0:00 Robin, hey, what's up? 0:11 Hey, Paul. How are you? 0:15 I'm good. Another Friday. We made it. 0:20 Thanks for inviting me. 0:23 Oh, yeah. Thanks for coming on our little show or whatever this is. 0:28 I'm sure historians of the future will get something out of it. 0:33 So you've been, it's been smooth sailing through the Bitcoin consensus peer review process. 0:47 I can see. 0:49 You could say so. 0:54 Yes. Yes. And now, I mean, who even needs BIP300 because the system works. 1:01 The system just is a meritocracy. 1:04 Everything's fine. Who needs competition? 1:07 Because, you know, whatever, Michael Folkson can just do it all for us. 1:15 Yeah. He single handedly fixes Bitcoin. Definitely. 1:20 Yeah. 1:21 I think without him, we would definitely, Bitcoin would have doomed already. 1:27 Yeah. So what's the latest with BitVM? 1:33 Yeah, I promised that we are publishing like a first toy version by the end of this month. 1:43 End of January. 1:47 End of January. Yeah. Within the next five days. 1:50 And it seems like we might make it. I don't want to promise too much. 1:57 I already promised it for December. 2:00 Software, timeline. 2:03 Yeah. It's hard to make predictions in particular when they concern the future. 2:12 Yeah. Yogi Berra said something like that, I think. 2:18 Software timelines are especially cursed. 2:23 Yeah. But we're making great progress. 2:28 So we had SuperTestNet on late November. 2:34 He said that he and you have like sort of a very different way of going about BitVM. 2:42 And he was saying that he was trying to get basically like a black and white Game Boy emulator to work. 2:48 And that it would take like unbelievable amounts of time and RAM, like far too much. 2:56 But he said you were doing something very different that was much better. 3:01 Yeah. I'm not exactly sure how that Game Boy emulator turned out. 3:05 But, yeah, we are doing a very different approach. 3:08 We are actually implementing a RISC-V virtual machine. 3:12 And, yeah, you can run any program on that virtual machine. 3:18 And if there's a dispute, you can succinctly find the liar. 3:24 Right. So in the context of maybe the context of like sidechains, the program would be the sidechain full node. 3:34 Yeah. And in particular, the bridge. 3:38 Getting back to the withdrawal transactions from L2 to L1. 3:44 And if anyone does the wrong thing on this, you will be able to know who it was that lied. 3:53 And then you will be able to do something. 3:56 You'll be able to trigger something. 3:58 They could like lose some money or just be disqualified or kicked out of the group or something. 4:03 Yeah, both. Like they will lose money and they will get kicked out of the group. 4:08 There's always one operator. 4:10 In general, it's a federation. 4:12 And the assumption is that one of the federation members is honest. 4:16 And as long as that is the case, then the bridge is secure. 4:19 Both live and secure. 4:20 So you cannot stop it. 4:25 Live means you cannot stop it. 4:27 And secure means nobody can steal the funds. 4:30 And yeah, there is like that federation. 4:34 And one of the members is chosen to be the operator who might touch the funds. 4:41 But if he tries to touch the funds without doing a legal packout, then you can slash them. 4:49 You can take their deposit and then they will not be able to touch the funds anymore. 4:56 But the deposit, they must deposit a certain amount, of course, up front in order for it to be slashable. 5:03 Yeah. 5:04 But it's not proportional to – there are two words. 5:08 There's collateral and deposit. 5:10 And deposit is what you bridge in. 5:13 And the collateral does not have to be proportional to the deposit. 5:20 The collateral is proportional. 5:22 You just think like maybe they don't want to lose the – since they can't steal anyway, it just matters. 5:29 Do I get the – does the fee income outweigh the cost of capital for what could be slashed? 5:39 Exactly that, yes. 5:42 So you just have to put up a collateral that is high enough such that if you make a baseless dispute and you lose, 5:51 then you have to pay the winner's fees and a little bounty for them such that they are happy to get attacked. 6:00 Got it. 6:04 Yeah, that makes sense. 6:07 Cool. And maybe done by January, first version. 6:11 But like a very, very simple toy version. 6:14 Like it's written in JavaScript, so like it's just because – 6:21 I mean, I don't know. 6:23 People laugh at – I mean, JavaScript is like an inside joke. 6:27 But there is that. 6:28 If you've seen like that, you must have seen like, thanks for inventing JavaScript, like the meme. 6:33 And it's just like all the different – like 50 minus 1 in quotations. 6:39 And then that is like a character. 6:41 And then 50 plus 1 in quotations is like a number or something. 6:45 51, the number. 6:47 Just like all the bizarre and absurd paradoxes of JavaScript. 6:51 Yeah, and the empty array is equal to zero. 6:54 And the empty object is equal to zero. 6:56 But the empty array is not equal to the empty object and stuff like that. 7:00 Yeah, and then it's like true equals true in quotes equals true equal equal equal true. 7:05 And it's like false or something. 7:09 I mean, I totally don't want to defend JavaScript here. 7:13 I totally see that. 7:16 I'm more laughing at like how other people will react. 7:19 I'm like a meta laughing at the meme, the meme of JavaScript. 7:22 Yeah. 7:23 It's a funny – it's just funny that you bring it. 7:25 Like this is a funny thing that people do. 7:26 They have to like – they feel like they have to hang their head in shame if they bring up that, oh, it's in JavaScript. 7:33 I mean, it's a big responsibility to build a real product in JavaScript. 7:40 Like a real security product. 7:43 So, but why make it in JavaScript then? 7:48 Oh, it was just that our first task was mostly to figure out how to really build BitVM. 7:55 And to scaffold it out, it was much faster for me and my team to just use JavaScript because it's kind of a native tongue. 8:08 And, yeah, it was just way faster. 8:11 But as soon as the prototype is done and as soon as we got some feedback on it, we will throw it away and rewrite it properly in Rust. 8:22 Cool. Yeah, everyone loves Rust these days. 8:25 Yeah, it just roots out like entire classes of bugs. 8:29 So, I think it makes a lot of sense to use it. 8:32 I think the hype is justified too. 8:36 Yeah, I think so too, probably. 8:39 It's hard to say, but I think so. 8:47 Very neat. 8:48 So, still, why – because BitVM is held up as the, like, don't need to change Bitcoin type of thing. 9:00 So, then why care about Michael Fox and et cetera, you know? 9:08 It was a question that probably some people might ask. 9:13 Like, some people didn't really understand what I was about. 9:17 Like, I don't have that strong feeling for this PR in particular. 9:20 Like, I don't really care if it's merged or not. 9:24 But what I care about is, like, tossing the Bitcoin development process with bullshit. 9:32 Because I think there is no question if somebody is polluting the UTXO set and they are saying that they are polluting the UTXO set, 9:42 then it's pretty silly to argue if they are actually polluting the UTXO set or if it's just, like, some sort of artistic performance or something. 9:52 Because it doesn't matter at all. 9:53 Like, from a technical perspective, the UTXO set gets polluted with nonsense. 9:57 And that is an issue. 9:59 And it might be the case that it's not possible to mitigate it effectively. 10:04 And I'm open to that possibility. 10:08 And I can accept it if it's true. 10:10 But I think it's pretty silly to toss that discussion with, like, nonsense. 10:18 Well, I kind of feel the same way. 10:22 Like, I mean, I think BIP300 is the way to go. 10:26 But I kind of almost even – I kind of, like, am almost more concerned by, like, okay, this is a BIP that just counts the 13,000. 10:36 Merge mining has already been invented and in continuous use for, like, a very long time. 10:43 Like, since 2010. 10:46 And so I'm just, like, this is not going to make it, like, through the process easily. 10:51 And I kind of think, like, that is, like – I really think, like, oh, we're doomed in some much more fundamental, bigger way. 11:00 Honestly. 11:02 I kind of think that is the case. 11:05 Mike. 11:07 I mean, Bitcoin development is particularly hard because I think – what's his name? 11:15 Eric Lombroso? 11:20 Yes, that is someone's name. 11:23 He's a co-author of SegWitBip. 11:25 He recently posted something that I really agree with, which is politics is so ugly because the smartest people with the best character, they avoid it the most. 11:37 And it kind of attracts the opposite. 11:41 Like, it attracts, like – 11:44 Yeah, that's true. 11:45 And I think that is also very true for Bitcoin development. 11:49 And that makes it particularly hard. 11:51 And also, like, some of the developers I admire the most or whose work I admire the most already told me that they don't want to participate in Bitcoin politics anymore because it makes them sick. 12:03 Like, actually sick. 12:07 Yes. 12:08 Well, this is a thing with Taproot where people – and with 1.18, certainly – where they were finished and then people refused to even discuss activation for a very long time. 12:20 Which is how Speedy Trial came about. 12:22 Like, exasperation. 12:23 Someone just kind of maverick YOLO'd this Speedy Trial thing. 12:27 And even that was very controversial. 12:29 People were like, why are they doing this? 12:31 And then it just kind of activated quickly. 12:33 Yeah, well, particularly during Taproot. 12:35 Like, Taproot activation was much more complicated than it had to be because of Michael Folsom, right? 12:43 He was the dude who never contributed any line of code, who doesn't have any background in software engineering. 12:52 He never contributed to any open source project or something. 12:55 But suddenly he came into Bitcoin and explained how Bitcoin works to some of the most knowledgeable developers. 13:06 And pretty much, I think, at least half of the long-term maintainers told him to shut the fuck up. 13:16 Well, it's always bad when – I think it's a very – like, anything when it's vague, that's bad. 13:25 So if it's vague and abstract, when people say something like, well, miners don't control Bitcoin, we learned this in 2017. 13:32 Something like that. 13:33 Like, that's a very bad sign. 13:35 But if people say, like, on this line of code, this will put an extra item onto the stack or something, and this is a bug. 13:44 Like, that's very good. 13:45 You don't have to be very near and very specific. 13:49 That's kind of what I have noticed. 13:51 So sometimes people show up and then they want to say, like, blah, blah, blah. 13:57 And it's too abstract. 13:59 So it's a waste of time. 14:01 And I think, like, in particular, if someone doesn't have any experience with these things, then they just should not explain it to the people who know it. 14:12 Like, it's so easy to be wrong. 14:14 And all the people who are knowledgeable, they are usually quite humble because they have experienced so often how easy it is to be wrong and how easy it is to be super convinced that they are right. 14:25 And then they figured out that they were actually wrong in some miner detail that's, in the end, turned it by 180 degrees. 14:34 And that's why I think somebody who has no experience, like Michael, should just not interfere with the process at all. 14:42 Like, he can read it and he can try to learn from it and he can contribute to, like, smaller projects that don't matter as much and where the quality – where it's not that important that you really know your stuff. 14:57 Because in Bitcoin, a single issue can break everything, right? 15:02 It has to be, like, quite perfect what we do there. 15:06 And I think people should be humble and not pretend that they could contribute something without doing the work up front and without becoming competent. 15:21 Yeah, I think the process is defective in very many ways. 15:26 But if you say that – I mean, because people always have – there's, like, two different directions where, on one hand, people say, this is a meritocracy. 15:37 Anyone can contribute to core. 15:40 And then, on the other hand, they say something like, some people just know what's best and others don't. 15:49 So it's like – it is – goes back and forth between these two extremes. 15:54 And I don't know. I'm not sure. 15:58 I think the smartest thing would be to build error correction into every stage. 16:02 So you'd say something like, if the Bitcoin community does not do a pull request they should have done, how does that error get fixed? 16:14 Versus if they do a pull request, you know, type one error, type two error. 16:18 If they do the pull request they should not have done, how does it come about that that is fixed? 16:24 That is partly why I think sidechains, in whatever form they ultimately take, will be absolutely essential. 16:31 Because if you say something like, we don't really need multisig or we don't really need vaults, and then – but the technology can support that. 16:40 Someone will build it into the sidechain. 16:42 So Bitcoin Core will just become less popular. 16:45 A smaller proportion of the 21 million coins will be on there. 16:50 And then they will be on – move to the sidechain and this will kind of naturally have some kind of accountability. 16:58 It has sort of like some accountability for moving too slow in addition to like making a mistake. 17:03 People have made all kinds of mistakes and then there's no accountability for that. 17:08 Or if there is, there's just – doesn't seem to make any practical difference. 17:14 So, I don't know. 17:17 But I do think there's – I think there's a very brisk pace of – 17:28 altcoin R&D to the point where – and no one can even keep track of it all. And normal people do not – normal people, they really like the – like they really like obscure coins. 17:48 They don't really – like the layperson is not going to understand any of this nuance. 17:55 So, I don't – it's not great that something like USDT on Tron can be like really big and no one will care. 18:05 And at the end, the only innovation that Bitcoin will bring is like a block, like a hash linked list and like being – having control of money via asymmetric key cryptography. 18:19 And then everything else will just be just whatever the user experience is the best. 18:25 Yeah, I don't know if we need like USDT on Bitcoin necessarily. In general, like from a technical perspective, it's not really interesting, right? 18:45 From a technical perspective, it just doesn't make any sense really. It would make much more sense if they just had a centralized database, like if Tether would be running a centralized database. But that is illegal. 18:57 Well, I don't know about that because I think you just – you have like a kind of like a conveyor belt where it's like the – on one hand, you have like the fully – you're in the KYC umbrella. It's like – it's kind of like an onion routing or something. 19:11 You have the stage where you – someone is KYC and they swap their fiat for crypto. That part, it's kind of like it doesn't matter so much if it's centralized database. But then those people will swap in the blockchain system. And then all of a sudden, it becomes private and self-sovereign. So, you just go like three links away and you have the best of both worlds. 19:40 Yeah. It's not really self-sovereign because Tether can just refuse to pay you out, right? Like they can just nullify your Tether. 19:52 Well, that's true. But the way – like just the way it happened to pan out is that – so, first of all, imagine that it's very easy to mix the USDT or whatever. 20:09 I totally see the point. 20:17 So, it's not like censoring one person. They have to either pull the plug on the whole operation or on only – or keep the whole operation going basically. And now, they have certain amount of the USDT is lost, the high interest rates. Let them just bank all this money and just make like a big return. They charge a little bit of a fee. I mean, it's worth like a huge amount of money. 20:41 I'm just saying like if they wanted to make it just as private as possible, they could just use Xiaomi and eCash, right? And that would scale way better and would be just as private or even more private. And you would have essentially the same security guarantees in the end. 20:58 And I'm just saying that from a technical perspective, it's not really interesting because they are mostly using that technology to circumvent stupid laws. And that's not very interesting from my point of view because it's not really a technical challenge that much than it is a legal challenge. 21:20 Well, yeah, sure, I suppose. Yeah, the Xiaomi and eCash point, that's a very good point. I wonder how that – if this is all just because of the historical trajectory where it was originally on MasterCoin which then became Omni on BTC which later became like Omni on other things and later just became – 21:50 the USDT asset like moved from Bitcoin to like other chains and eventually Tron. So I wonder if that's why they didn't – it never occurred to them to do Xiaomi and eCash. I don't know. 22:07 Well, I think what they do – that's a good question because – but I think that Tether – from what I remember – I don't really use Tether, but from what I remember talking to like some Tether – whatever, I don't know, executives or whatever you would call them. 22:37 I think they put – I think they deployed all their troops like around that, and then they try to just say, if you're not depositing or withdrawing, you're just sending it. Then I think they tried to like not look at it. 22:58 it to yourself a bunch of times or, and then it kind of disappears until someone wants 23:02 to withdraw. If they ever want to withdraw, many, significant huge majority 23:08 don't. Yeah, just keeps growing. 23:10 Ever withdraw. Yeah. 23:12 yeah, that's a new question 23:14 But – 23:15 Yeah, BitVM, USDT. 23:17 My friend told me that there is like some law in the U.S. that essentially says if you're a company facilitating payments from one person to another, then you have to – 23:29 Money transmitter, yeah. But I think – my guess – I have no – this is two people who have really no idea what they're talking about. But my guess is that Tether will go out of their way to say that they are not doing the money transmitting. 23:43 They just – they deposit it with – they don't move – they would say probably they don't move the USDT at all. 23:49 Yeah, exactly. 23:50 This is some technology. Right, yeah, it's the miner or some technology. Someone else does. 23:53 That's the only reason – that's why it's not very interesting for me from a technical perspective. 23:58 Yeah. 23:59 Because from a technical perspective, they should just use Charmian eCash and then that's all. 24:04 What if they're – what if like BitVM, Charmian eCash? Is that in the cards? 24:10 You mean for BTC then? 24:14 Yeah, yeah. 24:16 Because you can already just create a mint and then back it by USDT and then you have it, right? So, the interesting question. 24:26 Yeah, no, I mean with the BTC, yeah. Because the Charmian eCash has the drawbacks that it doesn't really solve double spend. 24:37 Yeah. I mean, I guess you could probably have some kind of fraud proof. 24:44 So, if the mint double spends, then you can probably derive fraud proof and then you can punish them for it. 24:53 So, that would be a solution. 24:57 But in general, I think just a sidechain is better, like some – a Zcash sidechain or something like that, I think, has better guarantees. 25:08 Also, in particular, a liveness guarantee, right? The blockchain will just keep running and a mint can die. 25:16 Yes, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, that's good. 25:21 Also, I think, in general, I would like to prevent or phrase differently. 25:26 I think L2 systems should not be modeled such that, in the worst case, all of the users have to exit to L1 because that's not very practical. 25:36 Right. That is not good. 25:38 Because if everyone can – we already know it's basically a proof by contradiction. 25:42 It's like if everyone could – if it's possible for everyone to exit L2 to L1, well, in that case, it's possible for all those people to use L1 at least once. 25:52 But we kind of already know that that's not possible, so it's kind of a – 25:58 Yeah, you have to have something where it can granularly rearrange the asset claims on L2 and kind of rebatch them up to some other place. 26:13 Right. 26:14 Ideally, you would have multiple L2s, and if one L2 is going to explode, people would swap assets around for different L2s, and then at the end, there would be 130 people who walk it back from L2 to L1. 26:30 I think the L2 should be unstoppable. I think if you have a decent sidechain consensus mechanism, then there is – of course, you can always stop it if you just have enough resources, but – 26:45 Yeah. I mean, because there is the 50 – because this is weird. I feel like I get in trouble for bringing up – I bring up the 51% attack thing. 26:56 And in a weird way, I feel like I'm unfairly punished, because most other people don't even bring up that quite – like, no one has ever said, like, will 51% of the hash rate steal from the Lightning Network or whatever, which is kind of annoying for me, because I mean, I kind of feel like I have to bring it up, since mine is so miner-centric, but still, like, other people – 27:15 But to steal – 27:16 Like, really, everything. 27:17 It's harder to steal from the Lightning Network than it would be from drivechains, right? Like, from drivechains. 27:27 Well, I don't think – I think it's, like, once you write the software, maybe it's actually easier, because you would write the software, the LN theft software, and then it would just automate all that weird stuff, like figuring out which channels to attack and just blocking the justice transaction. 27:43 So, it would take a little bit more work up front. You have to make, like, the open source lightning – like, we would call it, like, lightning rod or something. 27:52 Tesla coil or whatever. 27:56 Just picture the situation where you have, like, 100 or 1,000 BTC locked in a drivechain, and then try to get counterparties for Lightning with 1,000 BTC. That's – I think that's – 28:14 Well, right now, more than half of it is already just the same five LSPs. 28:18 Oh. 28:19 There's already just – like, the problem with the Lightning Network really is that – 28:24 Yeah, yeah, yeah. I don't know how much liquidity they would give you, but I guess – 28:32 It seems like we already agree that you have to target your victims much more precisely. 28:39 Yes. That's true. But you have less – you have a little bit less recourse, though, as a result. 28:47 Putting off such an attack, then somebody has to invest, like, quite some time, resources, and effort. And I don't think – 28:56 Yeah, I think the bigger problem is that the Lightning Network is so small. It's not even 5,000 coins total. 29:02 So, I think that's kind of the real problem with the comparison, is that it's already – like, people say I can't, like, hold it up as a great example of either something that will be imminently killed or something that is really secure, because it's only whatever it is, like $100 million or something. 29:20 So, it's just – you know, it's a lot of money to some people, but in terms of, like – 29:26 So, I would definitely consider, like – I think there will be in the future, like, Bitcoin will scale in layers, and those layers will have, like, a significant percentage of the coins. 29:40 Like, of the 21 million coins, there will be, like, whatever. Like, 10 million plus will be on some type of L2. 29:47 Wow. 29:48 It'll be circulating. 29:50 So, it'll only get to 5,000. 29:51 Do you see it still on Ethereum? 29:53 A hundred and – like, 150,000, something like that. It's between, like, 140 and, like, 180 or something. So, that's, like, a completely different number. 30:05 So, yeah. Even though Lightning Network gets a lot of attention, I think this is kind of undeserved and basically just a weird side effect of the fundraising trajectory. 30:19 But – so, like, to attack the BIP300, it's less – you don't have to target the victim, but you also have the problem that since everyone is a victim, you have more, like, just natural enemies. 30:29 It's, like, every single person is going to be naturally against you. Every user, all the sidechains. 30:35 So, it's just kind of, like, a different type of a thing. I don't know, like, which is – I don't know if they can be Apple staff. 30:41 But, like, for, like, BITVM, you cannot ever forge – I mean, I guess if 51% hash rate is one of the participants in the federation, they cannot fake the node, what the sidechain full node will do. 31:01 But they can, like, filter messages from – they can filter a message from ever making it into the L1 chain. So, they can never get slashed and they can just kind of halt the process, I guess. 31:17 They can also – 31:19 Because the sidechain just died or something. 31:22 Yeah, because they will – you will never be able to put the NAND, the zeroed out thing in, like, the fraud proof thing in. 31:30 But I think, yeah, I think that's a general limitation of L2s. 31:34 Yeah, so, and I – you and I agree with that, too. But, see, this is the weird thing is that, of course, people don't – well, I think that people don't really apply this consistently. 31:45 And in a weird way, it's because the news is so bad for something like lightning, I think, that they don't. But maybe I'm biased, of course. 31:54 But it's like they – because there is no recourse, people just don't even bring it up. They say it's a general thing. 32:02 Whereas I'm kind of trying to say – with BIP300, I'm trying to say, like, there is recourse because they lose all this fee revenue. 32:12 And maybe even the price of Bitcoin goes down because it's no longer a multi-chain coin. 32:17 So, it's kind of weird. I have a very different way of analyzing the situation, certainly, I think. 32:26 I mean, there are lots of subtleties to it. And it's not that easy to argue that it's really the same as lightning or that the trust assumption is – 32:42 Like, in general, the question is, like, how much harm can you create when you have a malicious hashrate majority? 32:49 That is kind of the debate, I guess, that it all boils down to. How much harm can you create? 32:58 And it's kind of very easy to reason about what you can do with drivechains because it just immediately breaks. 33:08 You can just force the withdrawals and just take the money. 33:12 And I think for other systems, it's just more complicated to reason about the worst case and how bad it can get. 33:21 But, as I said, I think it's harder in lightning, but not that much harder. It doesn't make the attack unfeasible. 33:36 Oh, yeah. I kind of think it's a little easier. Imagine you attack some random person's chat. 33:42 It's like a mosquito thing. You take one bite, and then you take another bite, and then you take another bite. 33:47 Because it's like someone's just going to say – someone's going to go on Twitter or whatever, and they're going to say, 33:53 oh, I lost my lightning channel. It deleted all my money. 33:57 And everyone's just going to be like, yeah, you probably screwed up, or you probably had database corruption or something. 34:06 Sorry for your loss. But no one will care. No one will mount a resistance. 34:13 People will be like, no, you don't understand. Someone broadcasted an old state, and the thing didn't work. 34:25 I don't agree with that. Maybe you can do that for a million sats or something. 34:32 But as soon as that happens to a significant amount of Bitcoins, then people will stop creating new channels, right? 34:45 Yeah, but that's sort of the point, though, is to vampirically attack the lightning network and drain the money from it. 34:58 Yeah, but I think it's not possible, because you have to create new channels to fight new victims, no? 35:06 Well, yeah, but if people stop – it's true that you wouldn't be able to take all the money that is on the lightning network, 35:14 but it's true that that would be because the amount – everyone would just leave the lightning network, and it would go to zero. 35:19 Maybe it's not really worth – it's kind of splitting hairs, maybe. 35:23 I did always – I played around with an idea in 2018 that I put on some slides about if the miners felt like lightning network was taking their fees, 35:34 they would just spitefully kill the lightning network with the goal of driving people back to on-chain or to merge mining also. 35:43 I was kind of interested in that idea at some point, which I've heard some miners say out loud in English. 35:53 They're just going to say that the lightning network is taking their fees, but I don't think that's a very widespread opinion. 36:03 So I don't think they would – I mean, most miners are very technically clueless, I think. 36:09 No offense to them, but they don't know – they have no idea what taproot is today or whatever. 36:16 They don't know what any of this stuff means. 36:20 They're very specialized. 36:24 Their goal is to convert hashes to – I mean, electricity and other inputs, ASICs, into hashes as much as possible. 36:34 So they're very specialized, which in a way is a very good thing. 36:37 It's like – in a way, it's also a very bad thing. 36:40 I mean, there's a lot of mining paradoxes. 36:42 So a lot of people say, oh, we want mining to be very decentralized so that no one can, like, disturb or subvert the system. 36:51 But actually, that's part already true and part undesirable, because it's also good – like, if everyone has too small of a percentage of the hashrate, 37:06 if you have a pie chart with lots of tiny slices, then there's kind of like a communist collective action problem where it's like no one feels responsible for the network. 37:20 No one takes ownership of the network. 37:24 But as a result, then they won't – they either won't know. 37:29 They won't, like, activate taproot quickly. 37:31 They won't activate CTV or whatever it is. 37:35 And they also won't really research. 37:39 Like, they don't – 37:41 they'll just rely on someone else's opinion for taproot. It'll be a lot like – kind of like a 37:44 democracy also, where everyone has a very small share of the vote. So everyone just thinks, 37:49 why should I research the issues too much, because my vote is not – it's very unlikely to be, like, 37:56 a pivotal vote. I probably won't have a big impact on the outcome. So in that sense, 38:01 it's sort of undesirable. And in another sense, it's already happened. 38:04 So it's very interesting. I think one thing that ocean mining pool tried to do but failed to do, 38:15 but that would be a good idea if people did do it, would be that if we could further reduce 38:21 the leverage of the pools by paying miners out as frequently as possible, 38:28 I think that would be a very good thing to do. 38:31 Are they already using lightning? 38:35 I think they don't – well, like, it's very weird. So for example, people who are at the 38:41 ocean mining pool event, just as an example of how weird this can sometimes be, they told me 38:48 that there was a Q&A and the ocean people said that they did not want to do any – they did not 38:52 want to run any lightning infrastructure. So that's what I heard. This is hearsay. 38:58 But I mean, I've heard it. 38:59 Did they give any reasons? 39:00 So I think they said it was too complicated and too much to technically support. 39:09 But we should ask – we'll invite Luke and have him hang out in the space. He can tell us whether 39:16 or not – because this is weird because this is what everyone assumed is, of course, that, 39:19 okay, they're going to pay out things over lightning. But even that doesn't really work 39:23 because if you're new – you want to join the pool, you're a new hasher, you know as well as 39:30 I that, like, they have to join – the pool has to, like, open a channel with them that contains 39:35 exactly as much liquidity from the – the pool has to, like, pre-pay them the amount of money 39:41 that they plan to pay them over this time period. And that is not free. That costs – the total, 39:47 in fact, is pretty expensive. You say, if I think they're going to earn – so the way it works is 39:52 this. You're new – you invest $10 million in ASICs and you plug them in. You have a power 40:00 contract. You plug them in and you point the hash rate at Ocean Pool. And you say, 40:07 I want to get paid out frequently over lightning. Ocean Pool says to you, 40:12 how much money do you think you'll earn over this month or whatever? And they say, be honest. 40:19 And then you say, whatever. I think over this month I'll probably earn, 40:24 you know, that you guys will have to pay me. I'll probably earn, whatever, I don't know, 40:29 I'm just making up a number, $300,000. They have to open a – Ocean Pool has to find $300,000 worth 40:36 of Bitcoin and open the channel with that, you know, like on that – those beads on their edge 40:42 of the string with nothing from your edge, nothing from the ASIC owner, miners, and the 40:48 clients. There could be an LSP between the miner and the user. But the LSP has to put front to the 40:56 – the LSP's channel has to have the $300,000. It just shifts the problem over. Yeah, but they 41:02 are already solving their problem, right? This is their job. Which is what? To provide liquidity 41:11 to people who want to join the Lightning Network. Ah, well, but yeah, but it has a fundamental cost. 41:18 Yeah, yeah. You know, like if they – yeah, so it has to be $300,000 worth of beads. Like, 41:23 when you join the Lightning Network, it's like you have a string with beads. And you're going to 41:29 start with nothing on your side, presumably, although maybe, you know, for denial of service 41:35 purposes, you would have like $1,000 or something. I don't know. But the point is, in order to ever 41:41 receive the $300,000 over the month, someone else has to have – you know, you have to have a string 41:47 with $300,000 somewhere in the – you know, 300,000 beads, a string connected to you from someone. 41:54 So someone has to open – they have to have $300,000. I mean, this is like kind of 41:57 maybe what more what ARK would be solving. But I mean, if you're really – 42:04 Then you can just make on-chain transactions, probably. 42:09 Well, yes. But I'm just trying to make an example of why they would not – the Lightning – like, 42:17 this is the point, though, is that Lightning doesn't actually – in many ways, Lightning 42:23 makes the problem worse, because the Lightning onboarding, you know, for a large amount, 42:27 is a significant amount of financial capital is locked up on day one that's going to maybe be paid 42:36 later. So I'm just trying to – oh, no. Robin went connecting. This is the most glitchy app. 42:45 Oh, no. My blue dots have stopped bouncing, too. Hopefully, everyone can – 42:51 oh, I hope he comes back. Or he doesn't. Okay, right. 42:58 Well, Elon, you know, he fired three quarters of the employees. And it's true that this site 43:04 still works. But does it always work 100 percent? Not always. But maybe we'll see. Okay, he's back 43:16 as listener. Maybe he'll reconnect. Anyway, I was just trying to say, well, maybe why it's the case 43:25 that – see, the thing is, you don't know if it's – you have a lot of unknowns on day one of the 43:32 month. So I was just trying to say – I was going to try to explain, perhaps, why they would not use 43:39 Lightning. Although all these times that people have said, like, people who weren't there, 43:44 people who weren't there at the actual event, they just, like, immediately took it for granted 43:49 and started tweeting about how – I don't know. Robin is back, but now he's connecting again. 43:56 I don't know why this happens. Hopefully, it will stop happening, though. I think it's only 44:01 a matter of time before my app crashes, also, because the blue dots have stopped bouncing, 44:05 which they normally do. They normally bounce. But I was just trying to say that everyone – this 44:16 idea spread around that they'll be paying out over Lightning and that this will be a great 44:22 win for Lightning. Ah, yes, you're back. Anyway, I don't think that they – yeah, 44:34 so, like, if the amounts are big, then – but you see, that doesn't – yeah, 44:41 one question would be, like, no one does this now. So, for example, almost every – the way the 44:51 mining relationships work is they build – you build up, like, money in your, like, account, 44:55 and then you get paid out in – you have an aggregation batching, and then you get paid out 45:05 so – for whatever reason, the current economics of the situation make it so that most people 45:13 go a long time. But it would be better for Bitcoin and for pool competitiveness, 45:19 and it would be better for miners themselves if they were paid out as rapidly as possible. 45:25 That would be the best thing. That would solve a wide array of overlapping issues, including 45:35 even that – even that the reason why Foundry has to do KYC AML is even related to that, because it 45:44 is related to, like, the commingling of funds, and, like, people have, like, assets at Foundry 45:51 until they are paid out. So, if we could make the payout process very, very rapid, 45:56 that would be great. But I'm just trying to say the Lightning Network doesn't automatically fix 45:59 that. It just kind of shifts it to the channel open. The channel open requires liquidity. So, 46:07 the channel open is basically, like, one on-chain transaction, but then it saves maybe N future 46:12 on-chain transactions, but it has the drawback that it requires all this upfront liquidity. 46:22 So, there's risk of opening a channel with the wrong person. You open a channel – even if you 46:25 just open a channel with someone and they just go AWOL, then you can get your money back, but you 46:31 don't get it back immediately. You have to wait the two weeks or whatever. So, that is itself a risk. 46:38 So, it's not – you know what I mean? Like, yeah, I wouldn't, like, open a channel with someone. 46:45 You'd really – so, this is kind of tough because the situation is not great. But you could do this 46:52 with BIP300, but we don't have BIP300 yet. So, or with BitM, you could just have a thing where 46:57 the miners are assigning. The pool has a bunch of money on the L2, and the pool just pays everyone 47:05 out rapidly on L2, never on L1. And then the miners don't care. They're getting paid 47:14 from someone frequently. So, that would be good. 47:20 Yeah, I think Lightning could really excel as, like, a glue between many L2s. Like, I think we 47:28 need a free market of L2s, of, like, roll-ups and sidechains and everybody. 47:36 I think it would be – well, I certainly think that, yes. I think the channel, 47:45 the bidirectional payment channels will certainly be 47:48 a part of the future. But I don't know if the HTLC idea will make it into, like, 20 years from now, 47:58 if anyone will use that. Maybe they will say – 48:01 You mean, like, payment channels without HTLCs or what? 48:05 Yeah, I think, like, people will just do the N factorial. Like, because I think it'll be log, 48:11 rhythmically distributed. So, there'll be, like, hub and spoke. 48:14 Yeah. 48:15 Kind of like how Barak is saying about, like, how he's kind of, like, trying to make, like, 48:19 one huge R-cub or something. It's, like, you know, it's not literally what I mean, but I'm just, like, 48:26 poking fun at this idea that it'll probably be log distributed. So, it will be, like, there will be, 48:35 like, a few really big people. 48:37 Yeah. 48:38 Really big transacting accounts. It'll be, like, whatever, BitPay, Coinbase, 48:43 stuff like that, theoretically, or some version of that. 48:46 And those things will all have the N factorial. They'll just have channels with each other 48:50 directly, and they won't, like, route the HTLC, I think. I think that idea is just not going to go 48:57 anywhere, but I may be totally wrong. If so, people in the future can play this clip, 49:03 and then they can put, like, the whatever, slide rule, sound effect, or whatever. 49:11 Or whatever. 49:15 Yeah. 49:18 Whatever. Price is right. Horn effect. But, because the reason is that it's just, 49:25 it takes so many bytes to add the HTLC output, and it has, you need, like, at least, 49:32 you need, like, at least 32 to describe the hash, and then 32 to actually give the 49:38 the pre-image, the R, and then you have to, this is, like, to make the output, and then spend it. 49:44 This is already, like, 100 and something bytes. It's, like, a lot of bytes. So, I just think... 49:51 Well, but, like, with Dapro channels, you don't need that, right, in the cooperative case? 49:58 But the cooperative case isn't important. The only, the cooperative case is never the 50:05 important case. It's always the worst-case scenario. 50:09 I disagree here, because I think, like, most channels close bilaterally, you know? 50:17 I think only a minority of channels close with it. 50:21 But if it's the case that it won't work, I think they're related in, like, a completely 50:26 different way, which is, like, the better the justice is, like, the more... 50:35 The better you are taken care of if it's an uncooperative close, that will make, 50:40 that is what makes it cooperative close, because people say, you know, it's like, 50:45 you know, you're holding, like, a big gun, and it works really well and cheaply. So, 50:49 everyone's like, okay, listen, I don't want to uncooperative close, because they'll get 50:54 everything they want. So, they have to... Oh, no, Robin is now two people. 51:01 They are connecting again, dot, dot, dot. Well, we have also Walt. We have a Walt Smith is here. 51:07 Hello, if you want to say anything, while Robin reconnects, maybe. 51:14 Oh, no. To me, that sounds like a lot of noise, and I can't hear you easily. 51:25 Hmm. 51:31 I do not hear you. I saw you give a sad face, and then mute and unmute, though. 51:39 Could be me. I don't know. All right. I suppose not. Oh, wait. Hello. Yes. 51:50 Nope. I don't hear you. 51:55 No audio. 52:18 Can you hear me? 52:24 That's odd. Oh, wait. Wait. I can hear you now. Great. Ah, you can hear me. Good. 52:33 Okay. Yes. Weird app, sometimes. Very temperamental. 52:40 So, yeah. The HTLC, like I'm saying, the whole point of having the HTLC output as the 52:47 intermediary node is that, if you don't know, it's like, the idea is you don't know these people. 52:53 So, if they both disappear on you or something, 52:59 it doesn't matter, because you can go on-chain and get the thing redeemed. 53:05 But for a normal payment, like most payments are like, whatever, $20 or less, 53:11 it's just not going to be worth it on L1, at least. 53:16 Even on L2, it'll probably be better to just use the L2s payment thing or use some other 53:21 kind of thing that is, instead of HTLC, it will be the, whatever, the UTXO, 53:30 whatever it's called, LT, whatever, you know, the UTXO, LTC, or whatever, ALTC, 53:40 or whatever it is the L2 does. 53:42 That is my guess. 53:51 Like, my guess would just be that we have, you know, sidechains, and then there are liquidity 53:58 providers who have channels into Bitcoin and into other liquidity providers might have channels into 54:06 other sidechains. And then when you make, want to make a payment, you just create an ad hoc channel 54:13 that can be open within, I don't know, probably within seconds or like instantly, if you just 54:21 add something like OP_CAT or something to the sidechain such that you can have these 54:26 committed non-signatures, where you have like that one-time scheme such that you can 54:31 essentially have secure zero confirmation transactions. And then you can create ad hoc 54:36 channels instantly, and then you can pay anyone anywhere in the entire ecosystem instantly. 54:43 And I think that that would be great, great usability. 54:47 Yeah, I agree. Yeah. You know, I like the zero conf, the OP_CAT zero conf, like 54:55 slashable, single-use bond thing idea. 55:00 Yeah, and ad hoc channels are great for Lightning, I think. For end users, 55:06 they will need ad hoc channels. 55:09 Ad hoc channels. But that's like, you open the channel because 55:16 none of the existing channels solve your problem. 55:23 You want to pay outside of your own, of your base chain, of your home chain. Like, 55:28 you're in sidechain A and you want to pay someone in sidechain B or somebody who is on the main 55:33 chain. And then you just create a channel that's created instantly, and then you just use the 55:40 Lightning network for a second, and then your channel is gone. 55:47 Yeah, I suppose. 55:50 If you can just open it quickly enough, and quickly enough, then there is no real 55:54 liquidity problem. And I think sidechains can offer that. 55:58 But there's also no real reason to call it a channel. 56:03 Yes, you need a channel to make cross-chain payments, right? Because most likely, the person 56:10 you want to pay is not on your chain. And the more chains there are, the more likely it is that 56:14 you're not paying a person on the same chain. 56:20 That's true. But I actually think it's not that hard to 56:25 imagine a world where there's like nine big payment chains, and they all have some kind of 56:31 geographic distribution. So there's like North America chain or whatever, Europe chain. 56:37 And then most of your payments would be, for overwhelming majority of payments for most people, 56:42 would be inside the chain. And then sometimes you'd be switching from dollars to euros or something, 56:51 which, except way better than the current scheme, but it would still just be like some kind of thing 56:56 where it doesn't necessarily absolutely need a million percent. 57:06 To totally focus on that always being the case, I don't, I certainly, I think there should be many 57:14 more chains, but I don't know. I think no matter what the case is, the chain can only survive if 57:23 it is popular. Like maybe in the case of drivechain, it must be popular to be secure. But even 57:29 in the case of something else, like if it's really not popular, then it's kind of just like a dead 57:34 project in a way, because there's all the other things that people need to coordinate around. 57:41 Like everyone needs to standardize, basically. 57:44 So there will have to be standardization. 57:47 So kind of like the more popular thing, 57:48 we'll just weigh in and everything else will probably not. 57:52 Optimize away inefficiencies, 57:54 and that is a strong argument for what you just said, 57:58 that even if we have multiple sidechains, 58:00 then probably people will gravitate towards the sidechain 58:04 where most of their payments can happen in that chain 58:07 without having to leave the chain. 58:11 Yeah, people will just jointly want to coordinate. 58:15 It'll just be to their, everyone's advantage 58:16 to like have their trading partners, 58:18 just they'll join the chain 58:20 that most of their trading partners are on, 58:22 and then paradoxically, 58:28 then their trading partners will get more people to join. 58:31 I'm just interested if it really works though, 58:33 because like even relatively a small country, 58:38 well, it's not that small in terms of population. 58:42 Germany has like 80 million people, 58:44 and now imagine a sidechain 58:47 where 80 million people transact every day, 58:50 or like make all of their transactions, 58:51 or most of their transactions on that chain. 58:53 I think that would be, I'm not sure if that would scale. 59:00 Well, it's not so bad. 59:01 I mean, I did some envelope math, you know, 59:04 like I think you could, 59:07 it's like nine, if you had nine chains, 59:11 and then, see, like, cause you have to like, 59:13 I have a lot of weird assumptions, 59:15 but it's like, I say that you'd start up a new chain 59:20 when the old one fills up. 59:22 So you start a bunch of chains, 59:23 and it's like, they started like eight megabytes, 59:27 and then they grow geometrically to 800 megabytes 59:30 over like 10 years, but you just start with one. 59:34 And then when that one fills up, you make the second one. 59:37 The second one starts at eight, 59:38 or it could start at the same, you know, whatever, 59:40 but you start them, you have eights, 59:42 and so eight's growing, 59:43 and maybe by the time eight is geometrically grown 59:45 to like 80, you find that it's full, 59:49 and you start the next one. 59:50 So now you have 88. 59:52 And the new people who are feeling priced out 59:57 and the most rebellious, they'll splinter off. 1:00:01 And then when that one fills up, you start another eight. 1:00:04 And you do this until you have like maybe like nine or 10. 1:00:07 That, those would have, 1:00:09 the full node costs would still be very cheap. 1:00:12 And that would go up to like the entire world's payment 1:00:18 volume eventually. 1:00:20 But you see, people wouldn't join. 1:00:22 People won't, you know, there'll be eight billion people 1:00:27 won't join tomorrow. 1:00:28 But you have to plan, it's a paradox. 1:00:30 You have to plan on them joining eventually, 1:00:32 or even, you have to plan on like, 1:00:34 what would we do if they did join tomorrow? 1:00:37 They have to have like a plan for that. 1:00:39 And at the same time, you don't want to just say like, 1:00:48 build it as if they were, you know, 1:00:52 going to join tomorrow, because that's not likely. 1:00:57 So, but even that would not be, 1:00:58 that would not be very much. 1:00:59 And the way it would work is you have the large block 1:01:01 payment sidechain that everyone would use. 1:01:03 And then eventually probably you'd see like the first split 1:01:06 and we don't really know what it would be. 1:01:08 Cause it depends on who has adopted the thing, 1:01:12 but probably at some point there would be like a, 1:01:14 you know, like a, like a, an Asia split, 1:01:17 or like even like a Southeast Asia 1:01:19 that would probably like split off at some point. 1:01:22 There'd be like whatever, India, Japan, China, Korea, 1:01:26 that would like split off probably. 1:01:30 There'd be like Anglosphere, West and East. 1:01:32 And then probably there'd be like a America, 1:01:34 Europe split at some point. 1:01:36 And then there's probably be like a rest of world split, 1:01:40 you know, which would be like just these random other 1:01:44 places, but I don't think we can really predict, 1:01:48 but anyway, I did all that math. 1:01:50 That is not, it's not so bad. 1:01:52 Just the, the, the envelope math is not, 1:01:55 it's not that torturous. 1:02:00 And one cool thing about the sidechain is, 1:02:04 this may be the case that like every L2 1:02:05 just ends up converging on the same design, 1:02:07 just like from different directions, 1:02:09 because the, the sidechain L2, 1:02:13 since it's already screwed, 1:02:14 if you have like six months of like 51% attack, 1:02:19 you can just have like a UTXO step commitment 1:02:21 and throw away any data that is older than six months. 1:02:25 So even like the blockchain can even like, 1:02:29 it's theoretically shrink or just like, 1:02:32 it kind of hits some like equilibrium size 1:02:36 of just whatever the turnover is. 1:02:38 And, but even if you don't assume that, 1:02:40 you can still have these like one gigabyte nodes 1:02:42 that are like, it's like 2,500 upfront. 1:02:47 And then like, it was like 400 a month dollars. 1:02:51 So that's a lot, but that's not like, 1:02:54 that would be too much for L1. 1:02:55 And that would be a mistake. 1:02:56 And it makes no sense because the, 1:02:58 the large blockers back in the scaling war, 1:03:01 they had no kind of explanation for like what the numbers 1:03:03 would, what the final number would be, 1:03:05 or would it be unlimited? 1:03:06 Or why is the number what it is? 1:03:08 They didn't have any of that figured out. 1:03:11 As a result, their position made no sense. 1:03:13 And it was, you know, no offense to large blockers, 1:03:16 but that was why, that was a big part of why they lost, 1:03:19 I think it's because they really, 1:03:21 they really didn't object on principle. 1:03:23 They just said the line should be drawn at an eight 1:03:26 instead of at one. 1:03:27 And any reasonable person would be thinking, 1:03:30 even on a, excuse me, even on like a subconscious level, 1:03:34 they would be thinking like, why eight and not nine 1:03:38 or 30 or two or four and a half, you know, 1:03:41 they'd just be like. 1:03:44 So most of the large blockers at the time, 1:03:47 they did not favor getting rid of the block size limit 1:03:50 completely. 1:03:52 It would have probably made much more logical sense 1:03:54 and been much more persuasive if they did say that, 1:03:56 but none of them, none of them said that. 1:03:59 Well, some, maybe a few of them did, 1:04:00 but Gavin Andresen, for example, did not. 1:04:02 He said, and in fact, he said explicitly, 1:04:06 quote, no one is advocating for an unlimited block size, 1:04:09 end quote. 1:04:10 So when he said that, I thought, oh, that's interesting. 1:04:13 But see, then they are admitting 1:04:14 that some blocks are too large. 1:04:16 So the reason why this is better, of course, 1:04:18 is that you have a bunch of things 1:04:19 that each have a block size limit, 1:04:21 and then the block size limit will grow 1:04:23 and it will be really big, but it will hit some other thing. 1:04:26 And then it will just, 1:04:28 you have like a reason behind the numbers. 1:04:29 The numbers are like the worldwide scale 1:04:32 binned into a bunch of bins. 1:04:34 And so, yeah, you could do all that. 1:04:36 And then if you did that, 1:04:36 then they wouldn't necessarily need to be channels, 1:04:38 although nothing would stop them from being channels. 1:04:42 They could be channels. 1:04:44 Probably they would. 1:04:46 I mean, see, you call them channels, 1:04:49 but it's weird that the define, 1:04:56 because you say we need to do cross-chain, 1:05:01 but like, I would again think like 1:05:05 most of the payments will be within chain, 1:05:08 and then even it'll be rare to cross-chains. 1:05:10 And then when you do, 1:05:11 you would call that like a cross-chain atomic swap. 1:05:14 I wouldn't really call that a channel. 1:05:16 Because to me, the channel is something where you really, 1:05:19 it's like the thing with the beads 1:05:20 and you're really using it a lot. 1:05:22 You're updating it frequently. 1:05:23 You open it once in a big ceremony 1:05:26 and then you update it frequently 1:05:28 in the privacy of your own home many times. 1:05:31 And then you close it or roll it over 1:05:33 in like a big ceremony. 1:05:34 Well, the good thing with channels 1:05:36 is like with using the Lightning Network 1:05:38 for these atomic swaps. 1:05:40 Of course, it's just atomic swaps at the end of the day. 1:05:43 And you could do more simple atomic swaps 1:05:45 by just swapping directly between chain A and chain B. 1:05:48 But like, of course it contradicts what you just said 1:05:54 because you just said people will gravitate 1:05:57 towards the sidechain where they have to swap the least. 1:06:02 And that makes sense, of course. 1:06:03 But if you model it just like randomly and say, 1:06:05 okay, we have 100 chains 1:06:08 and payments happen randomly across any chain, 1:06:11 then there's a high probability 1:06:13 that you will not pay in your chain. 1:06:15 And it's also hard to predict 1:06:18 in which chain you will pay into. 1:06:21 And you can solve that very elegantly 1:06:23 by just everybody having a channel with the main chain 1:06:28 or with the main chain Lightning Network. 1:06:31 And from there, you could easily connect 1:06:33 into every other. 1:06:36 What did you say? 1:06:37 Everyone having a channel on L1? 1:06:40 Every sidechain. 1:06:41 Every sidechain would have some, 1:06:44 at least one liquidity provider 1:06:46 who has a channel into the main Lightning Network. 1:06:50 Well, yeah. 1:06:52 Well, that's every sidechain. 1:06:55 Well, every user of every L2 is also a user of every L1. 1:06:59 Maybe they don't have any coins on L1. 1:07:02 I wonder about if, 1:07:05 let me think about, 1:07:08 so you're saying every sidechain. 1:07:09 See, because like in my guess about how it would work 1:07:12 is there's like 10, 1:07:14 there's like a bunch of special purpose sidechains 1:07:16 that are like for whatever, 1:07:17 for like, there's like Namecoin 1:07:19 and there's like, 1:07:20 then there's like some for payments 1:07:22 and then there's like some for like weird other stuff, 1:07:25 weird experiments. 1:07:27 And so you have the 10 1:07:30 and then each of the 10 is like, 1:07:34 you're just saying something like, 1:07:35 I mean, if all you're saying is one person 1:07:37 at least of each of the 10 1:07:39 also has a Lightning channel on L1, 1:07:41 then that is a very weak claim. 1:07:43 So that's almost certainly going to be the case. 1:07:49 Yeah, there will be lots of people 1:07:50 who have coins on both the L1 and each L2. 1:07:54 Like someone who's on the L2, 1:07:56 they'll have some coins on L1 1:07:58 and then they will be able to swap them. 1:08:01 I guess like to put it more clearly, 1:08:03 like in the naive setting, 1:08:05 you would have to have quadratically many channels, 1:08:09 like from every sidechain into every other sidechain, 1:08:14 if you would not be able to predict where you wanna pay. 1:08:18 And you can get around that 1:08:21 by just centralizing 1:08:23 around the main chain Lightning network. 1:08:27 Yeah, they're just ON only. 1:08:30 Each person who joins opens a channel, 1:08:34 they deposit to the L2 or they get coins on the L2 1:08:38 and then maybe someone gives them, 1:08:41 what they would do is they would, 1:08:42 someone would give them channel L2 coins, 1:08:44 they would never touch L1, 1:08:46 they get the L2 coins 1:08:47 and then they would open a channel on L2 1:08:52 with someone, they would open a channel to someone on L2 1:08:56 but that would be the same individual, the same human. 1:08:59 So like I would open a channel with Vlad 1:09:02 or let's say, I don't know how to make this example, 1:09:04 like make a lot of more sense. 1:09:06 Let's say like Roger Veer gives someone L2 coins, 1:09:10 he gives L2 coins to, I don't know, who, yes. 1:09:16 I think, yeah, 1:09:18 cause the Lightning network, you can't, 1:09:19 it doesn't make sense to, 1:09:20 you have to give them the L1 coins weirdly. 1:09:24 He, so Roger gives Moon Settler's friend 1:09:28 who is new to Bitcoin, he's just been orange pilled. 1:09:32 He sat on the airplane next to Roger Veer, 1:09:34 Roger Veer gives him the L, the coins on L2. 1:09:38 He opens L2 Lightning channels, 1:09:41 this would be like L3 or whatever. 1:09:43 He opens the L2 channel with, 1:09:48 let's call him Brian Armstrong who runs Coinbase. 1:09:52 So he has a channel for L2 coins moving back and forth, 1:09:55 but Brian Armstrong owns L1 coins. 1:09:58 So he can like, he can, 1:10:01 you could pay on L2 and have Brian Armstrong either 1:10:03 like give you one payment on L1 if you want it 1:10:08 or open an L1 channel with the, 1:10:10 like that has your coins in it or something then. 1:10:15 But see, you really never want to be able to, 1:10:18 it's all about like, 1:10:19 you gotta like avoid touching L1 as much as possible 1:10:22 because the more, 1:10:23 because 8 billion people of course cannot touch L1. 1:10:26 So it's like- 1:10:27 But I'm saying just one liquidity provider 1:10:30 per sidechain would have to have a channel in L1. 1:10:35 And all sidechain users would then interact with- 1:10:39 But who's the channel? 1:10:41 Like who is the, 1:10:44 who else is in the channel in L1? 1:10:48 It's like Brian Armstrong has the channel on L1, 1:10:51 but with who? 1:10:52 Because he's Coinbase or whatever, that's what this is. 1:10:55 Oh, they're just connected with like 1:10:58 the main chain Lightning Network. 1:11:00 And then when somebody wants to make a payment, 1:11:04 they have to open a sidechain channel 1:11:07 with that party inside the sidechain. 1:11:10 And this way they- 1:11:11 Ah, yeah, yeah, yeah. 1:11:13 Yeah, that's kind of what I mean is that, 1:11:15 so you have a channel with Brian Armstrong. 1:11:18 Brian Armstrong has a channel with LSPs. 1:11:23 Yeah, I get what you're saying. 1:11:24 Yeah, no, I agree, yeah. 1:11:25 So he, Brian Armstrong will have, 1:11:27 there's a hundred sidechains. 1:11:29 Brian Armstrong has a hundred channels, 1:11:31 each with whales. 1:11:33 He has an L1 channel with whales, the L2 whales. 1:11:38 You connect to the L2 whale on your Lightning Network, 1:11:42 then you can pay anyone else 1:11:43 because it goes through Brian 1:11:45 and then it goes through the other whale. 1:11:46 Exactly. 1:11:47 And we can use Lightning as like the simple API 1:11:52 that everybody connects to pay each other. 1:11:58 Well, yeah, I guess, maybe. 1:12:02 Because you see- 1:12:03 I don't know. 1:12:04 You have to have the channel open. 1:12:06 I don't want to claim that I would know stuff, 1:12:07 but it's kind of like- 1:12:09 I think it's just like, 1:12:11 it's presuming that a channel has already been opened 1:12:13 with the person when you could just write the transaction. 1:12:16 Like just doing the sidechain on-chain transaction 1:12:20 has numerous benefits. 1:12:23 Anyway, we got Mood Saddler up here. 1:12:24 Hello, Mood Saddler, how are you? 1:12:26 Hello, guys. 1:12:27 Happy Friday. 1:12:28 Happy Friday. 1:12:28 So I just wanted to say that the easiest way 1:12:30 to do cross-chain Lightning 1:12:32 is the bridging entities will just have a node 1:12:35 on both the sidechain and mainchain, 1:12:39 and they can just create a virtual uncommitted channel 1:12:42 between their nodes, 1:12:43 because that's fully trust-based, 1:12:45 but both of them are their nodes. 1:12:47 And then they can just easily use something 1:12:49 like trampoline routing or whatever 1:12:51 to route across networks. 1:12:54 I think it actually can be done with Lightning 1:12:57 just as it exists, basically. 1:13:01 Ah, I think it makes sense, actually, Robin. 1:13:04 I think if I understand him, 1:13:05 he's saying Brian Armstrong, a fictional person, 1:13:08 he just has a bunch of- 1:13:10 He just happens to have, 1:13:12 he is a whale on multiple networks, 1:13:14 and he just has a lot of chain, 1:13:16 even though he has a virtual channel with himself, 1:13:19 basically, is sort of what I was hearing there. 1:13:22 So he just has, 1:13:24 he's on all the different Lightning networks, 1:13:26 and so he's kind of like a bank to some extent. 1:13:30 But, and then in that case, there is no HTLC, by the way. 1:13:34 This is only bi-directional payment channels. 1:13:37 So I'm getting my revenge on the Lightning network. 1:13:39 That Brian Armstrong doesn't have to have channels 1:13:42 in like sidechain A and sidechain B. 1:13:45 Like it is, we just have, I don't know, 1:13:48 let's say Roger Ver and Brian Armstrong, 1:13:52 and Brian Armstrong, he has a channel into sidechain B, 1:13:56 and Roger Ver, he has a channel into sidechain A, 1:14:01 and both of them are connected 1:14:03 with the main chain Lightning network, 1:14:05 and that's why they can pay each other, 1:14:07 and that's why I can route over them. 1:14:11 So I wanted to say you have HTLCs. 1:14:13 It just, it doesn't make sense 1:14:14 to enforce those against yourself. 1:14:17 So on the virtual channel, 1:14:19 there is no sense in enforcing HTLCs, 1:14:21 but they can still kind of like exist, 1:14:24 and they certainly exist on the sidechain, 1:14:27 but you already have a network. 1:14:28 You don't actually have to like fully centralize. 1:14:31 You can also have routing happening on the sidechain, 1:14:34 and you can also have further routing 1:14:38 happening on the main chain Lightning network. 1:14:41 Routing can happen in the main chain Lightning network, 1:14:43 and that's why you don't need Roger Ver 1:14:46 or like Brian Armstrong to have a channel 1:14:47 in every sidechain. 1:14:49 It's, he can already be helpful 1:14:51 if he just has a channel in one sidechain 1:14:54 and in the main chain. 1:14:56 Yeah, now ideally, you wouldn't have 1:14:58 just like a single bridge 1:15:01 between the sidechain and main chain. 1:15:03 Ideally, you would have competing bridges, 1:15:06 because otherwise, they said whatever fee they want 1:15:10 for routing, and that's not cool, 1:15:11 but you can have very few. 1:15:14 Everybody can join the market, so. 1:15:16 Yeah, you can have two, three bridges maybe per sidechain, 1:15:20 and that's still like a very low number. 1:15:22 Even if main chain Lightning becomes very centralized 1:15:27 for the high liquidity routing, 1:15:29 even then, this can be like a fairly decentralized system 1:15:33 where you have competition. 1:15:35 Yeah. 1:15:41 Okay, so Moon, what's up with the week? 1:15:45 How's everything going? 1:15:47 You know, how's that Bitcoin despair setting in? 1:15:57 Yeah, I'm a tiny bit over it. 1:16:00 The problem is that people see so stupid things on Twitter, 1:16:04 and it kind of just depresses me 1:16:07 when I see these insufferable takes 1:16:10 like removing the scripting capability of Bitcoin. 1:16:14 I saw from Terence, I think he wants to reduce 1:16:18 the number of opcodes to one 1:16:20 because he thinks there are too many. 1:16:22 So stuff like that really depressed me, 1:16:25 but I got over it. 1:16:28 I managed to actually do the tutorial 1:16:32 that Katsu created for CTV on the Inquisition signal, 1:16:39 but I had some trouble 1:16:41 with getting the transaction propagated. 1:16:44 I had to connect to AGS node directly 1:16:47 because the fucking mempool filters 1:16:50 are actually getting your way 1:16:51 if you want to do cool stuff with Bitcoin. 1:16:55 But overall, I'm fine now. 1:16:58 Yeah, a lot of dumb things being said on Twitter, of course. 1:17:04 And yeah, even like a lot of the fee control stuff, 1:17:09 like to stop people from paying a fee 1:17:11 that is too high or too low. 1:17:14 I always crash into that when I'm like testing things 1:17:17 because they also apply on like red test mode 1:17:22 and all this other stuff. 1:17:24 It's kind of very annoying. 1:17:27 But what can you do? 1:17:30 So yeah, I don't know what is with Terence now. 1:17:35 I don't know. 1:17:36 He seemed like two years ago, 1:17:38 he seemed kind of like a smarter guy, 1:17:41 but now I don't know. 1:17:42 Kind of like what is what is the deal is now. 1:17:52 Now we have big code. 1:17:55 Hello, what's up, Paul? 1:18:00 How are you? I'm good. 1:18:06 I want to say about something about this, what you're talking about, the channels and VMs. 1:18:13 I think that like we have the golden feature with the Bitcoin node that only you figure out how to use as a L2 and that's a great thing. 1:18:30 Everybody else tried to implement VMs, which, you know, like. 1:18:39 How to say like it's. 1:18:43 It's destroying the the the nature of the the whole infrastructure. 1:18:49 VMs are not peer to peer, they are not decentralized. 1:18:54 They are related to APIs, which is very bad technology, APIs, the. 1:19:01 I mean, the technology is very bad, so. 1:19:06 Like the. 1:19:10 Related to to to connection, the RPCs are much better than than APIs because APIs are created to to have a demand of data and 1:19:23 and that's a big issue where RPCs are specific, you know, dedicated for for one function or connection. 1:19:34 And the other thing, I don't think that my drivechain will need any channels or lightning if there is a sidechain like lightning. 1:19:45 Yeah, fine. But why do. 1:19:48 Anybody will need channel because, you know, the sidechains are on drivechain, so you have a, you know, seamless communication between everything, so I don't see that there is. 1:20:04 Yeah, I think if there were channels, they would have to have like very, very, very automated, like. 1:20:12 Open and close, most people will probably not have any idea how to, like, decide who to open a channel with. 1:20:19 So if that were very, very, very automated. 1:20:23 You can have something work, something like Moon Wallet working on a sidechain without a problem if it has like a sub Satoshi feed rate, because, you know, it's a big block sidechain and sidechains are not really scarce real estate anyhow, because you can just make another one. 1:20:38 So in that sense, I think it might be a lot simpler experience than what people are suffering with on main chain. 1:20:46 It's just that the actual infrastructure that has to exist as lightning nodes, if you have some routing, if you have various LSPs present on a sidechain, then routing between each other and the bridges is where you would have like real lightning infrastructure and probably the wallets would not even be lightning wallets. 1:21:05 They would just be able to pay HTSs. 1:21:09 Yeah, but also you don't need the lightning infrastructure, because why do you need more complexity? 1:21:15 I mean, because you want to just you want to just pay an invoice from anywhere on the world. 1:21:21 Yeah, but I will be the Bitcoin channel. 1:21:26 I don't need to use the lightning channel. 1:21:28 No, because someone is on sidechain C and you are on sidechain E and you want to pay them. 1:21:35 You can't pay them directly. 1:21:36 Otherwise, but but I can I can use a Bitcoin JS Bitcoin channel because lightning coming is it lightning is not invented. 1:21:49 Lightning is just a wrapped up marketing scheme from lightning is come on. 1:21:55 Lightning is a Bitcoin channel. 1:21:57 What are you talking about? 1:21:58 Yeah, is Bitcoin channel. 1:21:59 I want to say that lightning is manipulated and is not invented. 1:22:05 The Bitcoin channel exists in since Satoshi time. 1:22:10 And that's I mean, you can I use I use for for my needs and you know, like Bitcoin channel, you can anybody can create. 1:22:20 So when you use Bitcoin channel, you use the note. 1:22:24 If it's on drivechain, you use the drivechain. 1:22:26 No, you don't need a lightning infrastructure at all. 1:22:29 Hey, guys, I have to leave now. 1:22:31 I have another appointment. 1:22:32 Great talking to you and see you next time. 1:22:37 Cool. See you later, Robert. 1:22:40 See you. 1:22:46 Hmm, yes, it would have been I didn't quite understand what you meant a bit code when you said VM is like an API. 1:22:56 I didn't totally understand that part. 1:22:58 But I kind of agree with you that I don't really see why there would be. 1:23:02 I think a lot of this channel stuff will just be kind of just dropped at some point, if I'm right, which, of course, is not guaranteed. 1:23:12 But no, you're right. 1:23:14 You're right. I mean, like as. 1:23:19 I understand the drivechain, if you have a drivechain node and then you have a sidechains, why do you need the channel? 1:23:26 Because the sidechains communicate with drivechain. 1:23:29 So it's a seamless, you know, it just need to be developed some kind of atomic swap. 1:23:35 And, you know, that's it. 1:23:39 That's the thing, like you want to be able to automatically pay someone within like a few microseconds or at least at least a bit within a second. 1:23:53 You want to pay anyone on this planet by reading a QR code and press send. 1:23:58 And there is no real. 1:24:01 I mean, I don't know of any alternative that can make that happen when when you are just working across chains and providers. 1:24:09 The Lightning Network just works. 1:24:11 It's very easy to integrate into any other structure like covenant pools or sidechains or anything. 1:24:19 The other thing you have with sidechains is the finality success. 1:24:23 I'm sorry. And with Lightning, you can just have longer timeouts and you can still have instant finality and these good settlement times. 1:24:33 Even though you have like, let's say, like a hundred times worse finality assumptions on a sidechain than on main chain, it still works. 1:24:41 You just have to give it a longer timeout. 1:24:44 So, yeah, those are the reasons why I actually believe there would be Lightning Network involved if you had sidechains. 1:24:52 Yeah, that makes sense, because the sidechain does have slower confirmations, basically. 1:24:58 So if you had a preconfirmed. 1:25:02 Channel that was opened on the sidechain, then it would be very, very, very, very, very confirmed. 1:25:08 Beginning and then then you'd have instant payments after that, so that would be something I don't know to what extent you can try to use the like. 1:25:26 Like, we'll have to see, like in practice, exactly like how often are the sidechain blocks reorganized because maybe they just never are in practice, you know. 1:25:36 And if so, then you could use the OP_CAT double span protection technique thing and then they would just be instant anyway. 1:25:47 Yeah, that's always an option, I guess. 1:25:54 That's why I said, I kind of think stuff like Moon Wallet that didn't really work on main chain, it was very popular for a while when we had one sub every byte, but then it just didn't work. 1:26:06 Completely died when we had an actual fee regime, but I kind of think it will be popular on sidechains like it just just seems practical, not having actual channels, not having to suffer with actual channels and running a lightning node for, you know, the average user. 1:26:24 Well, why can't, why don't you elaborate some of that because I bet a lot of people listening don't understand why, why was Moon so extra sensitive to the fee rate. 1:26:41 extra sensitive to the fee rate and they did these submarine swap 1:26:47 things which basically means they they made an on -chain transaction pretty much every 1:26:52 time you pay the lightning invoice or receipt over lightning so that was an on -chain 1:26:56 transaction because you can just just do naked htscs and interact with 1:27:01 the Lightning network that way. 1:27:03 You can find an HDI -C where the hash lock correlates to Lightning invoice, right? 1:27:09 And it works. 1:27:12 But the problem with that is these schemes have a large, large on footprint that is 1:27:18 just not economic on -chain, unless you really have really low fees. 1:27:23 But we don't expect in the future main chain, we have low fees on the side 1:27:29 chains. However, that's the entire reason for half of them to exist is 1:27:35 to give you more programming capabilities, like CAD, stuff like expressive 1:27:41 co -enants, 1:27:44 and to basically everyone be able to afford to go these on -chain UTXOs. 1:27:51 really, if a sidechain gets to bloated, then people can just migrate to a one and drop 1:27:55 that one. that's it. 1:27:57 So certainly with the sidechains, idea of having especially scarce, 1:28:04 like significantly painfully scarce block space is like an alien idea 1:28:09 to the sidechain idea. 1:28:11 Whereas I think we all agree that the strongest fee pressure will be felt on 1:28:17 L1. And in fact, more easily people can escape L1 and jump 1:28:23 ship to L2, the less anyone will care about the high L1 fees so they 1:28:29 will be able to paradoxically be higher 1:28:32 because they will be netting a lot of stuff on the upper layers 1:28:38 so yeah so I agree with that I think that's a very good it's a very good point 1:28:44 I didn't know that every time moon 1:28:48 just does a submarine swap like whenever this is needed or literally every time. 1:28:53 That's, that's, that's what I heard. I never actually used it, to be honest. So I'm just going by what people people said. But, but I think it really died, we started to have a fee regime, pretty, pretty fast. And now they are trying to be on liquid, maybe I think that's the next best thing for them. 1:29:15 Hmm. Yeah. Well, it would obviously be better if they are not on liquid and we're on like a normal mining based sidechain. 1:29:33 Exactly. 1:29:58 For the convenience and the privacy purposes, people could still pull up on the sidechains. And that would be kind of the best of both worlds, because you have very, very low cost real estate that nobody really uses, because nobody's valuing it. Nobody feels it while you're able to actually use it, but it's there to use it. 1:30:17 And that's kind of an ideal world. You have a lean main chain, you don't go the big block direction, anyone can run a node. And you also have lean sidechains, where people just pull up for privacy, and to have real peer to peer cash that is ungovernable. That would be kind of cool. 1:30:37 I'm not saying that's what would happen, because there are trade-offs, of course, always. And people might actually value the extra security and the extra simplicity of not having to give a damn about being online even just once every two weeks. 1:30:53 So holding your UTXOs on chain is like the best backup scheme, basically, the most user-friendly, most robust backup scheme that exists. So maybe it wouldn't happen, but still, I kind of think it makes sense to actually have stuff like ARK on sidechains. 1:31:24 Okay, cool. Well, we should let anyone else who wants to comment pop up. 1:31:36 Come on, Bitcode, hello. Yes, hello. 1:31:38 I was researching something in the last few days, and I think that now drivechain will have potentially a very good use case with the data security. Not cyber security, data security. 1:31:58 Why I'm saying this, because the companies are having so much problem with ransomware and stuff like that, and even individuals, that's a very big problem. 1:32:13 The companies even put their yearly kind of allocation for their yearly budget for data protection and ransomware to pay the hackers if something happened. 1:32:28 So drivechain, because the sidechains will have that same node infrastructure, and if it's enough decentralized, that will be a good kind of use case for a sidechain to exist. 1:32:49 Obviously for drivechain, because more decentralized is no single point of failure, and the data can be secured there. 1:33:01 What did you exactly mean by data secured? Like, you just mean like, I kind of, I think I cut out a little bit and I missed what you were talking about. You mean like putting files? 1:33:13 Yeah, yeah. 1:33:15 Yeah, I think people will do this encryption thing on every chain, and I think different chains will sort of specialize on, like you were saying, payments for each region. 1:33:26 Yeah, but I mean, drivechain is the best possible, after Bitcoin, the best possible for securing data, because it uses the peer-to-peer node, and no other chain uses the same infrastructure. 1:33:49 I mean, yeah, they use these forks and stuff like that, but, you know, I don't know, I can't say they are reliable, like BSV or Bitcoin Cash or any other chain. 1:34:04 other chain. 1:34:08 Plus, we will be secured on VR1, any transaction. 1:34:13 that's why Drivechain has the biggest kind of 1:34:18 opportunity for that use case. 1:34:27 Oh yeah, I'm bullish. 1:34:31 don't know, mean, don't think, I just like, what I see is a lot of stuff 1:34:37 that is, I'm not very good. 1:34:40 But it will take a while 1:34:41 because a lot of things are just people don't really know what it is they're messing 1:34:46 with so it's not until like wallet of Satoshi is 1:34:50 deleted or whatever from the episode of people really grasp what it meant that it was 1:34:54 custodial and it's moon seller was saying about you know moon wallet It 1:34:59 was relying on these submarine swaps to overcome many of the shortcomings 1:35:04 of lightning so 1:35:08 So anyway, those are just, but I think that probably 1:35:13 this is the equilibrium idea. 1:35:15 mean, even for things like there's no, even for, so for BitVM, 51 % hash rate can still 1:35:21 steal all the coins. 1:35:23 also they, you have a situation where you have to have a group of people, 1:35:29 one of which is like 1:35:33 the sidechain and each of them need put like some deposit that they can get slashed. 1:35:40 DriveSho just doesn't have that. 1:35:41 anyway, MoonSattler, have a hand? 1:35:44 then we have Morgan also. 1:35:45 hello. I want to talk to you Paul in just a minute, but I'm about to get interviewed on 1:35:51 the street about angry train horns being honked in San Diego. 1:35:55 if you're going to be here for five minutes, I want 1:35:57 to talk to 1:35:59 Okay, great. Yeah, sure. I'll be here. 1:36:03 So I just wanted to ask, what do you think about that? How would the future look like where we have this weird thing? Let's say in 10 years, we have quantum computers that can actually crack 1:36:16 like 256 bit elliptic curve private keys from the pub keys. So you have this, maybe it takes minutes, maybe it takes seconds. So basically, most people seem to think that in such a future Bitcoin cannot really exist. Because post quantum schemes, as far as we know, would make the blocks like stupid big, even with the current output and scaling, it would almost be impossible because 1:36:46 you don't really have multiparty computations for such crypto schemes, you don't really have multisig that that can be 1:36:56 aggregated the same way, nor can you don't really have 1:37:02 like 1:37:04 the whole thing seems pretty bleak in that situation. But assuming that actually the hash functions remain resistant for say the next hundred years. 1:37:13 I kind of imagined that something like drivechain can still be secure because it is secured by the miners and if if that is the proof of work, I'll go if shuttle and the 56 remains 1:37:26 quantum resistant enough that it's just not feasible for quantum computers to generate meaningful second images. 1:37:36 Because that would absolutely guard the blockchain possibly so that that will be a huge problem. But it's a much tougher problem for them than cracking, you know, pop keys and I mean, 1:37:52 I just don't think it's as big of a thing as you like think about it like this, if they crack shot 256 D, like whatever, or just shot 261. If they crack that, then 1:38:06 people would just switch that for something else. 1:38:09 I mean, the blockchain history is kind of, you know, secured by that every every transaction in the market tree can be replaced, and you wouldn't know what is real and what is not the same way. 1:38:21 Yeah, absolutely. 1:38:22 absolutely. was no right now. 1:38:24 So yeah. You that, but then you replace it as the block hashing thing and the Merkle 1:38:30 tree hashing thing. 1:38:32 And you would have some kind of like, first of all, you would just be building on top 1:38:37 of the 1:38:37 old block history with the new hashing function. 1:38:41 So it's true that all the old work would be reduced by a factor of whatever, 100 1:38:45 trillion or something, or just reduced to zero. 1:38:48 But it wouldn't matter because you'd be building on that with the new hashing 1:38:52 algorithm. 1:38:53 similarly, you'd have to do something, I agree. 1:38:56 You wouldn't rely on any of the old Merkle trees, you would do a 1:39:02 UTXO or something, or a UTXO commitment with a new 1:39:08 So you just swap out the hat. It's not so bad. You know what I mean? It's like one gear breaks, you go in, you replace the gear. So if it cracks ECDSA, then people would just switch to a new quantum resistant thing. 1:39:20 Now, maybe that would be terrible, because, you know, the as we've discussed, they take up a ton of space. So that so that maybe wouldn't be great. But it also, it wouldn't be the end of the world either. Because think about it like this. I mean, on one hand, we would have the signatures or whatever, they would be bigger, but we live in a world that is obviously having some kind of 1:39:44 400 times bigger, roughly. 1:39:47 Yeah, so that's bad. But think about it like this also. Well, in that world, we're having some kind of computer science revolution, because quantum computing is like going mainstream. And also probably a lot of people will set to work on trying to build a more efficient, like all the smartest minds of the world. You know, maybe not all of them. But the point is, this would be a new research interest. 1:40:12 Can you build a quantum, like something that is quantum resistant cryptography? And I bet I bet someone would improve on that factor, because you know how this is, like, sometimes people look into a thing and they improve it enormously. And so but the other thing I have to point out is that we still really aren't close. Like I heard all this stuff back and forth, but then I decided to investigate it more deeply. 1:40:39 And so the when something has like 1000 qubits, that is really only like one actually useful, like stable virtual bit or something. So we're basically at like one qubit, basically, everyone's, everyone's being fast and loose with the language and lying about it, basically not telling the truth. 1:41:02 So they are lying. And, you know, I can, there's like an article I found that explains this pretty well, like a science article about like, do you know what I mean? Like, if they have, they have some physical bits, but because of how unstable and unreliable they are, you have to have all this redundancy, and you need like, literally, like 5600 for each single bit to actually like have an actually useful bit that will like make it to the end of the computation. 1:41:29 Yeah, I mean, that was the breakthrough. That was the breakthrough that they figured out how to create, in theory, stable logical qubits by using a bunch of physical qubits organized in some mesh. And if that works, then then it actually opens up to potentially exponential scaling. So that is why people are talking about it's conditional, like this stuff has to work. Nobody knows if it actually works in practice. 1:41:56 But if it works, if this breakthrough works, and they can start, you know, exponentially growing the number of logical qubits, then, then, yeah, I see what you mean. 1:42:08 Things will escalate very fast. 1:42:09 Make a huge, huge room full of like, whatever, like liquid nitrogen, and it has like, 1:42:14 These are very tiny. So you probably can have million qubits in a single chip size, eventually. So, so yeah, we don't know, we don't know if this will happen in our lifetime. We don't know if it will ever happen. We don't know if quantum computers actually work. As far as I know, we don't do not know that. But there is a chance that within 10 years, these will cause a problem for these signature schemes. 1:42:39 And again, that is a very good intuition that we think hash functions will actually hold a much longer, stronger. 1:42:45 So you would have a situation where everything hash based, hash logs, and covenants, and proof of work, and the Bitcoin structure would actually, you know, work just fine. 1:42:59 And you can't have these stupid large quantum resistance signatures on mainchain, but maybe we could just have them easily on a sidechain or a bunch of sidechains, you know, and then we are back to in the situation where, you know, it might actually make sense to abandon in the in this interim period. 1:43:19 And I think you actually argued that mainchain would actually be abandoned by most users for actual transactions. 1:43:28 And in this situation, it might actually be forced, you know, because the signature schemes just don't work, and they become stupidly expensive. 1:43:36 If you want to, even if you forked in some quantum resistance signature scheme, it would be like only treasuries and VLs that can afford it. 1:43:48 Yeah, that all makes sense to me. 1:43:56 I think so now we have more hands, though. 1:43:59 Morgan is back. 1:44:00 Did you make it back from being interviewed about? 1:44:02 No, not yet. 1:44:04 They're still standing over there. 1:44:05 But I'm here. 1:44:06 Yeah, I'm here at Edge. 1:44:09 I did QA at Edge right now. 1:44:11 And our office is right next to a trolley stop and the San Diego Amtrak station. 1:44:16 And the mayor didn't pay and sign some documents. 1:44:19 So now the trains have to honk every five minutes. 1:44:21 And you can hear him now. 1:44:22 And so everyone's angry. 1:44:24 So I'm going to get asked if it's upsetting my life. 1:44:27 I'm working on Bitcoin all day, which will be nice. 1:44:31 I got my I got my Edge T-shirt on. 1:44:33 So it's good advertising. 1:44:36 So I got a question for you. 1:44:37 Kind of technical thing. 1:44:38 I remember last time I talked with you on this space, you were mentioning the ability 1:44:43 to do tests. 1:44:46 I don't know if they were Cygnet or Testnet drivechains. 1:44:51 But where's the progress or the situation on an experiment? 1:44:58 Yeah, I'm running it. 1:44:59 I'm looking at the Cygnet network right now. 1:45:02 Yeah, I'll invite you to it. 1:45:04 It's like, again, I'm trying to overhaul the front end, which maybe I'm biting off too 1:45:12 much at once. 1:45:13 But I think I'll send you the software. 1:45:18 Well, anyway, just download it. 1:45:19 It's at releases.drivechain.info. 1:45:21 That's where I put. 1:45:25 But it's like buyer beware, because it's all like changing the software all the time. 1:45:29 So well, I know Bitcode was talking about some data experiments. 1:45:35 So in my love of life, I'm a mycologist, and I'm making machines that interact with fungi. 1:45:43 So I'm doing a lot of bioinformatics stuff. 1:45:45 And I've been pitching my company to VCs for the last few months. 1:45:49 And a lot of the things are using the blockchain. 1:45:52 And I would actually love to. 1:45:54 I used to put bioinformatics fungal data in Counterparty a long time ago with not too 1:46:00 much success. 1:46:01 So I would love to be able to put species identification, DNA tags, location data in 1:46:10 blockchain transactions, because I do a lot of callbacks and node propagation of data. 1:46:19 And I would love to like plug Bitcoin into that in some way, just to say that I did. 1:46:25 And I've done some weird inscriptions of sciency data to see if that looks cool and 1:46:31 inordinal. 1:46:32 But I'm really interested in like, okay, could we make like a sidechain that is specifically 1:46:40 storing biological data, like fungus and bacteria and virus and plants? 1:46:46 You know, I mean, hey, anything for the VCs. 1:46:49 Yeah, yeah, you know, that's sounds like I don't know if that would. 1:46:54 But see, this is the point is, I kind of think that people should, you know, be free to just 1:47:02 to do whatever they like. 1:47:04 And even if it doesn't make sense to me, personally, I want to try it out, you know, 1:47:11 be to like, just have some database of all of your informatics, like, and then basically, 1:47:19 like an open timestamps type of a thing, or just like, just stamp the state and put it 1:47:25 in like every. 1:47:28 And then you can just say it's on the blockchain. 1:47:29 And it'll be true enough. 1:47:31 Because it's one hash every 10 minutes, but then the whole database state will be there, 1:47:36 you'll have it. 1:47:37 So look, here it is. 1:47:38 And here it is on the blockchain. 1:47:40 Well, like, for context, like, I used to do stuff in OP_RETURN. 1:47:48 And then I used to do things where, basically, a long time ago, I made this very old thing 1:47:57 that was like the first Bitcoin ATMs code base. 1:48:00 And it was like, if this Bitcoin address receives this much Bitcoin, then this machine will 1:48:05 do this. 1:48:06 And I used a lot of callbacks and webhooks and things like that to make it Arduino do 1:48:12 something whenever a Bitcoin transaction happened. 1:48:14 And I always thought like, if I put some like sciency data in OP_RETURN or in a transaction, 1:48:20 and a machine could like respond to not money, but data being put in a transaction, that 1:48:26 it was a little bit verifiable and distributable in a way that where I didn't have to run the 1:48:33 database, you know. 1:48:34 And so I don't want to like shove an entire massive database in a blockchain. 1:48:39 I think that's kind of inefficient. 1:48:41 But I would love to make like devices respond to data that's in a transaction. 1:48:47 Because I feel like it's, you know, the fancy word of decentralized, I feel like more people 1:48:53 around the world could interact with that on a, you know, a blockchain explorer with 1:48:57 like, with an API or something, you know. 1:49:00 And I'm wondering how drivechains, how I could build a biological blockchain that 1:49:07 functions in that way, you know, where I'm not pissing off all of the angry Bitcoin Core 1:49:12 developers, you know? 1:49:16 Well, yeah, like I was saying, I think the, I think it's, people should experiment with 1:49:25 this and to have fun with it. 1:49:28 I think definitely, there's a lot to be said for just timestamping something, putting the 1:49:35 hash on the blockchain, and just saying it's on the blockchain. 1:49:37 That's, that's as much on the blockchain as it's ever going to get. 1:49:42 Realistically, I think that definitely having like, payments trigger other payments. 1:49:51 That is, that's actually not that interesting to me. 1:49:53 But that is basically like most of what like Ethereum does, and most of like what DeFi in 1:49:58 Ethereum is, as far as I can tell, like, it's just like, if this pays that, this triggers 1:50:03 this other thing. 1:50:05 So like, like, think about it like this, like, if you were in the woods, and I'm going to 1:50:09 use my mushroom mycology experiment. 1:50:11 If you're in the woods, and you found a cool mushroom that no one had ever seen, and you 1:50:14 take a picture of it, and you upload it to our mushroom database, you found something 1:50:21 novel and new, I would love for money to be triggered in some way that like, here's a 1:50:27 dollar in Bitcoin or $5 in Bitcoin, thank you for contributing to this data. 1:50:32 And like, I would love money to respond to uploading data, like an incentive, you know, 1:50:38 pretty hard. 1:50:39 I mean, I would start small, you know, I would just like, I would say, standardize all the 1:50:45 database stuff first submit. 1:50:47 And then I would say, like, when when people submit, what I would do is I would honestly 1:50:51 try to build it around Namecoin and identity. 1:50:54 And I would say, you have like a an identity as the, you know, mushroom scientists, number 1:51:01 45, or whatever, you know, mushroom guy, whatever, whatever your birth year is mushroom guy 1:51:07 in 92. 1:51:07 I'm just making things up. 1:51:09 But the, you do that, then you submit the data, then everyone will know how to to message 1:51:17 you by Namecoin, and even how to send you money, and they might send you a tip to every 1:51:22 the whole world will know who which, which username was responsible for the contribution. 1:51:29 And then the people around the world, you automatically be added to lists. 1:51:33 And then people could maybe they could maybe tip you or something that's probably better 1:51:37 than like trying to come up with something where you preload money into like some kind 1:51:41 of extremely exotic smart contract that is somehow like, whether or not someone is adding 1:51:46 data that's real to a database or something. 1:51:49 Yeah, yeah, yeah, I get you. 1:51:50 Okay, so, well, I want to do that. 1:51:52 I want to do some different experiments. 1:51:55 And I definitely want to propagate, you know, drive change to the world. 1:52:00 And I would love to use that as a architecture if I can, because I definitely think putting, 1:52:11 you know, the incentives, there's is a big potential business. 1:52:15 I go out with hundreds of people in the woods and gather fungus at the San Diego 1:52:19 Mycological Society, but then we throw it all away. 1:52:22 We don't, we don't get to give it to a DNA company or a cryo bank, we are not incentivized to 1:52:28 share what we found. 1:52:30 And I feel like that's a big thing in the world is finding stuff in nature and incentivizing 1:52:35 people to share it digitally. 1:52:38 So that's kind of what I'm working on. 1:52:40 And I always thought that counterparty was going to be a good way to do that. 1:52:46 And, and I, you know, no one cares anymore over there. 1:52:50 So I want to make something that's going to be used, you know, and more uses, I think, 1:52:57 pushes more ideas out there, you know? 1:53:00 Yeah, I agree. 1:53:02 It's really weird that ordinals would take off and counterparty sort of would not. 1:53:07 They're kind of almost the same thing. 1:53:10 You know what, you know, I had a conversation with Casey about that. 1:53:15 And, you know, I was like, why, why don't you like dust? 1:53:18 You know, and he told me, you know, in 2022, that it's up there on Twitter, he was like, 1:53:23 well, this is, I think my, my model is a little more elegant. 1:53:26 And I think actually not having the XCP token or a secondary token, that is probably a good 1:53:34 thing in a sense that people think they're using Bitcoin as the brand, they're not using 1:53:39 something else as a brand, you know? 1:53:41 Isn't it totally wacky, though? 1:53:42 Because also, like people say, like, the best thing is to, like, issue a token, because 1:53:49 that will give you that will supercharge, you know what I mean? 1:53:51 Like, that's the joke, like, that's the, like, the Gwart joke or whatever, you know, 1:53:55 like, just issue a token, if you want to succeed, doesn't matter if you have no users, doesn't 1:53:59 matter if you have no product, just issue the token, like, that is, that is the way 1:54:05 to get the group enthusiastic behind you, you know? 1:54:11 So it's kind of funny, like, it doesn't really make any sense, one way or the other. 1:54:16 Okay, so it is an experiment years ago, I made on Counterparty, phosphorus and sugar 1:54:22 and calcium tokens with those words, and then like watts and volts and ohm tokens, so that 1:54:29 those specific data signals had a name on them, and they could be looked up on an explorer 1:54:35 that, oh, this, these are wattage signals, or these are volt signals, or these are sugar 1:54:39 signals. 1:54:40 And I just thought that was a good thing to have, like, a name attached. 1:54:46 But in a database with random numbers on it, where you got, I wanted to make it very nice 1:54:54 and clean, where, you know, you're looking at calcium movements, or you're looking at 1:54:59 sugar and phosphorus data, just by putting the word on it. 1:55:02 So I, like, bought every scientific element word I could find on Counterparty, I thought 1:55:07 that was so cool. 1:55:08 And then, you know, no one cared, and no one uses it. 1:55:11 So I'm wondering, like, the word, the brand, I think Ordinals is super successful, just 1:55:16 because people say they're using Bitcoin, they're not using Namecoin or another word, 1:55:21 you know what I mean? 1:55:22 Like, humans are simple, and it's all Bitcoin, it sounds less complicated to people, you 1:55:28 know? 1:55:33 It's like brand problems, marketing problems, more than science problems. 1:55:37 Well, yeah, I suppose. 1:55:39 I mean, marketing is very important, I think. 1:55:43 Especially when it's like a really complicated new technology. 1:55:46 You remember that in like the show Silicon Valley, and the CEO, he tries to go around 1:55:52 and give like an educational talk to like explain Pied Piper to people, which is like 1:55:58 a completely failed, like, endeavor that doesn't work at all. 1:56:04 I kind of think that that is realistic, sometimes, people just want something that works better 1:56:09 than some other thing they already have. 1:56:12 And that's all they need to know. 1:56:14 It's better in this way. 1:56:18 Well, I definitely think, you know, putting the money where your mouth is, like, look, 1:56:24 I made this thing, it works, is better than talking. 1:56:28 And I spend years like trying to talk about some cool Bitcoin stuff, and I'm like, no, 1:56:33 it's cool, Bitcoin ideas. 1:56:35 And it wasn't until I got to like, show some shit working on Counterparty that I had some 1:56:40 people pay attention. 1:56:41 So I really feel I want to make like some test drivechains and show them off to people 1:56:46 and say, look, it works. 1:56:48 I think that's a super important push for BIP300 is like showing different experiments 1:56:55 that it functions and like showing the toys off, you know? 1:57:01 Yeah, absolutely. 1:57:02 Yeah, definitely. 1:57:03 Yeah, I'm going to be more. 1:57:04 So I'm up for it. 1:57:05 I want to contribute. 1:57:07 Cool. 1:57:08 Yeah, we have, I keep messing with the test software, but I think pretty soon I will like 1:57:16 make like a bunch of, you know, a bunch of noise on Twitter about it, and I'll put up 1:57:21 like whatever screenshots and like stuff. 1:57:23 But if anyone cares, and they're listening now, it's on releases.drivechain.info. 1:57:31 And that's where it is. 1:57:35 That's like sort of where I put it when I'm messing with it. 1:57:39 But then I have like my own private versions that I'm messing with more. 1:57:43 And it's always changing. 1:57:45 So, but yeah, sure. 1:57:47 If you really want to, if you're not afraid of like a weird user experience, then try 1:57:56 to download this stuff and use it and hop into the Telegram. 1:58:00 I'm totally going to do that, man. 1:58:02 I'm QA, so I like breaking user interfaces, you know what I mean? 1:58:06 So it's fun. 1:58:09 Yeah, I mean, we're going to have, I mean, we have already, they don't, we have to improve 1:58:14 the way they look a little bit. 1:58:16 But we have already like test network. 1:58:19 We have a version of Ethereum that you can use. 1:58:23 We have a version of Zcash that you can use. 1:58:26 We have version of like a Namecoin version that you can use. 1:58:29 We have this BitAssets thing, which is more like a counterparty as a sidechain that you 1:58:33 can use. 1:58:34 We have a large block sidechain that I call Thunder that is like high performance, ground 1:58:40 up rewrite in Rust. 1:58:43 And we actually have a sidechain that has, it has, I don't know, I think it's sort of 1:58:52 works now, but it's like the latest version of Bitcoin Core plus BIP 119, 118 and OpWalt. 1:59:00 So maybe we should add OP_CAT to that, but we haven't done that yet, so. 1:59:03 Yes, I encourage that. 1:59:06 We should, we should, we should all, we should all push cats out. 1:59:09 Maybe you should do it. 1:59:14 I'm okay, I'll do that. 1:59:15 I love projects, so I'm down for it. 1:59:17 OP_CAT is not even that big. 1:59:19 It's like a, it's like a one little paragraph of code. 1:59:21 It's not that big. 1:59:22 Yeah, yeah, yeah. 1:59:23 And they did it in, you can probably copy the way they did it because we have the latest 1:59:27 version of Bitcoin Core, which has, it's like version 26 or whatever. 1:59:31 So it should have like the tap root, tap script, all that other stuff, which is what they did. 1:59:35 So, so yeah, I think you do that. 1:59:37 The only issue is of course that it, for me, I would prefer it if all the stuff like worked 1:59:45 very easily and you could just click buttons and coins would just pop from one thing to 1:59:48 the other, like sort of instantly. 1:59:51 But it's kind of, yeah, like, you know, yeah, quality control is sort of needed, especially, 2:00:00 I mean, like I'm like messing around with this front end stuff. 2:00:03 So like, kind of like if you, if you just run a, a script, it will all work, but that's 2:00:10 not really the same thing. 2:00:12 People need like buttons they can click on. 2:00:15 Yeah, I'm telling you, I'll tell you right now, if, if, if you've not used Edge, 2:00:21 Edge is a great wallet and we just went to a new UI for, and it's going to look so pretty, 2:00:27 but you know, prettiest is also makes phones catch on fire. 2:00:30 So user interfaces are tough. 2:00:33 Of course. 2:00:33 Yeah. 2:00:34 Yeah. 2:00:34 Difficult. 2:00:38 But I'll, I'll step down and I'll, I'm going to go do some more work. 2:00:41 Yeah, try the software. 2:00:42 That would be very, very helpful. 2:00:43 I will totally do that. 2:00:44 I'm definitely going to do that. 2:00:45 And then you'll see what I'm doing, like very slowly, honestly. 2:00:50 I'm very lazy. 2:00:50 So like if other people will see what I'm trying to do and then be like, okay, Paul, 2:01:01 you're too slow. 2:01:02 I will just do this. 2:01:02 I'll just add OP_CAT. 2:01:05 Then that would probably be helpful because I'm just kind of like, I work on it and I'm 2:01:09 like, I don't know, I'm bored with this. 2:01:12 Take, it takes some motivation. 2:01:14 Yeah. 2:01:14 Yeah. 2:01:14 It takes motivation. 2:01:15 I know. 2:01:16 And like, I'm all for it, man. 2:01:18 So I'll definitely contribute. 2:01:20 Cool. 2:01:22 Great. 2:01:25 Okay, cool. 2:01:28 This is the end of the second hour. 2:01:31 So come on up. 2:01:33 Anyone who has a question or comment? 2:01:36 Robin, sadly, he had to go to a different, whatever he said, appointment. 2:01:43 He used a very curious word. 2:01:45 But we were here before, so we recorded. 2:01:53 So play the recording if you want to hear Robin and I discuss, you know, BidVM and L2s 2:02:01 and things. 2:02:03 If no one comes up and asks anything, then we will have to end the space, which might 2:02:13 be great because you get to enjoy your Friday. 2:02:15 But if anyone has anything that they would really just, that they're just dying to know, 2:02:21 this is definitely the time. 2:02:31 Nope, doesn't really seem like anything. 2:02:33 People seem to be leaving slowly. 2:02:38 Still, we have, what is this, 23. 2:02:43 But no one wants to come up. 2:02:46 So it seems like, unless someone comes up quickly, we'll just say thanks to everyone 2:02:53 for joining. 2:02:54 Thanks to Robin for joining. 2:02:57 Thanks for listening. 2:02:59 See everyone next time. 2:03:02 Happy Friday to all. 2:03:08 Okay, great.
