but I don't understand what you don't get that that is because it is an 4:20:15 altcoin there's not a sidechain well that's a conjecture for sure and that's 4:20:19 may or may not be true you can't pump a number sidechain it's a one-to-one peg 4:20:25 it can neither pump nor dump it no I mean like whether there would be the 4:20:31 utility game like if they you're saying that they haven't gained utility because 4:20:36 they are scant or pump-and-dump or that it's been tied up in that I'm saying 4:20:41 like if they demonstrate the utility then there would be like a more tangible 4:20:44 cause and reason to be able to come over here and make this change software where 4:20:53 you have you can download it and use it and you have a reusable Z address that 4:20:58 is you can it's fixed you can just put it in your Twitter profile or whatever 4:21:03 put it you know do whatever you want with it but the point is people send 4:21:07 the coin so that you do not know the amount the sender or the receiver now 4:21:12 that is what many people in Bitcoin wish they could build on Bitcoin yeah that's 4:21:17 very powerful is the idea is the I mean the assumption is that these are the 4:21:21 sidechains wouldn't exceed the value of Bitcoin in general right and now be a 4:21:28 because it's like it's one putting a $20 bill into an ATM and then saying well 4:21:35 it's the assumption that it will never give you 30 yes that is it's not an 4:21:39 assumption it's programmed into the rules 4:21:44 how so it's just literally what the software does if you use the software 4:21:49 and you click you do 13.2% but yeah you see you select five Bitcoin and you 4:21:54 deposit them into a sidechain you say I want to pay to Bitcoin to this person 4:21:58 pay half a Bitcoin fee and I put 1.5 into sidechain number eight you do that 4:22:05 on l1 sidechain number eight will credit you 1.5 Bitcoin that's just what it does 4:22:10 then when you with if you want to withdraw you get some Bitcoin over there 4:22:13 you have 2.5 you say I want to withdraw I am have these Bitcoin on l2 I want to 4:22:20 withdraw you type in whatever I want to send 2.5 to this main chain address it's 4:22:24 l1 address and I will you you click the button and then that is that is what it 4:22:30 does it does all that unilaterally without interacting with any other human 4:22:34 being there's no other human being doing that there's just you and the rules of 4:22:38 the software and the only good well did you have a question oh that leads to the 4:22:49 question I probably just did but the migration of mining power to 4:22:54 preferentially don't want to make sidechains because of the the miners 4:23:03 don't go anywhere the miners stay on l1 and it's the L was the merge mined as 4:23:12 far as to the to the allows it to ride along for free the transaction the 4:23:20 transaction selection the like that they include in blocks right isn't there a 4:23:25 med issue here oh not really well you say not really okay so not really or 4:23:32 just don't think that it's important there's like a the real answer is no 4:23:36 there is not but what I did I sigh in despair because people just say there is 4:23:41 on Twitter and so they but there is not at all when they say that miners are 4:23:47 in the case of you can foresee or that you know it's not literally not 4:23:53 possible okay and I asked many times Alex B and these other people I asked I told 4:23:59 them write down an example as a pen and a piece of paper and you'll see that 4:24:03 there is none and they have never done this never taken me up on this challenge 4:24:07 and then I did a podcast with Fiat joff and he said two people messaged him or 4:24:15 maybe he said one of them after the but I think during it but at the podcast he 4:24:20 said at least one person had messaged him and said they tried to write it down 4:24:26 but then they realized that they would not be possible for there to be a movie 4:24:29 but what this what the side what merge mining is doing is the sidechains block 4:24:35 is worth a certain amount of money if there's MEV it means they can reorganize 4:24:41 transactions to extract extra money but in the way it works in Drivechain is 4:24:47 that extra money just counts as part of the block because the miners are not 4:24:51 even looking at the block so whoever is assembling the block just pays 4:24:54 themselves all the transaction fees and all the fees due to MEV and no one else 4:24:59 sees what they do so they walk is worth whatever it is and then they just the 4:25:05 layer one miners just get paid on l1 so they don't even see the sidechain block 4:25:09 they get paid all the transaction bill the well all the value of the block they 4:25:13 don't even see it so how's this this is Namecoin how's it like Namecoin is old 4:25:19 merge mining that's that's traditional merge mining this is different okay yes 4:25:27 well the in this the sidechain block the world of the site I think blimers 4:25:34 money is like the inevitable equilibrium outcome of all merge mining anyway so 4:25:41 doesn't even matter there really is no difference but what basically the 4:25:46 blimers mining is doing is it's saying the miner doesn't even want to pay the 4:25:49 cost of running the sidechain node and there happen to be many sidechain nodes 4:25:54 out there already that are just regular people who are using the the blockchain 4:26:01 like the time you could just team up with them since they already exist so 4:26:09 it's like you know many people are running Bitcoin nodes today but not 4:26:11 mining but a miner could team up with them this is the same thing where they 4:26:15 have many people run the l2 nodes the sidechain nodes the l1 miners just team 4:26:21 up with them and they say listen I'm not running this node but you already have a 4:26:27 node so someone tell me what someone tell me what the block hash is supposed 4:26:32 to be and how much fees I'm supposed to get and then we'll just mind the book so 4:26:38 what the blimers mining does is the someone pays the miner on l1 the fee 4:26:45 balance in return for the minor just mining the block without asking any 4:26:49 questions so the miners don't don't look at the sidechain block they don't 4:26:53 they don't pay any sidechain node costs at all and they get all the fee and the 4:26:59 reason is that BIP301 makes it so that only one bid you know only one thing is 4:27:05 valid for a sidechain block so they all they're all basically bidding up the 4:27:10 different nodes are saying I'll pay you this much I'll pay you four dollars I'll 4:27:13 pay you five dollars I'll pay you five BTC I'll pay you five and a half BTC I'll 4:27:17 pay you five point five one two BTC and the miners will take whichever one pays 4:27:21 them the most that is how the miners get all they just get all the money that 4:27:26 they would have gotten otherwise okay and all those rewards are paid in 4:27:30 Bitcoin or in one paid on l1 and then they just say they include a hash so in 4:27:36 that sense it's no different than open timestamps or something or just 4:27:40 opportunity so I guess this is a broad question like you were you're obviously 4:27:45 the spearhead of this push what's your motivation at this heart that is like 4:27:51 providing so much fire for you to stay with this and to see this I think it's 4:27:58 the critics are so clueless that I just think there must be something wrong with 4:28:03 the world if it's well I think the critics that are driving you I mean you 4:28:06 obviously believe in this very very strongly so I mean critics aside what is 4:28:09 motivating you to like one thing that you want Bitcoin to be doing that it's 4:28:15 not doing and that this world yeah I mean so that's not really how this was 4:28:21 never a controversial idea in the past only kind of like after the SegWit 4:28:27 block size war did every soft fork become controversial so it's kind of 4:28:31 like but I'll give you a little bit of the timeline because it's very well 4:28:34 known which is that I was interested in prediction markets and I wrote my own 4:28:38 experimental blockchain that is just very very very different from Bitcoin so 4:28:43 I knew that it attaching it to Bitcoin would require something weird and as 4:28:47 someone else tipped me off to this two-way peg idea and I came up with a 4:28:53 version of it a long time ago and then I kind of ignored it from just for a 4:29:00 little while well I was working on my prediction market software the which was 4:29:06 now called Bitcoin Hivemind and which used to be called Truthcoin and that is 4:29:11 why my Twitter handle is Truthcoin just because my name my last name is very 4:29:15 difficult to spell and Truthcoin is not so so that sort of happened and then the 4:29:24 I was trying to attach that to Bitcoin so I looked into block streams research 4:29:28 on sidechains and I realized that they had not actually produced anything they 4:29:33 had said they would produce something but they had not so since I had to 4:29:37 actually use it I was confronted with this reality and so that was the 4:29:42 original motivation but since then it's just clear to me that this idea solves 4:29:49 all of the very serious problems that Bitcoin faces so it just is like I 4:29:57 didn't really plan it to be this way but it just ended up being that it it really 4:30:02 is the best idea and actually the other ideas that I used to support wholeheartedly 4:30:07 now I see them as being not good enough they're good but they're not good enough 4:30:13 and I didn't plan any of that to happen and you know none of this was 4:30:17 controversial back in 2015 or 2014 many people proposed many different ideas for 4:30:25 in particular scaling Bitcoin and so lots and lots of ideas were proposed 4:30:33 and this was one and this was not even this was this version of things that 4:30:38 this is the extension block that had pre-existed so my original motivation 4:30:42 was this prediction market sidechain but now it's clear that this this is 4:30:47 probably the only type of idea that can actually solve for example disagreement 4:30:53 among people and that you want the Bitcoin tent to continue to grow we want 4:31:02 everyone to be able to join because of network effects and so that's big but it 4:31:09 happens to also be the only good scaling idea which I didn't plan on happening at 4:31:12 all I had no idea until maybe I would say a year and a half ago that it would 4:31:18 be the only one that would actually probably work other than maybe I could 4:31:23 think of like one and a half other but I had no idea that that would be the 4:31:28 case back when I first came up with it I also don't understand why is our 4:31:33 privacy situation so bad we could have the Zcash privacy situation I don't see 4:31:39 I think there's just lots of cope when people talk about the altcoins all being 4:31:44 useless it's not true for example darknet markets are Monero only now so 4:31:51 and that's a case where there's no pump-and-dump because they everyone on 4:31:54 both sides is buying and selling for fiat instantaneously together well I see 4:32:00 actually that having been in the Bitcoin community for a very long time I have 4:32:06 actually seen it get more and more irrational and cult-like and this idea 4:32:11 would would break that back open and fix it would literally just fix every 4:32:16 problem that we have I mean what else will fix the security budget nothing 4:32:19 what else will ossify layer one and allow the L1 block how do we shrink the 4:32:24 L1 block size and ossify layer one realistically without giving people a 4:32:27 kind of pressure release valve and some other way to to be robust not only to do 4:32:34 their own weird ideas but also how do we stay robust to technological progress if 4:32:40 we ossify L1 this is the only way there is also like Namecoin which has 4:32:48 enormous potential but was sort of dropped completely instead we have we 4:32:53 said what we do is terrible I mean I have my own prediction markets project 4:32:57 which a lot of people really liked I have quotes on Bitcoin Hivemind.com 4:33:02 from big Bitcoiners about it so is this stage is this the right stage for this 4:33:08 to happen or I mean at the adoption level that we're at and the kind of 4:33:12 value profit it's Bitcoin is providing you know in various use cases we're 4:33:17 still relatively low adoption but it is still it is still well well I mean 4:33:21 you're thinking that this is like this change this this type of development is 4:33:25 what is necessary in order to propel adoption but all I see is that adoption 4:33:29 is just on rails and it is continuing to thrive even through the these bear 4:33:34 markets but that we're going to kind of break through in this next cycle into 4:33:40 more wide mainstream adoption and part of that is bitcoins like kind of 4:33:46 unchanging nature and it's the value prop of it be you know the sound 4:33:51 hardest money and it is it's you know not not susceptible to change if we're 4:33:55 now inviting all these other projects to start building and in doing similar 4:33:59 things like they're gonna attract some negative attention if you start building 4:34:02 things on Bitcoin that are I don't know attracting is it what could it attract 4:34:07 us to see attention if some of these products migrate over to Bitcoin does 4:34:11 that start kind of muddying the waters for what the world at large image wise 4:34:15 it seems like when I I'm just saying it might not be the right stage for this 4:34:18 to be happening right now like it could if it's inevitable anyway and then we 4:34:23 have this in our back pocket it does all the wonderful things that you say it's 4:34:27 going to do then it doesn't read my estimation it doesn't really need it 4:34:32 right now we're not seeing adoption slow or fall off the S curve 4:34:38 well I disagree I think the adoption is like one one thousandth of where it should be I think we have failed I think we have failed to like I think the we haven't there's not enough competition in software development and so it has stagnated and I think this attitude that Bitcoin will succeed no matter what is you know Greg Maxwell once said that that was the only thing that could kill Bitcoin 4:35:05 and I think he's I think he is more right than most of us would prefer I know but do you think that someone who came in here and you know you just you said like what is merge mining and you didn't know that you know you were awfully ignorant 4:35:35 listen I'm just saying how far is a community going to get if someone who knows literally nothing about something can just come in and say I don't think this is the right time I think consciousness is a virtue especially in Bitcoin right so people it would be even more reckless for people that are aware no it would be even more reckless for people that don't know as you're saying or being ignorant to just sign up wholesale and say yes I believe you Paul let me just go and 4:36:05 jump on with that one right yeah I don't I absolutely don't ask people to do that no that's why it's gone how do you think it made it from 2015 to 2023 without you know no one no one I remember going on your website a while back you had like a mint a mint system you know for creating equal denominations of coins that are perfectly fungible 4:36:31 and then there's a lot of people who are not knowledgeable about it and how to do it and so I mean I have I have fallen I think as others I'm not like you know special just a normal person Bitcoin land here but you know people do follow and it's a demand presented itself more people would jump in and really figure out what's going on with this and get all the nuts and bolts 4:36:53 that's what I'm saying but I don't think that a natural organic demand is there right now it's like it seems a little bit forced 4:36:59 but isn't it a chicken and egg problem though 4:37:02 um well I mean 4:37:05 you can't if you see how can there be any demand how can there be any demand at all if the feature is unavailable 4:37:15 right I meant like as far as oh this needs to happen because it's an existential threat now I laid out an argument Bitcoin is just fine it doesn't seem to be showing any signs of the dire straits that you're talking about all I'm seeing is Ethereum you know kind of shooting itself in the foot by making all these alterations and changes to itself 4:37:38 it was able to you know it's getting all this attention from the SEC um there's there's um they didn't make an alternative new high against Bitcoin all that so the aggregate market isn't valuing it 4:37:50 I agree but I'm a huge critic of Ethereum and I don't think Ethereum is very good but I don't think we should have any competitors at all we should just be number one and 99% 4:38:03 I agree I just like I guess I'm drawing attention to the urgency again like is this the right time 4:38:10 well I mean you're also saying like why should more people build on Bitcoin like that would be bad that's what you were saying before 4:38:17 um no I'm not saying it's bad to build 4:38:20 you said someone might build something on Bitcoin and there would be a VC thing 4:38:23 well okay right now I'm Bitcoin-ing 4:38:27 I mean we already have that kind of thing all the time it's actually worse now because if we can have something like uh you know Sam Bankman Freed is not even really a Bitcoin and then we get we get so uh so yeah anyway we have some people with their hands up 4:38:43 yeah yeah mine wasn't on time thank you for your time I appreciate it 4:38:46 okay thanks 4:38:48 uh I guess DJ why don't you go since uh Hampus already went before 4:38:58 thanks Paul for uh holding these uh uh spaces I've been listening to the last uh last couple of them uh so I appreciate all the effort you're putting into this 4:39:10 um I'm just curious I I um wonder what if if you know what Luke Dashjr. thinks of um of Drivechains uh I know he's been a big proponent of wanting to reduce um block sizes down to 300k so I was just curious if you if you know what he said because I can't find him on Twitter anymore 4:39:35 he is on neutral and you can find him on Nostr and I saw him make a comment saying clarifying that he was neutral on it 4:39:44 is that all he said 4:39:47 uh you can I think he should be able to go to drivechain.xyz or something one of those Drivechains or Drivechain I think drivechain.xyz 4:39:56 okay 4:39:58 I think the quote is there on this Fiat Josh site I think 4:40:03 yeah drivechain.xyz 4:40:05 um the other thing was um so with uh you know assuming BF300 gets uh merged in um then all these sidechains um they wouldn't be able to fund themselves through uh issuing some kind of new coin is that do I have that right 4:40:27 well not really because you just deposit your BTC and then they show up over there 4:40:33 they on the sidechain you could have multiple coins running at the same time so you could have a BTC there and you could have other stuff 4:40:40 that would be kind of like having a stock market or something or an art market in the case of NFTs or whatever 4:40:48 they're having that over there 4:40:51 but you'd have BTC, BTC comes in and out as the one-to-one rate 4:40:57 okay 4:40:58 um and then what be some examples I know you've touched on a few uh but maybe just by by category what would be some examples of what you would think would be early um early users of not early users but early projects that would jump on to this capability assuming it's brought live 4:41:20 well I think uh I think Zcash copying Zcash would be good for anyone who wants privacy which is not everyone but I think it's a great option uh and I we should all have the option to use the Zcash mode of Bitcoin 4:41:36 uh I think we should just copy we already have software that copies the latest Zcash latest Ethereum full node also so I think why not just copy you copy the number one competitor then you're kind of like saying that no one is safe you know 4:41:52 so I think we should do that just for the just for the memes and why not copy BCH and BSV also for the memes but also because to just neutralize the idea that large block scaling could be good for some people which it certainly is for some people 4:42:11 so we just take all that I think Namecoin has enormous potential and uh can just completely fix a lot of what happens on the internet and uh it's a very big um I can go into detail on that if you want but I think that that idea is huge and so she also thought it was big 4:42:33 I have my own prediction markets idea that a lot I like it a lot of other people like it uh you can read it if you go to bitcoinhivemind.com you can like research it and uh 4:42:46 you can also like implement something with it coming from uh coming from like Bitcoin devs and Bitcoin people like Simplicity from Blockstream and also a lot of like opacodes and software proposals on the mailing list and stuff 4:43:04 right we actually have this already we have a version of Cytune that has 1.19 already activated and 1.18 also 4:43:34 yeah we also have a idea for I mean we have already this idea of the bid asset sidechain which is like anyone can go over there and mint new coins or mint new NFTs or something and you think well what is what is the good of that 4:43:57 uh well I think it is good because as long as you sequester all that into like a little zoo it all those things will be compared to each other and then they won't really be compared with BTC 4:44:09 and also I just think the core idea is actually a pretty good idea it's not it's not it's not the worst people like you know Hal Finney like the crypto trading cards idea people like art people like collectibles they're going to do it anyway they're going to do it on Ethereum if we can't do it on somewhere on Bitcoin 4:44:30 so and then that's just for NFTs and then it's like for the other assets it's like you can have this stock bond market you can have all kinds of things anything that is like a concert ticket or whatever you could have them as those as tradable coins 4:44:44 and that's not not everyone is going to go for that but I think some people would and definitely people are doing it regardless a lot of people who have a lot of years of experience in that industry such as Bruce Fenton they are certain that that is going to be a huge use case 4:45:06 so a lot of this software we have already built and you can already try to run yourself if you go to our site and download you can try it out we have versions of a lot of this 4:45:19 yeah so I think those are a lot that that would be enough for people to get into at first 4:45:29 our shinobi is here in the audience I think I can't always tell changes his name yes come on up shinobi say something 4:45:51 say whatever it is you want to say or don't but there is 4:46:09 or alternatively I could have invited him up and he will not come up and then I don't know what would be appropriate to conclude in that situation but while we're waiting for him to make up his mind we've got another 14 minutes before Henry has to go and me too of course 4:46:36 can't do this all day 4:46:49 anyone else want to say anything come up and say say something or don't 4:46:59 just since nobody else is just one more question about the security budget you mentioned how you seem pretty definitive that the security budget is an issue but that that also is kind of an outstanding question we don't know the future if you know there's the case to be made that if it realizes its potential you know and at that level to be the global reserve currency it would 4:47:25 and you know take the number of transactions you can fit in the block currently at that price like the fee structure is you know kind of commensurate with what the payout is now so it'd be kind of somewhat constant if you will moving forward in time as Bitcoin appreciates and more higher higher fee levels are accrued to the miners 4:47:46 what do you take issue with with that scenario 4:47:49 the giant piece of writing explaining in detail why that scenario and other scenarios is not not going to happen 4:47:55 in a nutshell 4:48:25 when I make a layer one transaction which is the only thing that matters to Bitcoin let the well I mean actually Drivechain the only exception where the only L2 that pays on L1 also but but we're talking on L1 how many sandwiches how many $5 sandwiches do you give up in terms of value so you see that doesn't it makes absolutely no difference with the exchange rate is none whatsoever 4:48:55 I don't know if you're you know doing the GDP of the globe you know each Bitcoin is going to be a tremendous amount right so 4:49:06 let's say it's worth $50 million 4:49:08 your sandwich is no longer $5 4:49:10 yeah go ahead 4:49:11 the sandwich okay the sandwich is no longer $5 but it's the amount of Bitcoin that is equal to one sandwich is what I'm saying 4:49:21 oh well I'm saying that the sandwich is actually bigger sorry I guess I misspoke you actually have like 4:49:26 but you're saying we have economic growth and now we have 4:49:29 yeah yeah well not necessarily economic growth but what the percentage that Bitcoin represents is growing right like as it grows it's it is representing a larger and larger slice of that total pie 4:49:41 well let's just say that tomorrow tomorrow the GDP is unaffected and it is the same well just because it hasn't had time to soar as a result of Bitcoin adoption so tomorrow all fiat currencies are replaced with BTC 4:49:57 BTC reaches its ceiling and it hits the ceiling and it's worth the most amount it can be worth which is probably I don't know maybe like $25 million per coin 4:50:08 yeah 4:50:09 there will be no more dollars in this world because dollars are gone but whatever whatever you could have bought with $25 million as a percent of GDP like whatever 4:50:20 well 4:50:21 the stuff I could have bought with $25 million if I had $25 million that's what you can buy with one Bitcoin in this new world is that making sense so far 4:50:29 well let's let's take it this way if you take all the fiat currency in the world like some rough orders of magnitude about $30 trillion let's say all right and then but in global GDP you've got like $900 trillion 4:50:38 so now in a Bitcoin world Bitcoin is now kind of swapping out and becoming that $30 trillion obviously US dollars don't exist anymore but it's it's a fraction of the total I guess aggregate value in the world 4:50:51 but it's going to you know that ratio is still going to be there and so in that ratio it's going to get larger and larger as we proceed in adoption as it gets closer and closer to that outcome 4:51:01 and I'm saying fully adopted I'm saying fully adopted tomorrow everyone switches and we pay everyone it's fully adopted 4:51:09 yeah the value of the binary words would be immense 4:51:12 yeah that's because of the block subsidy of course that would be huge I'm talking about you were talking about the fees before 4:51:19 block subsidy is a problem that every 16 years it goes down by 95% 94% so that's shrinking rapidly so I was talking about I was trying to illustrate to you that the fees are completely 4:51:33 I think the scenario is like a wire right that's where it kind of like breaks out to be about the same where the transaction fees would kind of would rise to about the same level as what a wire is now like 15, 20, 25 dollars you know equivalent thereof 4:51:48 and that layered money model like what so you're kind of not throwing away that layered money model okay let's not that's not 4:51:56 the sidechain model is the layered money model 4:51:59 okay but what's what's wrong with that version of it where you have transactions at the 15, 20, 25 dollar range like a commensurate with a wire and is that still I mean and that would provide the fee revenue the security budget would be 4:52:14 I mean if we think that today is okay then that would be that would be the same then at that level 4:52:20 well I don't think people will be willing to pay the high fees 4:52:26 they pay that for wires now 4:52:29 I have a document in the first security budget article I explained the total amount of even if Bitcoin I have this modeled out where if Bitcoin reaches its highest value and you can see that the security budget the block subsidy have having that the subsidy every four years causes it to rapidly shrink as a percentage of GDP 4:52:56 so what I can get to that so I mean I don't know I have actual numbers in that spreadsheet and you could look at them if you're really interested but I think to answer your question about I think people won't pay because of the presence of competitors it would be like WeChat pay charges zero 4:53:12 well we're saying this in an environment where Bitcoin has actually you know taken that percentage of the pie so if it is that big it is you know just it's gonna you know it's kind of like you can't say oh a competitor would step in 4:53:24 it was a completely different no no no that was a completely different thing that I said because you said as the exchange rate goes up the fees will go up 4:53:33 yeah yeah 4:53:35 yeah but they will 4:53:37 because as it's getting that adoption like it is the dominant 4:53:42 as Bitcoin succeeds then people will like Bitcoin more and then they'll be willing to 4:53:49 well I'm kind of saying the exact same thing as you except in reverse I'm saying the fees will go up they won't like it very much and they will counter adopt it which is exactly what happens the fees go up and people stop using it they stop liking it also and then the fees go back down and that's why the fees have never really risen above 50 cents ish they sometimes do but in general 50 cents per transaction they really don't 4:54:15 they sometimes do in little periods but then they come back down 4:54:18 right ok but like if you take a long term view I thought I saw a chart that showed you know a general aggregate tick up in fees you know over time here 4:54:26 section three of the article that you haven't read yet is called 4:54:30 false view of an automatic upward trend in P and that is what that whole section is about 4:54:37 are you pulling a Jason Lowry on me? I think you're pulling a Jason Lowry on me 4:54:41 well I mean if you like 4:54:43 you haven't read my thesis 4:54:45 yeah no I'm going to obviously that's one of the reasons why I'm here right I'm trying to learn more 4:54:51 I'm giving away mine for free so 4:54:54 yeah that's true 4:54:56 it is fine I don't you know not everyone has to read everything that has ever been written before talking to someone in a conversation 4:55:05 obviously I'm in this space right I'm trying to get your take on things 4:55:10 but my view is that a coin is very different from what I call a BL1TXN the layer one bitcoin transaction 4:55:20 those are different things 4:55:22 and they are as different from each other as gold is from Visa's revenue 4:55:31 in the last quarter or something so they're just completely different things 4:55:36 they have almost nothing to do with each other 4:55:38 and it's a mistake to think so like the 4:55:42 there's only 21 million coins 4:55:45 and there's no real competitor to BTC the coin 4:55:49 but that's not the case for the transacting 4:55:53 transacting is in a world where 4:55:56 in fact because wire transfer used to be $75 4:56:00 and the prices actually come down 4:56:05 most people what I'm trying to say is that 4:56:09 in general the cost of a transaction has plummeted over time 4:56:13 you used to actually have to carry around coins you can only transact with people near you 4:56:17 but then credit cards came out 4:56:20 and then the Medici's invented checks 4:56:25 and then credit cards came out and now there's Venmo 4:56:28 and each time the cost is very low 4:56:31 and then with WeChat pay the cost is actually negative 4:56:33 because the government wants of course to surveil everyone 4:56:36 so they'll be pushing that 4:56:38 they're pushing that on everyone 4:56:40 so they are not going to be charging the 4:56:43 like they're going to be keeping it quote free unquote 4:56:47 and so we just live in a world where everything around us is becoming cheaper all the time 4:56:52 in terms of labor time 4:56:54 because of technological progress 4:56:57 so it's like you know it's easier to get a sandwich 4:57:00 it's easier to get a suit today per labor hour 4:57:03 because everything we make is 4:57:06 we just get better at making everything 4:57:08 get better at getting wool, uranium, whatever we want 4:57:13 as a species 4:57:15 so people's expectations for what a transaction should cost 4:57:20 are falling and will continue to fall 4:57:22 especially all the software and stuff 4:57:24 is already being written and it's always getting better 4:57:28 like you know a SQL database isn't getting any worse 4:57:31 so the 4:57:34 which is what 4:57:36 WeChat pay or the CBDC is going to use 4:57:41 so it's like people's tolerance for paying high transaction fees 4:57:46 I think will only go down from where it is now 4:57:49 they'll think why would anyone use Bitcoin when Venmo is free 4:57:54 whereas we would never have had that problem before 4:57:57 I remember a time before anyone had heard of Venmo 4:58:01 but when I had still heard of Bitcoin 4:58:03 I think it was like 2012 or something 4:58:05 but no one had heard of it, there was no Venmo really 4:58:08 someone is going to look this up and say 4:58:10 Venmo was created in whatever year 4:58:12 but I don't remember anyone in the world caring 4:58:14 or knowing anything about Venmo 4:58:16 or WeChat pay 4:58:18 but until you know 4:58:20 over the last 10 years that has changed 4:58:22 so I think people won't be willing to pay 4:58:28 and it will actually work the other way around 4:58:31 if the fees go up then we will get negative adoption 4:58:35 and it will be very circular 4:58:38 it will be like a chicken and egg 4:58:40 it will be sort of 4:58:43 I don't think that the 4:58:45 so yeah I wrote this giant article 4:58:47 about why I think the security budget is a problem 4:58:51 and also I only write an article in the first place 4:58:53 if I disagree with what most people think most of the time 4:58:57 so I write these articles and they have a certain title 4:59:00 and then people say well I don't agree with you 4:59:02 and I'm like yes I already knew that 4:59:04 but that's why I wrote the article 4:59:06 and then I say did you read the article 4:59:08 and they say no 4:59:09 and I say well 4:59:11 how is the conversation going to go 4:59:13 I already know 4:59:14 but I don't expect everyone to 4:59:17 to completely agree with the security budget thing 4:59:20 but I do think that there is no real reason to suggest 4:59:23 it will work 4:59:24 on the path that it is on 4:59:25 there is no reason to suggest that it will work 4:59:28 because it 4:59:34 like there is no evidence 4:59:35 there is no evidence to suggest it either 4:59:37 because the bitcoin fees 4:59:39 see part of what happens is the the so-called trend is mostly an artifact of the way fees were calculated back in the era when fees were like believe beneath 1 cent or beneath 10 cents when it effectively makes no difference so you have to screen all that out because no one cares if bitcoin is either the cheapest payment method or it's not so if bitcoin is the cheapest and it goes from being 1 tenth of a cent to costing 5:00:06 4 cents that is not really a 40x increase no one actually care it was the cheapest thing before and is the cheapest thing after but then once it crosses the line of being significantly more expensive than the credit card or significantly more expensive than Zelle or whatever then people will care so no one cared before so every time it goes into the caring region what happens is it's only a matter of time a couple days in a couple cases 5:00:36 a week where the fees fall back down the only time the fees have gone up and stayed up for any serious length of time which is also temporary that has been when there is this enormous huge price bubbles where no one could even everyone's getting so rich that no one could possibly care about the fee and that's when we have $50 fees sometimes but then otherwise other times we don't so if we live in a 5:01:06 world where it's very easy to send people money for free I don't think people will pay $75 for a bitcoin transaction which is the world that we are headed towards I don't know why anyone pays a wire transfer must be some it's the legacy financial system is really screwed up it's really scamming people out of this wire transfer you know people pay because they have no alternative they pay Western Union Henry you can maybe just make me the host or something if you have to go 5:01:30 okay okay cool thanks 5:01:38 okay I guess I'm a host now wait now I'm a host am I yes I hope if I leave it doesn't end the space 5:01:55 but I will have to go get my kids from school so if I might lose reception at some point so if the space rugs I apologize for that and we'll pick up next week I don't know maybe if he leaves it will crash the space 5:02:12 if it does then too bad then I guess we've given a lot of I mean we've gone for kind of a long time anyway so why don't you you could read my article if you want doing moon or you could just not breathe you know in which case that's fine also 5:02:32 yeah well no I could agree it's kind of what I'm saying like I know you're steeped in this there's a lot of people and there's a lot of people who are steeped in it but you know on the critical side and there's others like myself who are vaguely aware of the various machinations going on in the bitcoin space and we come in and we pay more attention when things come to a head and so that's kind of where my statement was coming from with the urgency that you know it felt like the 5:03:01 the urgency isn't really here for this right now in this moment it's not quite a time it's not it's not a time yet you know maybe well I kind of think it's it's kind of the other way around a little bit where it's kind of like people only get the idea will only get attention if people push for it so if you never push for it then it will no one will ever pay attention to it 5:03:27 but don't you think like I mean this idea that like people come in and they quickly rush through a change I mean that really cannot apply to something that has been around since 2015 right I mean like how is that even possible 5:03:42 yeah well that's kind of my point like I think most bitcoiners are aware that there is a thing called Drivechain as a proposal and you know it does in big ideas about what it might do that are not too far off base but they don't know all the technical details or you know have the credence built up for this or two that you have with being so steeped in it for so long and but that doesn't mean that without with some an outside of that you know you can't do anything about it 5:04:09 without with some an outside impetus right you know as we get further along something that they wouldn't would then turn to it right they would be able just the knowledge that it's there it's in the back pocket and then they'll turn to it when when necessary to then you know it'll accelerate is what I'm saying and the fact that it hasn't accelerated it speaks to this lack of demand and urgency for it in bitcoin right now in this moment of its evolution and you know into the future 5:04:39 what would you mean like lack of what do you mean by that 5:04:47 just that traction wise I mean it's not it like you said 2015 right if it was something that was so obviously needed and it was an urgency that can existential kind of like oh this is you know we really got to shore this up then I think you would see a bigger kind of like aggregate emergent movement towards it 5:05:15 and that's not to say that it doesn't happen or that it's not correct and all the things you're saying aren't correct but I just just feel like that aggregate movement isn't happening because the environment in which you know the utility that this provides isn't quite there yet the environment for it isn't there yet like it needs it's like I said I know the same point but like this is not quite it's time yet I don't know like it's just my own personal feeling 5:05:37 that it's still a bit early for it 5:06:04 it could really be something if it is near death 5:06:08 well I mean with what's at stake then yeah that's kind of the argument of a lot of people right like this is not just a normal project 5:06:16 why do you say why do you frame it as though BIP300 is something that has a risk of harming BTC 5:06:25 everything has a risk any change has a risk of harming BTC 5:06:28 but isn't it the case that 5:06:29 like system that doesn't just involve the code and involves all the people involved and all the players it's a massively complex 5:06:35 I guess that's like a red flag right from the system's thinking standpoint when you have something that's so certain so like over the top 100% guarantee that there's all the bases are covered I thought through every recourse this is a slam dunk nothing bad no second third order effects could possibly you know be bad 5:06:54 that's just a big red flag right 5:06:59 no that's not what I was saying I'm saying you you treat the adopting it as a risk but not passing on it when it's something like you know like like the guy who the people behind Netflix they offered to sell to blockbuster 5:07:17 and blockbuster turn them down they thought it was a some kind of risk to their business model 5:07:24 well it ended up being a risk because blockbuster went completely out of business because of Netflix basically 5:07:30 so you you say blah blah blah this is a red flag what about the third fourth order effects 5:07:36 but it's really you who is totally 100% completely ignoring that whole dimension because whether or not it's not just adding something is a risk every single thing is a risk and just because you say I don't know anything about this how is it the case that the deposited coins 5:07:52 I know literally yeah you're right you're right to point back to me that there's that possibility for sure but it's not to say that what you your example that you gave is the rule that occurs like in the vast majority more cases when a company decides to pivot because they see some new upstart doing something and they don't get left behind they end up doing that to sort their peril and misallocate and it started it hurts them so yeah I mean 5:08:19 but it makes no difference the only way that is true this is just a bunch of meta talk the only way to actually know who which argument should actually have more bearing is to actually explore the content of the idea and I did explain to you that you can turn the 300 on with a soft fork and then if there was some kind of problem with it you can turn it off with a soft fork also 5:08:43 and it would be like as if it had never happened so the risk is actually zero and relative okay you gotta be careful with zero you gotta be careful with zero like I when I hear zero there's more red flags like something's so certain like it just is I don't know I don't see how you can possibly 5:09:01 what do you think it would do how because it is because we don't have the BIP now which is the state that you want us to stay in and if we activate the BIP up now five and then ban up now five we are in exactly the same protocol the exact same Bitcoin protocol 5:09:21 you say we you say we this is like an aggregate kind of ad hoc mixture of all kinds of different interests like there is no there's no we really it's just everybody acting independently and then there's the emergent behavior that comes out of that complex system 5:09:36 about everyone who runs I'm talking about every Bitcoin node it would behave the same after the two soft forks as it did right today before any exactly the same so that's the state that you say you want us to remain in until 5:09:53 well I'm just questioning the timing at this point right that maybe in time again me actually being on this space is maybe another point in your favor that okay it's maybe starting to track the attention of individuals such as myself who would otherwise be uninterested 5:10:14 yes but do you think that what if I said to you I said this is a red flag you are asleep at the wheel there's no way that you could possibly know everything that Ethereum Zcash and every other project and every other 15 year old MIT genius is coming up with in their spare time there's no way that you could possibly know what all those people are doing and that it wouldn't affect BT 5:10:44 see and compete with it and it displaces and so you are the one who is making all the risk for the rest of us well I don't know what do you mean for the rest of you know we're like we're all acting in our own like in our own selfishness and if I'm making 5:10:58 your actions delay the arrival of whatever BIP300 but I'm seeing something it's all of us right it takes all of us to be acting and to cause this emergency 5:11:28 see that's I guess what I was referring to earlier the urgency I mean it seems like you're trying to paint a picture of more urgency right in this moment than there actually is like I see there being 5:11:42 I think I think that I'm trying to paint a picture of if we're not going to I think there is something that is kind of urgent which is that a lot of 5:12:12 you