0:01 It's Michael Tidwell and Michael B. Casey. 0:06 It's the Block Time. 0:08 It's Michael Tidwell and Michael B. Casey. 0:11 And today we are joined with the legendary Paul Sztorc in person. 0:17 He came down to Atlanta to hang out with us as the newest co-host of Block Time. 0:22 Thanks for coming, Paul. 0:24 Yes, thanks for having me on. 0:26 It's really nice to be here at 6 p.m. in the 88 degree weather, Fahrenheit. 0:33 It's very nice. 0:35 It is a nice day here in Atlanta. 0:38 I can't believe that the hostages released suspect dead after a stand-up at Georgia Bank. 0:43 That was actually pretty crazy today. 0:45 That was crazy. 0:47 That actually happened in Cobb County. 0:49 We had a bank robbery and some guy hit a bomb threat and they shot him dead. 0:55 Yeah, I drove by on my way over here. 0:57 Yeah, it really sucked the traffic. 0:59 Bank of Atlanta. 1:00 Yeah, Wells Fargo. 1:01 So you like the weather down here? You're getting used to the traffic? 1:05 Yes. 1:06 What about sports, Paul? 1:07 I like it. 1:08 We see you brought a football today to the podcast. 1:13 Yes, I do. I've got to throw around the old pigskin. 1:16 I'm playing for the Ethereum Elephants or whatever. 1:25 We're going to play against the Litecoin Reading Lights. 1:33 All right. That should be a good game. 1:36 The Litecoin Reading Lights. 1:38 I heard they beat the Toronto Car Talks. 1:43 I don't know. 1:45 Oh my god. 1:46 We've lost this kind of part of this. 1:48 No, they would have beaten the, I don't know, Mike Space Cars or something. 1:55 They do okay, yeah. 1:57 So you mentioned – you said something about that. 1:59 It's the playoffs now, so it's different. 2:01 The show starting slow, Paul? 2:03 A lot of lame jokes. 2:06 Okay, great. And now we're talking about Bitcoin. 2:09 Well, for everyone in the audience who doesn't know this, 2:11 I can like really basically not see or hear anything that those two are saying at all. 2:19 So I have really bad upload. 2:21 Like horrible upload. 2:22 So we have really bad upload, but our download is fine. 2:25 So we can hear everything Paul is saying. 2:27 Paul can't hear or see us very well. 2:29 So he has a handicap. 2:31 Paul may ask us to repeat ourselves. 2:33 It's not because he's hearing impaired. 2:35 It's because I have awful upload. 2:37 Or he might just go for it. 2:39 I'm just going to go for it. 2:40 All right. 2:41 So BlockTime. 2:43 BlockTime has been in the news. 2:46 We finally got to the top of Reddit. 2:48 We've been getting a lot of fan mail. 2:50 I want to read this one comment. 2:54 This is probably one of the best crypto podcasts I've watched over the last few. 2:59 I really like how Chris and Mike B get into more technical details 3:03 that you don't often see in other podcasts. 3:05 Also like when Mike T, that's me, asks questions, 3:09 which not just confirm my understanding, 3:11 but also help new people in the crypto get up to speed 3:15 and not get lost in the conversation. 3:17 The chemistry between you guys is great. 3:20 I think BlockTime is an awesome name, by the way. 3:23 That was all you. 3:24 It is going to be very well, if it continues, do more shows 3:28 and get some guests and some real beer. 3:30 So last time we had Michelob Ultra. 3:32 Yeah. 3:33 Today we have no beer. 3:34 We didn't really prepare. 3:35 Oh, man. 3:36 Liquor? 3:37 You got liquor, right? 3:38 But anyways, that's an example of a positive comment. 3:42 There was also episode 8. 3:44 There was one positive comment. 3:46 There was at least one. 3:47 This is hilarious. 3:49 I was wearing an orange shirt during episode 8, 3:52 and every comment in the YouTube video is like, 3:55 man, I really wish the guy in the orange shirt would just shut up. 3:57 It was hilarious. 3:59 So anyways, we got a little bit of a mix. 4:04 So what was the comment that you replied to in the tweet the other day? 4:08 What did the guy say? 4:09 He said, oh, yeah, we had a stupidest people. 4:14 No, no, no. 4:15 They said BlockTime is like the worst podcast. 4:17 It's so bad it hurts. 4:18 It's so bad it hurts. 4:19 And then he retweeted it and said, we're famous. 4:22 Retweeted it and said, we're famous. 4:24 Yeah, that was funny. 4:25 And also, I would love for someone who hates the show to just come on and trash talk. 4:31 I asked him, hey, be on our show. 4:33 Have fun. 4:34 And he said no. 4:35 So I think if anyone's going to talk crap, at least come on and talk. 4:39 Maybe you can change their minds. 4:41 I mean I'm not a close friend. 4:44 Say it to your face, so don't say it at all. 4:46 Right? 4:47 Yeah. 4:48 Well, I actually love a good argument. 4:49 So funny, funny. 4:51 Vake said shots fired. 4:53 That's how I was tagged in it. 4:54 So that was funny. 4:56 And anyways. 4:59 He's always trying to start stuff. 5:02 So we also had another comment of, let's see. 5:09 MikeBKC got a comment about he was making fun of hard forks, yet his software that he was saying he needed to upgrade wasn't working for a multi-sig address. 5:21 Which is funny because it had nothing to do with upgrade. 5:23 No, I was just being retarded. 5:25 Yeah, it was just user error. 5:26 I was being so stupid. 5:27 So we do have a multi-sig now. 5:28 It will be in the description of this show. 5:30 If you want to, for some reason, help Paul Sports, you know, help him and his team, the Ethereum Elephants, get back on the field. 5:38 You know, our donation address is going straight to their team. 5:41 We're trying to support them in their efforts, especially against their rivals, the Litecoin reading lights. 5:49 Right? 5:50 Is that it? 5:51 Wouldn't it be like the Litecoin silvers? 5:53 Sure. 5:54 Silverbacks. 5:56 Silverbacks. 5:57 Litecoin silverbacks. 5:58 Silverfish. 6:00 Silverfish. 6:01 Oh, those are disgusting. 6:02 Okay. 6:03 Those terrifying picks. 6:04 Yeah, but that would be terrifying. 6:06 If you had to play against them as a team, that would be terrifying. 6:09 Those things are awful. 6:10 Yeah, based on performance on the field, like their market cap. 6:13 If they were human size, you would be just devoured. 6:19 They can eat anything, apparently. 6:22 They can eat air. 6:24 They can eat everything. 6:25 They can eat air. 6:26 They can eat carpet. 6:27 Wow. 6:28 I don't know. 6:29 But apparently, they can survive for years and years in your house. 6:32 I mean, thankfully, I don't have any idea. 6:34 Yeah, my grandma had an infestation of those things. 6:37 They're gross. 6:38 Ugh. 6:39 There we go. 6:40 That's much better. 6:41 That was the real name. 6:42 I don't know why I said that first name. 6:43 I just forgot about that. 6:44 The Litecoin Silverfish? 6:45 We definitely are the Ethereum Elephants. 6:46 That is real. 6:47 The Ethereum Elephants. 6:48 I like that one. 6:49 Well, what's Bitcoin's mascot real quick? 6:52 Honey Badger. 6:53 The Honey Badger. 6:54 The Bitcoin Honey Badgers. 6:55 The Honey Badgers. 6:56 Yeah. 6:57 Look at all the HBs. 6:58 Yeah. 6:59 Yeah, the Honey Badgers have been on a tear. 7:00 That's great. 7:01 They almost lost to the Ethereum Elephants this season. 7:02 It's true. 7:03 It'll be interesting to see what happens. 7:04 Yeah. 7:05 It's true. 7:06 Going into the next season. 7:07 Yeah. 7:08 It was close. 7:09 It was a lot closer than a lot of people thought. 7:10 Yeah. 7:11 Yeah. 7:12 But let's see. 7:13 So there's a couple other pieces. 7:14 We had a lot of comments from the Dojo. 7:16 Some of whom we can't answer because these are directed at Chris. 7:17 So Luca had some questions for Chris. 7:18 Sorry, we can't answer that. 7:19 It was about some kind of conspiracy with Forks and blah, blah, blah. 7:20 Sorry, man. 7:21 Yance was asking another question to Chris about the BIP proposals with Luke Dashjr. 7:22 Unfortunately, we cannot go over that. 7:23 I'm sorry. 7:24 Yeah. 7:59 We can't answer that. 8:00 We cannot go over that. 8:01 Chris is not here. 8:02 And I guess we know what the elephant in the room is. 8:03 Chris isn't here. 8:04 Yeah. 8:07 He's just a ... 8:08 So, Paul, what is your impression of what happened with Chris? 8:09 As far as ... Why do you think he's not here? 8:10 I got the impression that he was in the dojo when I was scrolling down as fast as possible 8:13 to just try and make all this text go away and pretend to be caught up on everything. 8:17 That's the way I visit the dojo. 8:18 I got the impression that he said some mean things and then he got a call from his whatever 8:25 and then he was all sad frown face and now he's going to take a little break. 8:34 That's the impression that I got. 8:35 So, I don't know. 8:36 I'm ... 8:37 I'm pretty careful about what I say in public, just in general. 8:44 I can't even hear what he's saying. 8:45 Just so you know in the audience. 8:46 Well, yeah. 8:47 Can you hear me at all? 8:48 Do I need to turn my mic up or is it ... 8:49 I heard you say, can you hear me at all? 8:50 No, no, dude. 8:51 It's the open app. 8:52 No, it's the event. 8:53 It's definitely the event. 8:54 That's awful. 8:55 Just talk and he'll wing it. 8:56 Michael Tidwell is just like one pixel right now. 8:57 Well, I mean, it's just ... People's attentions can get ... I don't know. 8:58 I don't know. 9:05 People's attentions can get flamed and if ... It's one of those things ... I think everybody's 9:12 served better if ... I don't know, if statements are kind of just couched a little bit. 9:20 I almost feel like we need to start a ... You know how there's like a free Ross campaign? 9:24 Yeah. 9:25 We need like a free Chris Kleishel campaign or free Cletus campaign? 9:30 Save Chris. 9:33 Save Ferris from Ferris Bueller. 9:34 Yeah. 9:35 He's actually doing important work. 9:36 So like Tidwell and I don't really work daily in this space and Chris does. 9:41 So I mean, this can't get in the way of his actual work doing development for Bitcoin. 9:49 So I mean, if there's any conflict, this is just a stupid little thing we do for fun. 9:55 So BlockTime has a prepared statement about this situation. 10:03 Due to recent notoriety that we have received, mainly probably being on top of Reddit for 10:12 like five hours or so, we won't be able to have Chris on the podcast until further notice. 10:22 This was entirely Chris's fault for saying stupid things and he is sorry. 10:28 And he sincerely apologizes to anyone affected. 10:34 And he broke the community promise. 10:37 What was the community promise? 10:38 What? 10:39 I can't even hear you. 10:40 What was the community promise, Paul? 10:41 You don't even know about this? 10:42 You don't even know about the joke? 10:43 No. 10:44 The community promise joke? 10:45 No. 10:46 Oh, are you talking about you're not allowed to sell your PepeCash? 10:47 Yes. 10:48 Kind of deal? 10:49 He sold the PepeCash. 10:50 He sold the PepeCash. 10:51 to remodel his garage this time. 10:52 Yeah. 10:53 Oh, yeah. 10:54 Chris, suppose that's a good metaphor. 10:55 He sold his PepeCash. 10:56 Sold his PepeCash. 10:57 So yeah, effectively- 10:58 I can't even tell if they're reacting to my jokes or not. 10:59 This is like, I love it. 11:00 No, no. 11:01 We're just doing, we're just- 11:02 We're doing a buy- 11:03 Just keep going no matter what. 11:04 No matter what I say, just do it. 11:05 All right. 11:06 Well, I'm gonna go ahead and end this. 11:07 I'm gonna go ahead and end this. 11:08 I'm gonna go ahead and end this. 11:09 I'm gonna go ahead and wrap up. 11:12 I'm gonna go ahead and end this. 11:14 We're just doing, we're just- 11:15 We're doing a buy- 11:16 Just keep going no matter what. 11:17 No matter what I say, just do it. 11:20 All right. 11:21 Well, for anyone who, for anyone upset, leave your comments. 11:28 Dislike our video. 11:30 Let us know your distaste. 11:32 I just wanna stop here for a second. 11:34 Just say, I'm really going to miss doing this with Chris because he added a whole lot to 11:39 the show. 11:40 Yeah. 11:41 He's so knowledgeable in so many areas than either of us. 11:44 It was depressing to hear our intro with just Mike or, you know, me and you. 11:48 I mean, that was- 11:49 Yeah. 11:50 The show is definitely not, you know, it's a loss for the show. 11:52 Oh, that was depressing. 11:53 Yeah. 11:54 Well, I mean, we did replace Chris with, with Paul though. 11:58 I mean- 11:59 Well, yeah. 12:00 We have Paul Sztorc here. 12:01 So that's- 12:02 Paul did care about our podcast enough to come down here tonight. 12:04 So anyways- 12:05 How long are you going to keep that one? 12:09 I just have to remember to look to my left, you know. 12:12 Yes. 12:13 No, I'm definitely here. 12:14 Yeah. 12:15 Yes. 12:16 Yes. 12:17 Thank you very much. 12:18 Thank you very much. 12:19 Hey. 12:20 Thank you very much. 12:21 So, so let's continue with the hate mail. 12:22 Oh, did you- 12:23 How much more do we have? 12:24 Well, I don't know. 12:25 It was all the same. 12:26 Most of the hate mail was directed towards me. 12:27 Nobody ever says anything about me. 12:28 I'm just like, I'm like a non-issue. 12:29 Do you think that's worth? 12:30 I don't know. 12:31 Is it worth to just like not even be worthy of the attention? 12:32 Can- 12:33 Or do you prefer- 12:34 So, so everyone who leaves a negative- 12:41 Usually I can hear when they complain about me not hearing them. 12:55 I can't hear that part. 12:57 So, everyone who left a negative comment, I hearted. 13:01 So now on YouTube, you can heart comments. 13:04 It's not just likes and dislikes. 13:06 If you're the owner of the video, you can actually heart comments. 13:08 Oh, really? 13:09 Yeah, so right here- 13:10 Oh, on YouTube? 13:11 You can make it a top comment. 13:12 You can make it the top comment. 13:13 So, this- 13:14 These dudes- 13:15 Make it like this, whatever. 13:16 Are idiots. 13:17 Are idiots. 13:18 Heart. 13:19 Explanation of ASIC Boost is completely off base. 13:21 This is the guy, dead old Nix. 13:25 And then we kind of debunked this. 13:27 He was talking about over ASIC Boost. 13:29 We're talking about covert. 13:30 I mean, you know, I don't know if we got the explanation totally correct, but I mean, I 13:35 think it was pretty much right for the covert ASIC Boost. 13:38 Well, dead old Nix, if you're listening, interested to hear more about you explaining ASIC Boost, 13:45 we're all ears. 13:46 Yeah, we'll have him on the show. 13:48 Yeah. 13:49 We'll talk about it. 13:50 Let's see. 13:51 Can the effing orange shirt guy just shut up and stop interrupting others effing annoying? 13:59 That was me. 14:02 Turned in to watch comments on Gihan and ASIC Boost. 14:08 Guy in orange shirt tried to listen to other people once in a while and let them speak 14:12 instead of uselessly shouting, I mean, I mean, I mean. 14:18 So don't don't worry about it. 14:20 We're fine. 14:21 No, no. 14:22 I mean, those are all the negative comments, I think. 14:25 There's probably a lot on Reddit. 14:26 No, I'm sure we have a lot of hate. 14:28 Yeah. 14:30 Like 300 comments or some crazy amount. 14:31 I can't read all those. 14:32 So, Paul, you've been doing a lot of different podcasts, been touring a lot. 14:36 I've been driving all around to visit in person, personally, all of the different podcasts. 14:42 He's making his tour in the southeast. 14:43 And help them upgrade. 14:44 Well, you're supposed to be here in Atlanta, aren't you, right? 14:47 You work for Block, right? 14:48 You're supposed to come. 14:49 I do. 14:50 That was nice. 14:51 Can't hear anything. 14:52 Are you? 14:53 What version of? 14:54 Certainly, the answer is yes. 14:55 Dude, well, you've got to do something about this. 15:01 This is ridiculous. 15:02 What? 15:03 What happened? 15:04 He can't hear us at all. 15:06 That's what he said he wanted. 15:08 He clearly said he wanted that. 15:10 The answers are yes, no, yes, and never. 15:14 All right, well, we didn't ask the last three yet. 15:19 So we'll just make those up. 15:20 Block is very interesting. 15:21 Block, they're very generous. 15:23 So how has your activities changed at Block? 15:29 What's going on? 15:30 Are you working on anything differently, or is it still the same focus? 15:32 Right now, I'm really focused on Drivechain and making sure that that goes forward because 15:39 I really think it's really the best thing around these days because lots of people are 15:44 very angry. 15:46 in Scala-Milan. 15:47 And as I wrote about earlier, it's like the real root cause of everyone's kind of anger 15:55 is that we all have to agree on these consensus rules. 16:00 Everyone has to agree down to the last byte, or none of this software really makes any 16:05 sense. 16:06 So that's fine for Satoshi's engineering goal, but in practice, what it means is that we 16:14 have this situation where people can't just do what they do in anything else. 16:18 So like Linux, or in the real world, if you don't like something, you can just leave and 16:22 start your own thing. 16:23 That's why we have like 30 different distros. 16:24 But you can't really do that with this, with Bitcoin. 16:26 So like Linux, there's all these different distributions, you know, Ubuntu, whatever, 16:32 anything. 16:33 Red Hat. 16:34 There's tons and tons and tons of them. 16:35 Well, and they're all cross-compatible, yeah. 16:36 And if you don't like it, you can just... 16:39 Well, I mean... 16:40 The Red Hats and Debians are kind of... 16:41 Red Hat, yeah. 16:42 Those package managers. 16:43 Not to caveat too much. 16:45 Yes. 16:46 Yeah, stop interrupting the orange shirt guy. 16:49 Hey, that's you. 16:50 That's you. 16:51 That's me now. 16:52 The orange shirt guy. 16:53 You're the orange shirt guy now. 16:54 That'll just be like an inside BlockTime joke. 16:57 Oh, yay! 16:58 Shut up, orange shirt guy. 16:59 Yeah. 17:00 No, you could get orange shirt guy, like, on an orange shirt. 17:03 That would be funny. 17:04 But basically... 17:05 That's when we go... 17:06 That's when we get really popular. 17:07 ...tries to fix all this stuff so that it's like normal software. 17:10 So it's like, if you want to install Google Chrome, you can. 17:13 And if you want to install Java, if you want to have JavaScript run in your Firefox, you can. 17:19 You can just shut all this stuff off and turn it on whenever you want. 17:23 And of course, it's not going to be quite like that. 17:26 And it won't be like... 17:27 We won't quite reach that. 17:28 But where we are right now is on a complete other extreme, where no one can do anything 17:33 unless it... 17:34 We all do it. 17:35 We all do it. 17:36 And that has given rise to this weird situation we're in, where there's a committee of technocrats 17:43 who try to decide what's best. 17:45 And they mostly do a really good job. 17:47 And they are very skilled. 17:49 But it's just people... 17:51 At some point, you get all the win-win stuff and all the low-hanging fruit. 17:56 And you improve so much that you eventually just reach this frontier where there's a trade-off. 18:01 And some people want to go left and some people want to go right. 18:05 And there is no more win-win, because you've used up all the win-win. 18:08 So either you reach perfect nirvana and you have infinite win for everyone. 18:13 Or you eventually just reach... 18:15 In practice, you reach something where you can't have two things at once. 18:21 But with Drivechain and with SideChains, the idea is that people will just be able to do whatever they want. 18:26 I like the opt-in, mod-in approach. 18:29 It's cool. 18:31 And I think that's the root cause of everyone's miserableness. 18:34 And I think it's really distracting for everyone. 18:37 For developers, for business people, for investors. 18:40 I just think it's like the thing that is just ruining everyone's lives. 18:44 And frankly, I'm a little amazed. 18:46 I've been doing this for like a year and a half. 18:48 I'm kind of a little bit amazed that more people don't just line up 18:51 to kind of help move this Drivechain project along as quickly as possible. 18:56 But Luke certainly has been helping a lot. 18:58 And he made that post and they almost stickied it on our Bitcoin. 19:01 So that was very nice. 19:03 It almost seemed like he made it appear that Drivechains is like the shiny knight on the hill 19:07 that's going to be a really good solution to save the day 19:10 and everyone gets what they want, is the way he described it. 19:13 So I was happy to see him give a shout to Drivechain. 19:16 It would be really, really good to have a nice solution that everybody's happy with. 19:20 Could you imagine? 19:22 My thing is that right now there's a huge fight 19:25 and they get what, like two megabytes, you know? 19:27 Best case. 19:29 Or they go right to this Bitcoin Unlimited. 19:32 Yeah, it's very, very new thing. 19:35 One extreme or the other. 19:38 It's like, instead of just doing all this fighting 19:42 for just, like what? 19:44 Like two megabytes? 19:46 For the two megabyte hard fork it just seems foolish. 19:48 This thing you can just go, right? 19:50 You can go to whatever you like. 19:52 But I have different mailing list posts 19:54 where I have like what a really, really big block thing 19:57 kind of could look like. 19:59 But if you want to just add, you can just add like five in a row 20:02 or add just one that has no block size at all 20:05 and just kind of see what happens. 20:07 We can all just sit back and watch. 20:09 Let me ask a question. 20:11 This kind of goes back to the friendly fork stuff. 20:13 Has anyone actually just taken the UTXO set 20:15 and pretty much just made their own version? 20:17 Like you're saying, like with these Linuxes? 20:19 Has anyone ever done that, first off? 20:23 People do, but it's different with money. 20:25 Well, the Clams is an example. 20:28 So they took the existing UTXO set? 20:30 They took the existing everything 20:32 and they just said, at this block it will just 20:34 start doing something. 20:36 If you had Bitcoin in an address. 20:38 So does that mean that we might have Clams? 20:40 I do, I don't know about you. 20:42 You have to buy them before, 20:44 I think the first halving, right? 20:46 So 2013? 20:48 Can you still claim old Clams? 20:50 Can you still claim them now? 20:52 Can you still have them? 20:54 Yeah. 20:56 So they may have programmed. 20:58 I don't actually know. 21:00 They might have done something sneaky 21:02 where it's like if they don't move 21:04 for like three years then they explode. 21:06 I don't see any reason why they would even do that. 21:08 I'm pretty sure you just have them. 21:10 So it's been done and it's interesting. 21:12 It doesn't really work with money. 21:14 The network effects of money are just very strong. 21:16 If you had Euros 21:18 and if we were walking around Atlanta 21:20 like we will walk around Atlanta together 21:22 because that's where we all are. 21:24 With Euros we wouldn't be able to spend them. 21:28 It would be as if they were just completely worthless. 21:30 It's kind of an amazing feature 21:32 of money that 21:34 with cash you can get basically anything you want 21:36 but if it's the wrong kind of cash 21:38 you might as well just 21:40 throw it in the trash or something. 21:42 You can't get anything. 21:44 If we had Yen or something. 21:46 But if we brought dollars to Japan 21:48 they would be useless there. 21:50 So let me ask you about Drivechains in general. 21:52 So on the main chain 21:56 is it advantageous 21:58 for the main chain to have any certain 22:00 attributes or does it matter? 22:02 You know what I mean? 22:04 Drivechain is very asymmetric 22:06 so it does matter which one is the sidechain 22:08 which one is the main chain. 22:10 Originally there was all this kind of theory 22:12 about should they be just egalitarian 22:14 just side by side 22:16 and then whether or not you go in one direction 22:18 or the other it doesn't matter. 22:20 But Drivechain is not like that 22:22 Drivechain is very much 22:24 there's like a hierarchy or something 22:26 and you have the root chain 22:28 which is the main chain, Bitcoin Core 22:30 and then from there you have sidechains 22:32 and you can have sidechains of those sidechains 22:34 and it kind of moves in like a 22:36 structure 22:38 like a family tree or something. 22:40 And so it is better 22:42 for the main chain to be 22:44 because the sidechains can do different things 22:46 so you want the main chain to be the least experimental 22:49 and you want the main chain to have the smallest 22:51 kind of total 22:53 externality cost of just like all this 22:55 downloading and verifying 22:57 the blocks and things 22:59 so it would be better to have the main chain have the small 23:01 block size and have the sidechain have the big 23:03 block size for both of those reasons. 23:05 But there are other things as well 23:07 like the sidechain has a different kind of security model 23:09 sort of so it's a little 23:11 detailed but basically the 23:13 sidechains can kind of discard 23:15 old history because the main chain is doing 23:17 their accounting for them. It knows how many 23:19 coins they've sent to the sidechain 23:21 it knows how many have come back 23:23 so there's no possibility of inflation 23:25 on the sidechains. 23:27 Hey Paul, I was talking about Drivechains 23:29 the other day and 23:31 it's true that every 23:33 Bitcoin block that's found 23:35 the miner can also write the sidechain blocks 23:37 right? Isn't that true? 23:39 That's a merged mining thing, yes. 23:41 That's a merged mining. 23:43 But it's on every single Bitcoin block that's found 23:45 you can simply 23:47 write an extra, you can write the 23:49 sidechain or Drivechain 23:51 blocks for free. 23:53 Yes, you can find other 23:55 sidechain blocks for free 23:57 really any 23:59 kind of unlimited number of them. 24:01 Not literally 24:03 of course because it's a finite universe 24:05 but... Well I'm glad 24:07 you break that down. 24:11 Because there's a problem 24:13 because the sidechains can't get their own 24:15 coins and they can't have 24:17 the subsidy, you know what I mean? 24:19 The 50 Bitcoin, the 25, the 24:21 12.5 24:23 they can't have their own subsidy coins 24:25 so the sidechain 24:27 has to 24:29 survive on fees alone but 24:31 the fees might drop to a very low amount 24:33 or zero or something, especially at first 24:35 and then it's unclear where you would get 24:37 any hash rate at all 24:39 so it's better to just throw all 24:41 it in with the regular 24:43 Bitcoin miners and just take 100% of Bitcoin's 24:45 hash rate and just say this is like a plug-in 24:47 sort of more like a plug-in for Bitcoin 24:49 than it is really its own thing. 24:51 Paul, I've been hearing about 24:53 Drivechains now for what, I mean 24:55 we had you on this podcast 24:57 a while back and I've heard about it 24:59 I feel like years from now. 25:01 I've also felt like I've heard that Proof-of-Stake for Ethereum, you know that's been coming for years too and that still hasn't really taken off. 25:12 It's launching this year, right? 25:14 Well, I mean it's been launching this year for the last like 10 years. 25:17 Well, you know what I mean. Same thing with Drivechains. Drivechains has been launching for the last 10 years. 25:23 So are Drivechains vaporware, Paul? 25:26 Well, I was going to ask Paul, what's coming first? Ethereum, Proof-of-Stake or Drivechains for Bitcoin? 25:32 That's a good question. I think I'm going to go with the Drivechain because Drivechain actually has, I mean I only published the spec in November 2015 or I can't even remember. 25:46 2015. And then in 2016 I did a lot of like the peer review and sort of worked on the like the skeleton of like the architecture. 25:58 And then recently we kind of finished it up in the second half of 2016 and then there was more peer review. 26:06 I presented in Milan the end of 2016, that was October, scaling three. 26:11 And then in January there were people formalized their remaining complaints and I had this new thing, which was Blind Merged Mining. 26:20 And we've been working on that and that's basically been finished. 26:23 So but that Blind Merged Mining was like its own project. So that is kind of the point of the delay. 26:28 Drivechain was really finished like in January and we had, in January I was at Construct in San Francisco and we had like a little video of the coins going back and forth. 26:41 So we had like little screenshots, we had like a little video. 26:45 The progress has been made for Drivechain going from nothing at all to like an actual thing that's finished in basically 12 months and then adding a new part that's basically finished now. 26:58 And that's really different from proof of stake I think, which is just was started in 2010 and then everyone dismissed it and now they're still trying to fight that fight. 27:10 And I just had a blog post today where I was responding to Vitalik who replied to my, I had a big blog post that was sort of famous about nothing is cheaper than proof of work. 27:20 In which I argued that proof of stake was totally pointless because it didn't accomplish its main objective of like being more efficient. 27:29 And then apparently I just discovered like yesterday that Vitalik replied to it in an FAQ somewhere. 27:35 And so I replied to the reply and I just kind of, this post today is just that you can find on my blog Truthcoin.info if you care. 27:45 Give us your skinny. 27:46 Just me with Vitalik's FAQ and just kind of going line by line and it's still, proof of stake is still pointless is the title of the blog post. 27:55 It is completely pointless exercise. 27:57 It's just proof of stake is very complicated and it exists to kind of funnel money to these researchers I think. 28:05 So real quick Paul, funny enough I actually listened to a little bit of the interview that we did with you. 28:13 And you were saying that every three months or six months or something someone says that they figured out proof of stake and they haven't done it yet. 28:22 And that was, how long ago was our podcast, like six months ago? 28:25 Like I don't know, it's been a while. 28:27 And I don't know, it's interesting because you also said in that interview that proof of stake was coming out that month that we interviewed you. 28:37 That's what you were told. 28:39 Oh, that's what they said? 28:40 No, that's what you said they said. 28:44 Well what's funny is proof of stake does exist like everywhere but it's like there's no, it hasn't scaled in anything of value yet. 28:54 There is like nothing. 28:56 You know who I told that to? 28:58 You know who I told that to? 29:00 Tai Zen and he said what about Nexcoin and Peercoin? 29:03 They're nothing. 29:04 No, no, I'm just saying that's what. 29:06 Nexcoin and Peercoin, I mean they're not blue chip coins. 29:09 Do you know about Nexcoin and Peercoin? Do you have any thoughts on those? 29:12 Yeah, I remember that. That's a long time ago. 29:14 Yeah, I remember that. 29:15 I remember that Nexcoin had to be like, had to go closed source because they, which is just like purely admitting defeat like instantaneous. 29:23 They were just like we have some secret thing that will prevent stake grinding. 29:28 I mean NXT, it's a design that someone had this in there. 29:33 I think it was a BitcoinTalk.org post. 29:36 They said NXT, it's a design that justifies a 100% pre-mine. 29:41 And that was just the entire review. 29:43 And I was just like yeah, that's it. 29:46 That's the only relevant issue. 29:48 I mean these things are, someone who's clever enough to find Bitcoin this early, still very early, these projects are not, I don't know what they are. 30:01 But they're not like serious like groundbreaking stuff. 30:05 This is just like people tweak a couple things. 30:08 Ethereum is kind of the exception because they wanted to go out of their way to make it like as convoluted and kind of imperceptible as possible. 30:16 So that would be very intimidating to all the researchers and things. 30:19 I've seen other models that are kind of cool. 30:22 I mean I was looking into DFINITY and the way that it works is very interesting. 30:26 I don't know. 30:28 I'm not 100% sold on it, but it's much more interesting because I have like serious questions about Casper. 30:34 I really don't know what they're planning on doing 100%. 30:38 And the more I read about it, the more confused I am. 30:41 So I don't know. 30:43 Well, see that's the real problem is that we've had proof of work for like whatever, like whatever this is, eight years. 30:49 And we kind of – even in practice we've noticed all these weird little quirks that it has about like block withholding, selfish mining, whatever. 30:59 We have these weird little quirks that we've noticed about kind of how the blocks relay with each other, ASIC boost, et cetera. 31:05 So we have these funny little things that we've learned. 31:08 Proof of stake like we don't really know. 31:10 As you say, it hasn't really been tried at like a big scale ever. 31:14 And so we don't know like what the actual weakest – what the Achilles heel is that people will actually aim for. 31:23 We kind of know in theory it has all these weird issues about you have to check lots of signatures and this long-range stuff and stake grinding at whatever range the grinding is possible. 31:37 And so like we have these weird issues with proof of stake. 31:41 But see that's the point is that I had this blog which I thought was the ultimate knockdown argument which said that it's not – you won't save any of society's resources. 31:51 So this is a totally pointless exercise because you're just going to achieve exactly what we already have with proof of work in every single sense. 32:01 And after I made that post, Jaquan and I think a few other people – some people had to like give up immediately. 32:08 But Jaquan in particular retreated to this argument that he was going to say that the security properties were better and it had more security under proof of stake. 32:22 And so this is something that people have tried to say that like now they kind of move the goalposts from, oh, we won't have to waste all this electricity. 32:31 They moved all the way from all that to just say more or less that it's more difficult to 51% attack proof of stake. 32:40 But I think none of the people, none of the consumers or like the investors or like the audience, I think none of them know that that's the actual argument that is being made now. 32:48 That everyone has retreated from saying that it would be this wonderful thing that had infinite scalability and infinite – now it's just like a better, more resistant to 51% attack. 32:59 Maybe, but it also may have these different – 33:03 I think it's very obvious if you have people who are true hodlers and they're benevolent, then it is a better 51% attack prevention method. 33:13 I mean what would you say? 33:15 You can't rely on – 33:16 I'm just saying. No, but that's what it would rely on. It would rely on benevolent whales, right? I mean – 33:26 Well, my whole problem with proof of stake systems is that they're inherently centralizing. 33:32 Because if you can gain a direct advantage, at least with mining, there are external factors that can control whether you make more or less money. 33:41 But in proof of stake, you're literally – the more you have, the more you can make in a direct cordial fashion. 33:46 Sounds like Dash. 33:47 Well, yeah. I mean it depends because half the reward subsidy does go to you. 33:52 But yeah, that's a very good point. That's a point of all proof of stake is it's a direct correlation to how much you can stake to the money you earn, which the rich literally get richer, which is a centralizing force, which is eventually death for proof of stake. 34:08 Because eventually the majority ends up in the hands of the few. 34:11 Well, I mean here's the thing. They'll be like the Rothschilds. You won't know they're in control, but they'll hold like 99% of the wealth, right? 34:19 I don't know much about the conspiracy there. 34:22 People really need to ask themselves what they're trying to accomplish. 34:26 Because with proof of work, it was clear. Like leaderless election or something. It was like how do we pick which chain is the real one, the one that has basically the hash that is lower or speaking loosely, the one that has more work. 34:44 But in practice, the one that has more zeros or is the lower number. 34:49 The lower number. I was wondering where you're going with that. 34:53 But the point is that when proof of stake was invented, they were like, okay, we can have even more security because we're going to just have – instead of being at whatever it costs to rewrite the chain, you're going to have to buy up more than half of all the money. 35:09 And then – so the security will be better and we won't even need to waste any of this – we won't need to buy all these chips and pump all this electricity through them. 35:19 But what I try to describe is that you will always have the waste that will be – the waste is the same under proof of stake or proof of work. 35:27 And just like it would be the same under proof of space or proof of anything else because the waste is equal to whatever the value of the block is. 35:34 The block has some value. Maybe it's worth $100. 35:37 This is exactly the same as if someone goes up and auctions off $100. 35:42 And they say, I've got $100 worth of gold here, and then let's bid on it. 35:48 Of course, the price will eventually be $100. 35:51 It will be 99.99 or something. 35:55 And so there is no escaping this need to fight over a block. 36:02 So you're saying the resource is effectively block size, right? 36:08 It's filling it up with spam for value or whatever. 36:12 No, that's different. 36:14 This is just whatever – whether it's transaction fees or the block subsidy itself, the block is going to have a certain value. 36:21 It's worth – right now it's worth whatever, like 13.5 bitcoins to the miners because we have 12.5 and kind of like total transaction fees are kind of like one or two or so bitcoin per block for 10 minutes. 36:35 And so the block is worth 13.5, and then you take 13.5 and you multiply it by 2,500 or whatever it is. 36:42 And that's the value of the block. 36:45 And of course it's not immediate, but over time basically you'll tend to be – if you've got a 10 percent chance of winning the block, that should be worth one-tenth of whatever that value was. 36:56 It should be one-tenth of 2,500 times 13.5. 37:01 So eventually people will be just fighting over those blocks in that way. 37:06 But my point is it doesn't change. 37:08 If you change the mechanism that maps human effort into finding the block, if you change it from hashes to something else, it doesn't matter. 37:17 The incentive to fight over the block is still there. 37:20 And with proof of stake, the lost money is the foregone investment. 37:25 So what will happen with proof of stake, it's very convenient. 37:28 It's very easy to stake. 37:30 And as a result, lots and lots of people will do it because they'll be trying to get basically their share of the 13.5 bitcoins. 37:38 It will be distributed to all the stakers instead of the miners. 37:41 So everyone will stake. 37:43 So there will be staking of hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars if bitcoin were proof of stake. 37:50 Everyone who's not using their bitcoin, since they're just holding it as an investment, everyone would stake. 37:55 So since everyone would do it, there would be just this huge, huge amounts of money to be locked up for a year that would not be able to be deployed somewhere else. 38:06 And while that's kind of fine now that no one cares what happens with their bitcoin, it doesn't actually make any sense. 38:14 So in equilibrium, it is tremendously wasteful because what you could do instead is you could buy – at today's price, you could lock in a forward contract to rebuy your bitcoin. 38:23 And you could sell it all today. 38:25 This is assuming that there's no taxes or any kind of complicated things like that. 38:29 But you could basically invest this money with the treasury and you could get like 1.5% with it or something. 38:35 And then once you were done, you'd get your money back and then you'd use the forward contract to buy the bitcoin back at today's prices. 38:43 So you'd lock in the prices today, next year. 38:46 There's a basic principle of finance that you should be able to do that more or less. 38:51 I mean there's time value of money considerations and other things. 38:54 But you can't – these – having all this money locked up will crowd out legitimate economic investment and growth when bitcoin is – or ether or whatever is used as actual money. 39:10 So it's kind of – it's just a little bit more hard – difficult to understand. 39:14 But there's still this waste that's being produced by the inability to – this effort spent chasing the rewards of the block. 39:25 That's a new concept for me, Paul, honestly. 39:27 I don't know. It's just – it's hard for me to wrap my head around. 39:31 And I don't know. Just does foregone gain – does it equate to the same thing as burning of fossil fuels to create energy to run a miner or investing in what amounts to space heaters after they run the course of their use? 39:51 And I don't know. I can't really answer that question. 39:54 But it's definitely food for thought because I haven't really considered that before. 39:59 So very interesting. I'll have to read your blog post. 40:03 It is interesting. The thing is that there is no – right now it's a little – it's harder to understand because no one really buys – the coins themselves are an investment. 40:14 So buying them as an investment and then staking them kind of is just like double investing them. 40:21 But in the real world, you would – we're in kind of a weird place right now where all the – the cryptocurrency market is kind of explicitly undervalued, which is like a weird thing to say if you believe in official markets. 40:38 This is an oxymoron. Explicitly undervalued. 40:42 But it's like there's no way to actually – the value proposition of Bitcoin is so bizarre that it exists in this weird state of just being – 40:52 It's like a quantum superposition, right? 40:55 So it doesn't really make sense. It's actually – the funny thing is – yeah, but the point is if any of these things actually became money, then the costs would kind of come rolling back in. 41:07 But there is actually a difference. There is actually no difference between the foregone gain and the – I mean these are just projects that produce the coin. 41:19 So you just buy this – you do this weird ceremony to make Bitcoin using miners. You do this weird ceremony to make ether. 41:29 They are actually the same. 41:31 So I get you. And from a pure macroeconomic standpoint, I think you're correct. But I mean it just doesn't seem like real as in the physical world. It seems more academic than tangible. 41:48 I don't know. It's an interesting thought though. It's taken me back to the econ days in college. 41:56 Hey, let me ask you all a question. Is the main argument for proof of stake being more secure than proof of work for the 51% attack essentially being it would cost more money to buy up 51% of the tokens versus to buy 51% of the hash rate? Is that the argument? 42:19 How much of that did you hear, Paul? 42:21 What? Are you asking me? 42:23 Yeah. 42:24 Anybody. I'm asking you and Mike. I want both of y'all to answer. 42:27 I honestly don't know. 42:29 I honestly don't know. 42:30 I don't know. That's why I'm asking. 42:31 Why are they saying that proof of stake is more 51% resistant is the question? 42:36 Okay. So part of it is that they can pinpoint anyone who misbehaves or they think they can. Again, in theory they can. I don't know if they actually can. But they think they can pinpoint exactly who misbehaves and just uniquely destroy their money. 42:52 That sounds arbitrary. 42:55 That's literally what Vitalik said though. 42:58 Yeah. 42:59 That's literally what Vitalik said in a tweet. 43:02 No, I was telling him Mike. 43:05 Yeah, so basically if you 51% attack with proof of work, it may lower the value of all the ASIC equipment because it might say, okay, Bitcoin is kind of a – it's not as stable of an experiment as we thought. 43:19 But just the good miners as well as the bad miners take a hit on the ASIC equipment. But in the case of the – in the case of proof of stake, they know which miner, so to speak, made the error and then they can just delete that miner. 43:36 Not literally a miner, but they – so that's one way in that – so the argument is that they can hit the entire cost of all the stake. 43:46 So it would be analogous to if you could deny miners not only – if you could – it's kind of – the analogy would be something like you could destroy the ASICs only of the miners that misbehaved. 44:03 I mean it's pretty much they'll just make Ethereum 3.0 with 51% less coins on the network. 44:11 Yeah, but I mean that's – as a value proposition, that's scary because who arbitrarily says, oh yeah, he's cheating the system? I mean I really don't like that. 44:23 Oh, that's a weird thing. 44:25 Every time there's a hacker – 44:26 It's very circular. 44:27 Every time there's a hacker for Ethereum, there's going to be just another Ethereum. Like someone who does a major exploit or something. 44:33 So here's what I never got about the whole – because yeah, maybe in that case it's more resistant to a 51% attack. 44:40 But the problem that I've always come back to is there's so much more one could do if they were able to successfully execute a 51% attack on Ethereum. 44:51 They would be able to just – because there's nothing – there's no friction provided by proof of work. 44:57 And unless you rely on checkpointing, which is very, very centralized because, well, who creates the checkpoints and who trusts which checkpoints? 45:06 Because you could create false checkpoints too and then point your nodes if you have a majority of nodes that you spawn up. 45:14 That's kind of scary. 45:15 Which one is the real Ethereum network as far as any user's concerned? 45:19 Yeah, there's no work to go off of. 45:20 You don't know. 45:21 So you're trusting – I mean you'd essentially be trusting the Ethereum Alliance to keep track of all that stuff. 45:26 Exactly. 45:27 And you'd subscribe to their – it would almost be like an Oracle service on top of Ethereum. 45:32 But to me, that kind of destroys the concept of decentralization because if you have a centralized governing body that's telling you what's what, then it's no longer decentralized. 45:42 Yeah, it's kind of what we do with Bitcoin core development because there's certain things in there that we have to trust too. 45:50 Well, yeah. 45:51 But I mean there could be an alternate client that runs. 45:54 I mean there always could be. 45:55 It's not like you have to – 45:56 Like what was it? 45:59 Parity or no. 46:01 It was like LibBitcoin? 46:03 LibBitcoin. 46:04 Well, there's a bunch of different implementations. 46:07 They all coalesce around general consensus rules. 46:09 But like take BTC1 and what they're doing. 46:12 It's – you can run whatever software you like. 46:17 So you don't have to be dependent upon a centralized organization to vouch for the software because you have other options. 46:24 But I guess with Ethereum, that's not the case. 46:26 You have to trust the Ethereum Foundation explicitly, right? 46:30 The argument is that it won't really be that bad because at most you'll only get – you'll be in sync but maybe not for like the last 12 months or six months or something. 46:43 So you just need them to tell you where to start six months ago. 46:50 But yeah, I agree that it's not – I don't like it. 46:54 I think it's bad as well because there will be people – it will be costless to simulate the fake histories and people can buy up old keys on the black market. 47:05 And they will then be able to simulate old histories as if they owned huge amounts of – they don't even have to buy. 47:15 I mean you could buy a ton of Ether and then you could sell it. 47:18 Oh my god. 47:19 There's going to be like – 47:21 Some people buy all these keys, these old keys. 47:24 Oh my god. That's awful. 47:26 There's going to be a movie where like a con artist – there's going to be like a movie where a con artist goes into like a retail store and they switch the Ethereum node that they're using. 47:37 And he goes in and buys everything or something crazy. 47:42 And why wouldn't you buy the key, right? Because it's free. You don't care. 47:45 A key in an account that you used to own, you're not using it anymore. 47:50 So of course you would get paid like you would get paid in Bitcoin or something or something else. 47:54 That's an awful attack. 47:57 I'll give you the private key for this address. So they have all that stuff basically for free. 48:00 It's like buying stolen credit cards kind of. 48:02 Yeah. 48:03 Or not really but kind of. 48:06 There's software that automatically makes like a million histories that are very, very similar to each other. 48:10 They look almost exactly the same. 48:11 Oh my god. 48:12 They pay the attacker a million dollars and there will be like billions of those histories. 48:16 And so yeah, we'll eventually rely on – 48:18 If there's no friction, if it's proof of stake and there's like literally no friction, then you can create infinite versions of the truth. 48:25 You're leaving yourself vulnerable to all kinds of weird attacks that I didn't even think of. 48:31 Yeah, that's an interesting vector. 48:35 Yeah, so you will need the signal to come from the Ethereum Foundation or whatever. 48:39 And at that point, since everything else was free and it's worth like a million dollars to you to attack with 10 million, 48:46 now it's time for you to like call up your mafia associates or whatever and just like storm the building or do some other crazy thing and like whatever it is. 48:56 Or serve them with an arrest warrant or whatever, whatever your style of violence is. 49:01 A nation-state actor could very easily invade like the Ethereum Foundation and coerce it. 49:07 Wait, wait, wait. What did you mean? Spend like $10 million and do what? I didn't catch that. 49:13 The attack so far is like basically free. 49:15 I mean it's not literally free, but eventually if – 49:18 In a world where proof of stake were like in equilibrium, the thing that everyone uses, 49:21 you'd be able to buy up all these old keys and you'd be able to like simulate – 49:24 You'd have software that automatically simulated these old histories that were valid. 49:28 But for the fact that they pay you, they reverse the spend that goes back to you or something. 49:34 So the attack has kind of cost nothing up until this point, but the attack is earning you some serious ether. 49:44 So the attack is worth something to you. 49:47 And maybe you just want to destroy the network, right? You could just be a malicious agent. 49:52 So whatever it is, this payoff to you is like 10 million. 49:57 You'd be happy to blow up all this money. 50:00 You'd blow up the network. And so far, it's been free. So now all you have to do is disable this one last thing, which is the weak subjectivity claim that is coming from the ETH Foundation or coming from Vitalik or coming from whatever. 50:15 And that's where you put all of your efforts on flipping that. 50:20 The other problem there too is there is a unified ETH Foundation. What if they come into similar governance rules as you see Bitcoin right now and they start fracturing and splitting into different ones that say, well, this is the version of the truth. 50:33 Another camp says, this is the version of the truth. And go down the rabbit hole with that. 50:41 That's going to be frustrating to regulate. All of this is going to be frustrating. 50:46 Well, I mean, this whole thing is frustrating to regulators. You can't do anything with it. 50:53 That's very interesting, Paul. I love your take on stuff. 50:56 Paul, I want to ask you, before we get too far away from Drivechains, I want to ask you, as far as timelines go, what do you think is going to happen with SegWit? I know you said it's not necessarily needed for Drivechains, but it's a good added bonus. 51:15 It's not needed at all. 51:16 What is your game plan as far as timeline? You said you do believe Drivechains will be out before Proof-of-Stake Ethereum, which means that it's going to be done in the next 10 years, which doesn't really mean anything because Proof-of-Stake Ethereum probably won't be ready for another 10 years. 51:36 What's going to happen with SegWit? Is this going to factor into anything as far as your releases? Are you going to make sure you wait for this kind of stuff to settle down maybe in mid-August, late August and then come out with something? What are you doing? 51:50 It's a little distracting because SegWit is on everyone's mind, which is fine, of course, and which is great because it was finished first. In a lot of ways, it's a little depressing that we're still on SegWit and now I'm trying to move us on to the next thing and we're still one thing behind. 52:12 I think the progress that's been made is really good. The peer review is really good. People noticed weird stuff that we wouldn't have noticed, which is great because Bitcoin is very complicated and just thinks about the right way to organize something or whatever. 52:33 The progress has been good. I'm really optimistic. It's very difficult for me to imagine that we still wouldn't be finished at the end of this year because we're kind of finished now, sort of, but there's lots of testing and there's lots of how to write up the BIP and see. There's just basically lots of testing. 52:58 What is the first strategy going to be? 53:03 If you're going to deploy a Drivechain, what's the first one going to be? 53:08 The first one will definitely just be a version of Bitcoin that has a larger block size because it's so easy to do that because it's such a modular, very simple change and there's actual demand for that. I would not want it to be a weird nimble-wimble thing or a weird other thing. 53:29 That's really interesting for the current politics going on right now because you talk about SegWit2x and then they have the SegWit and then it activates the hard fork three months later. Do you think you conceivably could have a Drivechain version online that has extra block space before SegWit2x? 53:46 Yeah, I do. 53:48 That'll be very interesting. 53:51 Will that completely kill SegWit2x? 53:54 I doubt it, but it'll cause a lot more fights. 53:57 Well, it's annoying because people agreed. So the annoying thing is that people agreed to something, and when you agree to something, you kind of have to do it. And so they agreed to this thing. 54:07 Are you talking about the New York agreement? 54:10 Yeah, the New York agreement. And so I don't know. They agreed to this thing. I mean, I just don't think for two megabytes, I mean, with the Drivechain that has a larger block size, in theory, you could have as large a block size as you want. 54:26 But in practice, what I would be aiming for is something that's like a 20-something megabyte block limit that has a soft limit of like eight. 54:36 And I would just be saying, I have math on that that I published a Bitcoin discuss mailing list if anyone wants to look it up. 54:41 And both of those would be growing. The rates would be growing at 20% a year. So that would be like, this is basically your permanent solution, and this is what you've got, and it grows at 20% per year. 54:53 And you move right up to eight, and if the miners want to move it down from eight or up to something else, 10, 20, they can. 55:02 So I don't even know why anyone would. But a lot of the issues are also like wallet support. You've got to have mobile wallet support. You've got to have industry support. 55:13 Because people are going to buy these things, and they have to know what network they're on. It's very easy to move from one network to the other in the protocol, but if you're using an iPhone app that doesn't have any buttons that do that, then it's useless. 55:28 So that would be its own thing. 55:30 Well, versus like a two megabyte block size increase, that's like native for wallets. Most of them don't give a shit. 55:37 Yeah. So it would be simple. You would just open your iPhone or your Android phone or whatever, and it would be like updating the app, and that would switch you over to the two megabyte version very easily. 55:49 But with this, you'd need like this whole interface about, okay, now there's two networks. 55:53 You'd have a new branch of the wallet. 55:56 But it's interesting because when you bring up the concept of Drivechains, because you're talking about a limited block size on a single Drivechain, but I mean in theory you could have an infinite number of Drivechains, right? 56:09 So you could have an eight megabyte and another eight megabyte. 56:16 Within reason. It's not infinite. 56:19 Technically you have 256, but you could have a Drivechain out of a Drivechain or something like that. 56:23 Oh my god, yeah. A Drivechain of a drivechain. 56:26 You can really have as many as you want. 56:29 You did say these are soft forks. Every single Drivechain on top of the mainchain is a soft fork, but what about a Drivechain on a Drivechain? Is that a soft fork? 56:41 It is a soft fork of the Drivechain, yes. 56:46 And it's tortoises all the way down. 56:48 It's lots of soft forking, yes. 56:52 From an economic standpoint, the reason you said that you've written about those 20 megabyte hard cap and then an eight megabyte soft cap. 57:06 But basically if this is truly permissionless, anybody could start their own Drivechain and you can peg coins back and forth to it. 57:15 So in effect, once these things come around, block size would in effect be unlimited, right? 57:23 Or is there anything that would restrict it? 57:26 Yeah. Well, it would no longer be restricted. 57:32 Users would face basically unlimited block size, but miners can change. 57:38 They can just shut certain sidechains off or they can refuse to add them. 57:43 So without the merge mining, you can't? 57:46 Yeah. So that's what keeps that in check. If the miners feel like they're leaving too much on the table, they could kill off a sidechain. 57:53 Yeah. So there's an old debate over... 57:58 You can either have... 58:00 So the total miner revenue is the average fee times the fee for transaction times the total number of transactions. It's very simple. 58:09 So if there's one megabyte of block space and then the average transaction fee is whatever, seven, whatever it is, millibit coins per whatever, whatever it is, it doesn't matter. 58:25 The point is you have a price per unit of block space, price per byte. I think it's actually measured in satoshis per kilobyte, I think. 58:34 Yeah. It's between 200 and 400 these days. 58:39 And so you have this price and then you have... So that's great. So that's the price you get, but you only get that on every byte that you sell, so to speak. 58:48 So you have a very simple kind of multiplication here. You get this square and you don't want it to be too much like a rectangle in either direction. 58:56 Because if it's like a really tall rectangle that's very thin, you have a very high price, but you're selling very few bytes. 59:04 So you're raking it in. Maybe you get like one bitcoin per byte or something. So you get a thousand bitcoins total transaction fees. 59:13 Huge, huge number, just hypothetically. 59:15 What this implies is that if you could just sell a couple more bytes, you would continue to get one bitcoin per byte. 59:23 And so you want to sell like, yeah, you definitely want to go from one megabyte to two megabytes in that case because you're just basically doubling your revenue. 59:31 But you also don't want to go... You want to avoid the opposite extreme where you have this unlimited block space and you're selling all this block space. 59:38 You sell so much that the price falls precipitously and you have a very, very fat but a very short rectangle. 59:48 And then you have a situation where the area is very low. 59:53 So the area is low if it's a... A straight line has an area of zero and a square has a very healthy area. 59:59 But you want to avoid stretching this thing out because you have all these big, big, huge number of transactions, but a tiny, tiny, tiny fee. 1:00:09 So in that case, the miners want to kind of choke up the limit and force it. 1:00:14 Right. But it's an equilibrium of market forces based on the miner. 1:00:19 But I mean, that all happens in an unlimited vacuum. 1:00:23 If it is truly unlimited, what you're saying still applies because they're not... It's not in their own best interest to let it run totally rampant. 1:00:33 Exactly. From my point of view, there will be a new... People write software and I might have to write it or at least design it. 1:00:42 But there will be software where miners will just say if the block is too big... 1:00:48 Miners will have a rule on what blocks... Total block size across all the sidechains and the main chain. 1:00:54 And this would happen... This is not specific to sidechains. 1:00:57 But they'll have this rule for maximizing their revenue. 1:01:03 And they'll just say if other miners aren't following the rule, then we'll just orphan their blocks. 1:01:08 And all the miners will want to do this because it will increase total revenue for every miner. 1:01:14 So they won't need to really be enforced at the node level. 1:01:18 It sounds a lot like emergent consensus in... Not in implementation, but in theory. 1:01:25 Yeah, maybe. I suppose. I don't know. 1:01:28 Yeah. So... Oh God, I had another question, but I forgot it. 1:01:33 Let's see. 1:01:36 Well... 1:01:39 It was about the rectangles. 1:01:44 The really, really wide scenario. 1:01:48 I lost it again. Sorry. 1:01:51 That scenario is bad because... It's bad for nodes. 1:01:56 Yeah, that's it. That was the point. 1:01:59 It is different. There's an externality for each transaction that's processed. 1:02:03 The miners get the fee, and they have to store and process the transaction temporarily. 1:02:10 Well, it seems like a misalignment of incentives. 1:02:13 The nodes don't get the fee, and they have to hold all this stuff and verify it and then kind of store it forever. 1:02:22 So it's bad in that sense. 1:02:24 Yeah. I mean, is there any hope you think... 1:02:26 That's exactly the thing that sidechains will solve, because if you want to opt in to storing more, you can. 1:02:33 But if you don't want to opt in to more, you don't have to. 1:02:36 And then you'll be stuck on the smaller side with paying probably more fees, almost certainly. 1:02:41 But on the large sidechain, it will be more difficult for you to run a node, and you will be paying greater fees. 1:02:50 I'm sorry, you'll be paying smaller transaction fees. 1:02:54 So basically, you'll have a cost tradeoff, because if you want... I mean, assuming you don't rely on SPV for the dragchain, 1:03:05 then you run your own node, but you choose effectively if you want to opt in to the system that requires more space, 1:03:14 but as a tradeoff, you pay lower fees. 1:03:17 Yes. So, I mean, some people want... It's not a big deal for some people. 1:03:22 Some people can easily handle a bigger node. 1:03:24 And other people, they can't at all. 1:03:26 They really want to run the node over Tor or something weird. 1:03:29 So this is exactly an example of it working perfectly, where people want to... 1:03:34 Some people want different things. 1:03:36 And so some people make a lot of Bitcoin transactions per day, 1:03:40 and they want those transactions to be cheap, and they don't care. 1:03:43 And they want those transactions to be cheap, and they don't care if they have to run a node, 1:03:48 because they're already running whatever, and they run it on their desktop, and it doesn't make as big a deal for them. 1:03:53 And other people, as you say, will use SPV, and they're very comfortable trusting SPV. 1:03:57 Those people really don't care about how big the block size is. 1:04:01 There's no reason for them to. 1:04:03 No more power to them. 1:04:05 I mean, if they're good enough to trust SPV, that's good enough for them. 1:04:09 Like a true SPV implementation, not just a random wallet provider's node, 1:04:14 but something that does balancing amongst multiple sources and the like. 1:04:21 It's just, it seems to me, the alignment of incentives isn't quite right. 1:04:28 And your approach does help, but it doesn't seem like a silver bullet to that. 1:04:34 Because there's always going to be people who are unhappy with any solution. 1:04:37 I don't know. 1:04:39 But I'd like to see this happen, honestly. 1:04:42 What do you think, Tidwell? 1:04:44 I wasn't paying attention. 1:04:46 Drivechain. 1:04:48 Y'all are so dull right now talking about rectangles. 1:04:53 Anyways. 1:04:55 I don't know. I'm kind of jazzed up. 1:04:58 If you're saying it's going to be here by the end of the year, of course, honestly. 1:05:01 Yeah, me too. 1:05:02 I would like to see, given that we have this agreement, we have all this horrible fuss, 1:05:10 I would like to see, still, the SegWit pass come July 21st, though, if it's a window, a couple days later. 1:05:21 Two weeks. 1:05:23 But before the UASF fork, I'd like to see that pass. 1:05:27 And then I'd like to see the hard fork pass. 1:05:29 And then I would like to see Drivechains become operational and be phased in with wallets to allow us to use this cool stuff. 1:05:36 Paul, are you pro-UASF? 1:05:40 I don't really know. 1:05:42 I think I'm not. I don't like the precedent. 1:05:46 I think it should be really hard to change the consensus rules. 1:05:52 And I really don't think that anyone should just be able to change them. 1:05:56 And I don't like the idea of... 1:05:59 What I imagine is a very terrible future where people feel like they have to install whatever software the technical community demands that they install. 1:06:14 And I don't like that idea at all. 1:06:17 So I guess I'm vaguely against it. 1:06:19 I also think it's very dangerous to go against. 1:06:24 The only difference between... 1:06:27 The miners are the only difference between some random file on your computer that anyone could make and anyone could make copies of or modify. 1:06:35 The only difference between some file and the blockchain is the miners. 1:06:41 So I think it's weird to just kind of kick them to the curb and say, you know, we don't need you anymore. 1:06:49 I just think that's kind of weird. 1:06:52 I honestly don't follow their game theory, honestly. 1:06:56 Because, you know, everybody in that crowd seems to be under the impression that... 1:07:04 Well, I mean, I honestly think SegWit's going to get activated because of SegWit2x. 1:07:09 So it's going to happen, so I'm not much worried about it. 1:07:12 But they're saying that if the miners don't do it, it's going to fork the coin or it's going to split it. 1:07:19 Do a coin split without a hard fork. 1:07:21 And then, you know, one will always be attempting to reorg the other into it if it ever gets in front of it. 1:07:29 And the game theory that they're saying is that, well, this one's obviously going to be the more valuable one. 1:07:36 But I don't see that as the case because that could be true of any fork you make, right? 1:07:40 That if it suddenly gains the majority of hash power, it'll wipe out the other fork, right? 1:07:46 But, you know, once it gets past a certain degree of being so far behind, it's just a dead fork. 1:07:53 And I don't know. I just don't see it succeeding. 1:07:58 Even, I mean, except for the fact that the miners agreed to something else that overlaps. 1:08:06 Well, it could easily, the UASF could easily succeed because, and it's also possible that the UASF caused the SegWit2x agreement. 1:08:17 Oh, you know, I'll agree there. I'll agree there. 1:08:20 Because, you know, they put a deadline on it, which is, you know, that moved things along. 1:08:24 So yeah, in that light, it's probably positive. 1:08:27 But it's like, imagine the moment of August 1st. 1:08:31 The blockchain splits, but the split is only one block long each. 1:08:37 And now every miners have a decision to make. 1:08:40 Someone has found a block that does a SegWit transaction. 1:08:44 And someone has found a block that spends the SegWit transaction output in an invalid way. 1:08:50 So that would be like the main one or whatever. 1:08:52 And now the miners have to decide which one they're going to mine. 1:08:58 You know, the safest thing for many miners to do might be to try and not decide, which would be kind of funny itself. 1:09:05 If there would be some element of luck. 1:09:07 It's as if who happened to be finding what. 1:09:10 Are you saying before the hard fork? 1:09:12 You're saying before the hard fork, right? 1:09:14 Well, he's talking about Jihan's hard fork. 1:09:17 It would be a negative hard fork. 1:09:19 It would be stealing the SegWit output. 1:09:21 Yeah, but are you talking about before the hard fork for two megabytes? 1:09:24 That's what you're talking about? 1:09:25 Yes. 1:09:26 Okay. 1:09:27 Because SegWit2x, well I'm talking about UASF on August 1st. 1:09:30 So the scenario, there's a lot of scenarios. 1:09:32 The scenario he's talking about is SegWit2x does not pass. 1:09:36 SegWit is not activated. 1:09:38 And we hit August 1st. 1:09:40 UASF is activated and mainchain has no SegWit. 1:09:43 That's the scenario we're talking about. 1:09:45 And then that gets immediately followed up by UAHF. 1:09:48 If SegWit is activated normally, that would be great. 1:09:51 It would be nice to just have people activate SegWit by whatever means necessary, 1:09:56 including SegWit2x. 1:09:59 Some people don't agree with that, but I'm a very practical guy. 1:10:02 And it's just, do you want SegWit, yes or no? 1:10:06 Yes is the answer for me. 1:10:08 And especially because I'm not going to be using it at first. 1:10:12 I'm just going to watch other people use it and make sure everything is kosher. 1:10:15 Because you never know. 1:10:16 There's a lot of strong emotional feelings. 1:10:19 So you never know exactly how stuff's going to go down. 1:10:22 Stuff's new. 1:10:24 People test a lot, so I have complete faith in the testing abilities of the core development team. 1:10:31 Also, economically, until SegWit's seasoned and it's accepted by everybody, 1:10:38 if it's contentious at all, you could have a miner fork off. 1:10:40 And if people join the chain of the forked off miner, 1:10:45 then all the SegWit stuff done so far, the SegWit outputs can be stolen on the other chain. 1:10:51 That could always happen. 1:10:53 It's a lot less likely to happen when SegWit's been around for a while, 1:10:56 because then it's been accepted. 1:10:58 But when it's new, that's a very real risk if you're one of the first people to stick your neck out there. 1:11:02 Right, because if it's been around for a while, 1:11:05 then the miners attack the SegWit output. 1:11:11 There's nothing leading you away from attributing that to a completely unquenchable thirst for just destroying everything in Bitcoin. 1:11:23 But if it's brand new, then there is a very clear line between the two things. 1:11:28 In particular because everyone knows that they didn't like it and that they were withholding it for a while. 1:11:35 So it's very, very different categorically, I think. 1:11:39 If it's been around for a while, you can't really attack it. 1:11:42 If it's been around for two months and somebody tried to fork and steal all the SegWit outputs, 1:11:45 I wouldn't join. There's no way hell I'd transact on that chain. 1:11:49 Yeah, because if you're going to do that, then what's so special about a couple of months? 1:11:53 Why not a couple of years? 1:11:55 And what's so special about SegWit? 1:11:57 Why don't we just try and steal everything? 1:11:59 Right, but if it's within a day or two, yeah. 1:12:02 You're protected by refusing to... 1:12:07 Because you don't want to draw some connection between what you do and what the miner does that enables them to justify taking the money. 1:12:16 If it's been around for a while, then now it's unprompted. 1:12:20 It's like, why did they do that out of the blue? 1:12:22 But if you're the first one, then your strategic relationship with the miners can be spun as saying something like, 1:12:32 you did the SegWit thing and therefore the miner will do some mean thing. 1:12:38 So yeah, of course, but that's all the more reason to activate it sooner and for me to watch carefully while everything happens. 1:12:44 I just worry that people don't know about the risk. 1:12:50 That's what worries me because I understand the risk to it if you go out and make a SegWit transaction right off the bat. 1:12:57 But I don't even know if the core client distinguishes between SegWit transactions and regular transactions once SegWit's activated. 1:13:06 Because it may just default to SegWit from now on so people could be using it and not even know it. 1:13:11 And that kind of worries me. 1:13:15 Yeah, I don't actually know that. 1:13:16 I mean, certainly it does distinguish and certainly it's easy to tell. 1:13:21 I mean, they're playing with the address format and these other things. 1:13:25 Oh yeah, you can totally see it. 1:13:27 But I mean, the uneducated, you know, just, oh, I'm going to send a transaction, they may not realize. 1:13:34 You guys are getting even blurrier somehow. 1:13:37 I don't even know. 1:13:39 I'm losing the color now. 1:13:41 I can't believe it. 1:13:43 You're like a monochrome practically. 1:13:44 That's so weird. 1:13:46 We SegWit-ed the color out of the upload for you. 1:13:52 Oh my god, this is so weird. 1:13:54 So SegWit is beneficial for the concept of Drivechains, right? 1:13:59 What? SegWit and Drivechain, they're different. 1:14:02 Oh yeah, yeah, but I mean because of the version scripting. 1:14:06 It would be nice, the sidechains themselves, it would be nice to be able to lightning through them. 1:14:11 And that is SegWit helps with lightning. 1:14:13 And so lightning helps sidechains. 1:14:15 They kind of help each other out a lot. 1:14:17 But lightning has more helpful to sidechains, I think, than sidechains are helpful to lightning. 1:14:24 The cool thing is, if you have lightning on two networks, it's just hash-locked contracts, 1:14:31 as long as the two have hash functions that the other understands, which they will, 1:14:36 because they'll just have the same hash function. 1:14:39 It'll be the same SHA-256 or whatever. 1:14:42 Lightning between two people on mainchain Bitcoin is the same as lightning between two people on the sidechain Bitcoin, 1:14:50 and it's the same if half is on one and half is on the other. 1:14:54 So if you're making Drivechain one, whatever it's called, does it have the same private key structure as Bitcoin? 1:15:02 My vision for the large block sidechain is that it's just a copy of the latest version of Bitcoin. 1:15:10 What about things like replay attacks, if you have the same private key on both chains? 1:15:15 You would not. That's a very good question. You would not, though. Because when you send them from the mainchain to the sidechain, you say, I'm going to spend from here and send it to this address over there. You have a new address. It's a very good question, though. 1:15:34 But if somebody was stupid enough to send it to the same address on both chains, it could be replayed. 1:15:41 No, I don't think so. You'd have to select the actual transaction ID. You might be right, but I don't think so. 1:15:54 What you're imagining is you send it to the sidechain, and then you can't spend it again. You can't double spend it on the mainchain. 1:16:03 So if you're signing UTXO outputs, then yeah, it doesn't stand that it would follow because those are never going to line up. 1:16:15 You have to have the same transaction ID. 1:16:18 Paul, do you see some of the sidechains acting as feature branches? 1:16:24 Yes, I do. That's my vision for sidechains. They're categories of things. You have the privacy sidechain, the identity sidechain. 1:16:34 When I ask that question, let's say these features are tested out there in the testnet and then merged into the Bitcoin mainchain. 1:16:45 Some people have this vision for sidechains as we'll test weird stuff there, and then we'll merge it in. 1:16:53 I think that was a really good first start, but I don't really see it that way anymore. 1:16:58 Now we're already merging in super weird stuff. SegWit is pretty weird, and we're merging it in anyway, and we merged in other weird stuff. 1:17:06 I think we have testnet for that. Sidechains might be used for that purpose. 1:17:11 I think instead, though, it will be stuff where there's an actual tradeoff where people say, okay, this feature is just really heavy. 1:17:19 Will people do ICOs on the sidechain? 1:17:24 There may be a counterparty style sidechain that has just a bunch of assets, and then people might do all day long. 1:17:36 They might do all kinds of illegal securities offerings on violating many laws. 1:17:43 They might do that all day. 1:17:45 But that's just a token riding on top of the sidechain, not the sidechain itself. 1:17:50 Because then the sidechain itself acts more like Ethereum as a base for other assets. 1:17:55 If you wanted to have this thing that had just every token under the sun, I think it would be better to put all that in one category and say this is the sidechain that will manage digital collectibles. 1:18:08 And it will have Pepe Cash, and it will have Rare Pepe, and it will have Spells of Genesis, and it will have digital collectibles. 1:18:15 They'll all be over there. 1:18:17 And you'll be kind of having an all-for-one deal where it's like you have to download everyone else's digital assets if you want your digital assets to be there. 1:18:34 But if you don't want to play any weird digital asset games at all, if you're not into Pepe Cash, nor are you into Spells of Genesis, nor are you into anything else, ICOs, then you just say I'm not going to use the counterparty sidechain. 1:18:48 Thanks, but no thanks. 1:18:50 But if you do, it's better. You don't want to go down the line and have each one be different. 1:18:54 So just to explore the concept of privacy a little bit. 1:18:57 Real quick, were you talking about an ERC-20 standard? Is that what you were saying? 1:19:02 Yeah, the ERC-20 sidechain, which would be like the counterparty sidechain. 1:19:07 Yeah, he's saying have one sidechain just devoted to tokenization crap. 1:19:12 We got our first live comment. 1:19:14 Oh, yeah. I didn't know we were streaming. 1:19:16 No, we're not. That's the funny part. I posted a picture of our podcast though in the dojo, and Talon says everyone looks miserable. 1:19:25 I'm sorry. 1:19:27 It's been a long week. 1:19:29 It's been a long week. 1:19:31 We are miserable though. 1:19:34 Misery loves company. 1:19:36 So I just would like to explore a little bit the concept of privacy as it applies to Drivechains and sidechains in general. 1:19:44 So how private – I know you can move in a market that can be very opaque where you could exchange coins with others on a market like an external thing. 1:19:57 But as for the actual transfer back and forth from mainchain to the sidechains, how transparent is that? Is it like 100% traceable? 1:20:10 It's 100% transparent. So everyone knows if you send – there's a lot of – so any Lightning transfers you do are totally private, 100%. 1:20:21 But they're all off-chain. 1:20:24 So if Tidwell has four side Bitcoin and I have four main Bitcoin and we swap, we can swap those with each other without that being even on any chain right now. 1:20:40 It would be like Lightning where this stuff happens in a hidden zone, and then only the net effect of this stuff is actually broadcast. 1:20:47 But speaking about the actual messages, everyone will see that someone, some address on the mainchain is putting their money into a specific sidechain. 1:20:59 So they say, we know that money moves from address 14JX to the large block sidechain at this address. 1:21:09 They won't necessarily know who – it will be the same pseudonymity as before. They won't necessarily know who – but they will know that that money was linked. 1:21:21 They don't know if that money was transferred or if it was you swapping with someone else. So there's a lot of stuff that's unknown. 1:21:28 But yeah, those are just public. When money moves from one blockchain to another, from the mainchain to a sidechain or from one sidechain to another sidechain, that is public. 1:21:41 So we got a couple. Let's see, because I know you've been thinking about this a lot. 1:21:45 So we have an asset sidechain, a privacy sidechain, an identity sidechain. What other ones do you see popping up? 1:21:57 There's my own project, which is Bitcoin Hivemind, which is like a market. 1:22:01 Paul, it really sounds like this might be a killer app for Bitcoin or blockchain tech. Is that what you would say? 1:22:10 Oh, you never know. Everything's the killer app of everything, I guess. I don't know. I mean, I remember that Myst was the killer app for the CD-ROM. 1:22:19 I don't think anyone's used that. I mean, I guess Ocarina of Time was the killer app for N64 or was that Super Mario 64? Maybe. I don't know. 1:22:27 That's what I remember as a killer app. I don't know. Ransomware is the killer app for Bitcoin because you literally need Bitcoin. 1:22:37 So what other sidechains? I think I really want to bring BitMessage back. I really liked BitMessage a lot. I'm sad that it's not being used. I think we should all use it. We shouldn't be dogfooding. 1:22:52 You know what? I'm not familiar with BitMessage. 1:22:54 I remember it. 1:22:55 Oh, it's so cool. So basically BitMessage is sort of like – I have a big problem with the way we do email. And Gmail does a great job. But the problem is we need – we're totally reliant on them for their spam filters because it's free to send an email. 1:23:12 So my thesis is if we could just make it expensive to send an email, just force people to pay – it sounds very much like 21, except not – I mean that's kind of a weird way to run a company on this premise. 1:23:28 Everyone should be able to generate these emails and these contact information. And it interacts nicely with the identity concept that you should be able to have just a Michael Tidwell and then anyone should be able to contact you if they pay 10 cents to you or whatever. 1:23:43 And so we need a lot of technology for this. We need micropayments. We need Lightning Network. We need SegWit. We need sidechains. So it's a big project. But we're within striking distance of this project I think. 1:23:57 And I don't like the fact that – I mean right now, think of how much stuff your Gmail has. It has all of your contacts as a start and all of these private messages that you've sent to your friends and family. 1:24:10 But B, every time you sign up for something, you get the automated email and then you confirm your account. They can reset all of your passwords and they know every place you have an account and they can reset every single password that you have. 1:24:24 It's just like an extremely high amount of control that's just been handed right over. And I just – it's sort of fine for now. I mean the weird thing is already we see the problems because already we have the people porting the phone number and then using the phone number to reset the Gmail account. 1:24:43 So we already are seeing the inefficiencies sort of begin to appear in this model, and it's better. It's just better if we can switch to something like BitMessage. 1:24:55 I mean I really fear for a society that doesn't have message privacy. I just think it's outrageous what we have to put up with now that people couldn't put up with easily in the past. 1:25:07 And we're kind of within striking distance of this thing. I think that would be great and the reason it should be a sidechain is so that we can have this thing where it's you've got to pay me $0.20 in Bitcoin to contact me. 1:25:20 And maybe I have like different lanes. I would love to have different lanes where it's like I will give you a thoughtful reply and I will read your thing immediately if you pay me like $100 or something. 1:25:31 I can imagine certain people who have a certain type of personality. They could be like, yeah, if you're not on my white list, you've got to pay me $50 to send me a message. 1:25:43 Spam has a real cost. Spam is really annoying. Just think about all the email, the snail mail that you throw away. You just really don't want to deal with any of it. This is your scarce attention that is being consumed by this process. 1:25:58 And to help you, you just have to hand over basically your entire digital existence to Gmail or similar. 1:26:06 Someone's going to use your most valued lane or whatever and spend $50 and be like, this was my last $50 on my Nigerian Prince. 1:26:15 Yeah. 1:26:16 I gave you my last $50. 1:26:20 Well, the weird thing is if someone – I would carefully consider like, oh, someone spent – because the point of email spam, someone actually has – there are very interesting theories about email spam. 1:26:31 One is that it never actually works and so it doesn't work. So one basic theory is just that all they have to do is it's free. It's a numbers game. They send all this stuff out and they just want to hook like the one or two really gullible people. 1:26:47 So that's the basic theory. 1:26:49 But there's another theory that is sort of like a Dunning-Kruger theory, which is like an email spam never works. 1:26:55 But what happens is the dumbest like 5 percent of the technologically literate population, the dumbest 5 percent think that it works and they say, oh, I've got to find these suckers. 1:27:08 And so it has these waves of just ongoing spam. 1:27:12 Well, that would just imply that nobody has ever fallen for like a 509 scam or you know what I mean, which I'm sure somebody at some point in the line has. 1:27:21 But yeah, I think there's a lot to be said for that. It's a very, very low success rate, very low. 1:27:29 It clogs up our – the point is it clogs up our – 1:27:32 Our tubes. 1:27:34 Our lives. 1:27:35 Our internet tubes. 1:27:37 But it clogs up our neurons. 1:27:39 So that's one thing. I'd like to bring BitMessage back. 1:27:42 I would like to – I don't know if a drop – what happened with Dropzone with Chris's project. 1:27:48 Junseth and him were really excited about that. 1:27:51 I know. So that would be cool. I mean they use Bitcoin testnet for messaging, but they could – it's like an instant messenger type thing. 1:27:59 But it would be better. It would be a little cleaner if that were custom. 1:28:02 Why not like a Ripple? The old Ripple idea was like – it was bad, but it was a lot better than all this crap that we're dealing with now. 1:28:10 And then there's Rootstock as well. I don't really – I think that – I think it's better to do the sidechains by topic. 1:28:16 But yeah, if the market wants to have a – I mean what I would imagine is that you would turn on Rootstock and you'd realize that no one was using this for anything except ICOs and speculation. 1:28:27 So it would eventually have to be – we would eventually take that – my imagination is that we would eventually have to take that slot back and say no one is using this. 1:28:36 I almost feel like you can have a – 1:28:38 Change the Rootstock one to the Dropzone one. 1:28:40 I almost feel like you would have a Drivechain for like an ICO and then all the Drivechains off of that. 1:28:47 Like if a Rootstock system happened, couldn't you just do like a Drivechain with Rootstock owning that Drivechain and then you do a bunch of sidechains off of that sidechain? 1:28:56 You could. 1:28:57 Isn't that – 1:28:58 You could, but I mean what are these for? I mean like this – 1:29:01 ICOs? 1:29:02 It's just all for – yeah, but what are the ICOs for? 1:29:05 No, no, no, no. They're for raising money. 1:29:07 Yeah, right. That's the entire purpose. 1:29:10 So is that – 1:29:12 There's no ICOs. It's all liabilities and equity. 1:29:14 Okay. I know you're not exactly bullish on Ethereum, but you really think – 1:29:19 Dude, he's wearing an Ethereum shirt. 1:29:20 The – do you think the – 1:29:23 The quarterback for the Ethereum elephants. 1:29:25 Yeah, I see. I just noticed. 1:29:27 And we also noticed you joined the tennis team. 1:29:29 Yes, I did. That is the – that would be the Zamphire Zephyrus. 1:29:37 Nice. Nice. 1:29:43 I can only imagine Mike at Space is going to Photoshop all kinds of crazy stuff with this. 1:29:49 Yeah, he is. It's going to be awesome. 1:29:52 Yeah, tell them that this episode is very boring. They shouldn't watch it. 1:29:56 Even though what we're going to get now. 1:29:59 Mike and Space might be our only viewer. 1:30:01 Yeah. 1:30:02 So – 1:30:03 Somehow he watches it. He's like Sauron. He just watches everything somehow. 1:30:07 How does he do that? 1:30:09 Any – 1:30:10 What does he do with his – what's his day job? He has kids. He has a family. 1:30:13 Like how does he find the time to do all this stuff? 1:30:15 He must be doing it on his car or something. 1:30:18 Well, he does his podcast to and from work. I mean he's very efficient with his time. 1:30:24 So I guess he has a real job and he somehow – I mean like yeah, I guess so. 1:30:28 I mean I don't know how he's doing that. 1:30:30 I mean he's really into this. 1:30:32 It's impressive though. 1:30:33 It is. It's amazing. 1:30:34 I wanted to ask a quick question. You brought up Chris earlier with Drop Zone. 1:30:37 Did you see Chris's interview with the Tesos guy, Arthur? 1:30:42 No, I did not. 1:30:44 The French guy? 1:30:46 Yeah. 1:30:47 Yeah, he's sort of vaguely French, right? 1:30:49 So I met Arthur at Strange Loop in St. Louis before he did this project or he was just starting this project out. 1:30:58 And he was telling me about O'Camel and all this stuff. 1:31:01 And he gave a talk where – 1:31:04 Yes, I can't really hear you but just keep going. 1:31:07 Perfect. 1:31:08 He gave a talk at Strange Loop and I'm pretty sure the guy was talking a million words a minute, whatever. 1:31:15 I don't think anyone followed his logic or anything except for like maybe like two people out of like the 200 or 300 that actually came. 1:31:23 I don't know. He had a huge freaking audience. 1:31:25 It was the only blockchain talk at Strange Loop. 1:31:27 But I feel like Chris did a really good job interviewing him and he got to the point where he was sweating during the interview. 1:31:37 I was like really surprised about that. 1:31:39 But given that he – Chris, in my opinion, had a terrific interview with Arthur. 1:31:45 He still raised like a quarter billion dollars. 1:31:48 Largest ICO to date. 1:31:50 It's crazy, isn't it? 1:31:51 Well, is it considered an ICO? 1:31:53 It is considered an ICO. It's just not on Ethereum. 1:31:55 Yeah, it's not an ERC20. It's just separate. 1:31:58 And it's a proof-of-stake concept. 1:32:01 And I'm really confused. 1:32:04 We got to change it to ERC21. 1:32:07 Actually, I think they're up to like 24 in the actual spec because they have a different version. 1:32:13 It could be like 400 billion. 1:32:16 So Paul – 1:32:18 Infinity plus one. 1:32:20 Yeah. 1:32:22 I think Chris and JohnSeth, when they were together, did a good job with some of their interviews. 1:32:29 Obviously, they're really, really, really silly and inappropriate sometimes. 1:32:33 But I think they do a great job actually getting to the actual interesting points of some of these projects pretty quickly. 1:32:40 And oh my god, it was really disheartening. 1:32:43 I went on the Tezos forum where Chris actually posted this video. 1:32:47 And everyone just wrote off Chris as a troll, which fair and different. 1:32:54 He's kind of a troll. 1:32:56 Let's say he's a troll, but I mean I couldn't believe that no one – 1:33:00 Well, a troll can make a good point. 1:33:02 Are you trying to say that it had more credibility when there was like two people and it like – 1:33:06 How can it have more credibility with JohnSeth? 1:33:09 No, I just – 1:33:10 I mean, I don't know. 1:33:11 I guess I just want to talk about this because – 1:33:13 Take off his shirt. 1:33:15 I just want to talk about this because I was like so surprised that his video had no effect on, in my opinion, on how much they raised. 1:33:22 It's groupthink. 1:33:24 Yeah, that is weird, isn't it? 1:33:26 Yeah. 1:33:27 Well, one weird thing is that there's a story about like the bitter Bitcoin people, which is there's a lot of truth in it honestly. 1:33:35 Isn't it kind of weird? 1:33:37 Like all the Bitcoin people have made like huge amounts of money, some people millions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of dollars or whatever it is. 1:33:44 And yet it's still said with some justification that it's like all these people are bitter that they didn't invest in Ethereum. 1:33:52 Like they only made enough money to last them the rest of their lives. 1:33:56 They didn't make the Ethereum style money. 1:34:01 So therefore they're bitter, which is very funny how much truth there is in this story. 1:34:05 But just the mere existence of this story is kind of like an instant like critical thinking like disable lever of some kind where it's just – 1:34:14 If you criticize Ethereum at all, it kind of gives it more legitimacy because it says it's worthy of criticism. 1:34:19 But they're just bitter. 1:34:21 So it's very much like Donald Trump kind of phenomenon I think where people would criticize Donald Trump, but it just added fuel to the fire because that was what people wanted was someone who would make all these leads pay attention. 1:34:34 Are you saying Chris is bitter? What are you saying? 1:34:37 No, no, no. I'm saying that there's – you were surprised that the video didn't work. 1:34:44 No, I was surprised how – I was surprised that people that were going to put money in Tezos essentially, it seemed like they wrote off this video. 1:34:53 Well, yeah. That's what he's saying is he didn't poke any holes. The video was not effective as a counterargument against investment in Tezos. 1:35:03 It sure seemed that way. 1:35:05 It didn't work. It wasn't persuasive. And I'm saying that there's this context of like – 1:35:11 People don't care. 1:35:14 It's tight. 1:35:16 In addition to this story about how people – about how there's like the Bitcoin maximalist kind of almost stigma, in addition to that story, we are living through kind of like the dot-com era where – 1:35:34 The dot-com era, if you put dot-com on the end of something, the valuation would go up by like a factor of three or something ridiculously stupid like that that made no sense. 1:35:43 And we're just living through something that's very similar to that because – 1:35:48 In our case, a factor of – 1:35:49 Now you just put blockchain on something. 1:35:51 A factor of 20. 1:35:52 Yeah, but I still think we're nowhere near the insanity that's going to be in a couple of years. I mean I still think it's going to get so much crazier. It's going to be bananas. 1:36:02 Yeah, well, I don't know how big – someone should check and see inflation adjusted or what have you, like how big the dot-com – what kind of pattern there was there because now we have the same thing. 1:36:14 Well, hold on. Inflation adjusted or asset price adjusted? Because that's a big difference right there. 1:36:21 What we have now are just these projects that are – they're not even like technology projects at all really. They're just like companies, tech startups like any other tech startup. 1:36:33 And that's kind of like where we are. We've regressed to just the unlicensed security offering, and it's completely unlike what it originally was with Bitcoin, which was like a finished product that – 1:36:49 Right. It never crowdfunded anything. Yeah, it was finished before it was worth anything. It was a working product before it was worth even a fraction of a cent. I mean it had no value literally for like the first year of its existence. 1:37:06 It certainly is demoralizing. I think that we can say with some justification that you do all this work to convince people that Bitcoin is valuable, and then they just – they don't believe you. 1:37:16 And then as soon as they believe you, they just turn right around and they say, that's exactly why NXT is valuable or whatever. And then you have to try and say the opposite direction. 1:37:28 And that is, I think – I don't know if we need like a – this must be like a German word for that or something. I don't know what it is, but it's like regret upon enlightening. 1:37:40 Yeah, the Germans have their best words for things. 1:37:42 Or something like that. And that is weird. 1:37:46 What's your theory as to how the current ICO fervor dies? Does it die due to – 1:37:54 Yeah, really good question. 1:37:55 Yeah, okay. Well, I'll let you answer. 1:37:57 I don't know. I mean it could – I mean it's weird because again, now there's not – like normally I would say sidechains would just swoop in and kill all this stuff eventually. 1:38:09 But now the projects are not even sidechainable because they are securities, and they are – you know what I mean? Like they refer to like actual company. 1:38:19 Yeah, they're not actual – 1:38:20 So there's nothing to do with blockchain at all. 1:38:22 Yeah, they're not tech. They're a company. 1:38:25 So by virtue of that, the sidechain technology cannot copy them. It can't. So yeah, it's pretty weird. 1:38:34 I think one thing would be if – well, it's hard to say. I don't know. 1:38:42 So do you think there's a chance of SEC regulation coming in and just wiping these all out or – you know what I mean? 1:38:49 Yeah, well, they – someone – I was on the – this is definitely a – this is an Ethereum shirt for my football team. 1:38:58 But this is also the Churchill Blurk shirt from I'm Not Your Lawyer show. 1:39:03 And the – so apparently the cycles on this stuff can be pretty long, and they want to build the case. 1:39:13 And if they – they don't want to lose because they're setting a precedent. By they, I refer to the district attorney and the government, the SEC. 1:39:21 Right. 1:39:22 So they will prepare the case. And then once they're prepared, they've got everything. 1:39:26 They go in. They arrest the people. They know exactly what to say if it ever goes to court, which it won't because they'll – the lawyer will tell them that they have no case and that they'll lose. 1:39:37 And then they will plea out. And so apparently it takes a while. 1:39:42 I don't know what's taking it this long because some of the stuff is just obviously just like – it doesn't even go to whether or not it could be legal or not or even whether or not it could be seen as supporting like innovative technology or not or whether or not this is like very, very mean of the government to do. 1:40:01 Some of this stuff is just very foolish, and I don't know how long it's going to take. 1:40:08 Yeah, I think that will happen at some point. I'm not really doing a good job of answering your question. 1:40:12 That will eventually happen. I mean there's a joke in econ. 1:40:17 That if something can't go on forever, it won't. So this is kind of like what Chris and Josh have been saying, that either eventually everything will just be ICOs and there won't even be – there will never be an IPO again. 1:40:34 There will never be like any shares. There will always be ERC-20 tokens or something will happen that will stop that from happening. 1:40:43 Well, the question is the bubble is going to pop one way or the other, right? It's this whole fervor around these things, at least this particular one. 1:40:51 And I have an opinion even if this one pops for some reason in like two or three years, it will come back with a vengeance and be even more. 1:40:59 But the question is what's going to bring it down first? Is it going to be some sort of external regulation or is it going to be just more of like the Dow where it just falls flat on its face? 1:41:10 And just like you see epic losses and then people just get completely disinterested. 1:41:16 Very good question. I really think it's got to be the Dow type thing because this stuff is like not – well, the ERC-20 tokens are probably hardened enough. 1:41:28 So if it's that category, then I think it will have to be regulation because there's probably not a lot of room for error over there. 1:41:35 Yeah. 1:41:36 And if there is, there will be – 1:41:38 There's not a lot of lines of code in the ERC-20 contract. 1:41:42 That's what I imagine. 1:41:44 And if there is, it would be found as like many eyeballs, security principle. 1:41:49 And plus they're all in it together, so it would be easier to coordinate a fix if there was a mistake. 1:41:54 So I think that one has to be – 1:41:56 If the tokens don't do anything, then you really can't mess it up. 1:42:01 Right? If the tokens don't actually do anything, you really can't mess them up. 1:42:06 Exactly, right. By virtue of their – 1:42:09 Inutility. 1:42:11 What's the word? 1:42:13 Illiotid. I don't know if that's a real word. 1:42:16 The tokens are so useless they can't even do anything. 1:42:20 They can't even. Just leave it at that. The tokens are so useless they can't even. 1:42:25 Yeah. 1:42:26 Their inability to be interesting is also their inability to be stolen at all because they just have – 1:42:34 But that's to their credit in this weird case. So that has to be regulatory. 1:42:40 So something like Tezos where they're just like, oh, we're going to do this weird new thing and it's got proof of stake, it's got everything. 1:42:47 I think their deal is formal proofs, right? 1:42:50 I want to ask a question. Let's say Tezos was proof of work, okay, Paul? 1:42:54 What do you think about the idea of combining – because this was my idea of it. 1:43:00 What do you think about the idea of combining version control in with the protocol itself? 1:43:05 Because essentially that's what I got from it. I don't know if that's what you understood or if you've looked at it. 1:43:11 I didn't really understand what you mean. What are we combining with what? 1:43:14 Version control with the actual protocol itself. 1:43:19 It's not. 1:43:20 What are we combining it with? 1:43:22 The idea where Tezos can make code changes just to be about – 1:43:28 You can change just about anything about the Tezos protocol and it's part of the protocol. 1:43:35 What? 1:43:36 Okay, that's kind of weird. 1:43:38 No, no, I'm saying, Bill, is that not your idea of what Tezos is? 1:43:42 No, Tezos is formal validation proofs is its big thing. 1:43:45 Yeah, but the whole idea with Tezos is it's dynamic and you can change a lot of aspects of the code without – 1:43:53 You can change a lot of things about the protocol. 1:43:58 Have you researched Tezos? 1:44:00 Not to that extent of anything you're talking about. 1:44:03 Paul, have you researched Tezos? Can you back me up on this? 1:44:09 I really don't really know, but I think I know what you're talking about, which is this governance thing is built in. 1:44:16 They have a governance model, Tezos? 1:44:18 It changes to itself. 1:44:19 I know DFINITY has that. DFINITY, they have this neural network thing and it's – 1:44:24 All right, so first off, I don't know anything about DFINITY. 1:44:27 I'm reaching a point where they all kind of look the same to me. 1:44:29 You know how Neo says that to Agent Smith? 1:44:31 All right, all right. 1:44:32 Or he says that to Agent Smith. 1:44:34 Hold on, let's go with the assumption that protocol changes are very easy in line with the system itself. 1:44:42 So essentially, if 51% of the stakers or whatever want to make a change to the protocol, they just change it almost immediately. 1:44:56 Well, yeah, but you can't just say – 1:44:59 You can't do that without proof of work. 1:45:04 Well, no, I mean it's a completely different system because they're using proof of stake. 1:45:07 I'm sorry, I thought you started the question off as – 1:45:09 Well, I guess his idea doesn't really work with proof of work because you have the idea of miners that implement the code. 1:45:15 But if you have all the users – 1:45:17 I don't know. 1:45:18 I guess what aspect of that – because that's going to be different than Ethereum. 1:45:21 Ethereum, if it goes proof of stake, isn't going to be like, well, 51% of the stakers can change the protocol and Tezos is going after that. 1:45:30 So the primary driver in my mind of Tezos – 1:45:33 Governance may be a characteristic of it, but it's not the primary driver of it. 1:45:38 So this is what Arthur sold it to me as when I talked to him for like two hours in St. Louis. 1:45:43 How long ago was that? 1:45:44 I mean, you're right. It might have changed. 1:45:46 This was probably before the big formal proof validation thing came about in Ethereum, which is a fairly recent development. 1:45:54 It's very frustrating. 1:45:55 Yeah, maybe he's changed his ideas of it. 1:45:58 But when I was talking to Arthur, it was highly based on there's this debate going on in Bitcoin where no one can agree. 1:46:04 In his system, it would be so much easier to change the protocol if you want to change it. 1:46:08 What you're describing sounds to me like DFINITY. 1:46:10 Because that's what they do. 1:46:11 That's their big thing. 1:46:12 One of their big things. 1:46:13 DFINITY is like half proof of work, half proof of stake? 1:46:16 No. 1:46:17 No, they use a threshold relay model. 1:46:19 It's really – 1:46:20 We can talk about – 1:46:21 Let's talk about DFINITY next week. 1:46:23 Yeah. 1:46:24 Anyway, the primary driver of Tezos – 1:46:27 If you go to their website, it doesn't say anything about governance. 1:46:30 It says it's an Ethereum-like smart contract platform that has formal validation proofs, and that's what its deal is. 1:46:39 Well, I was asking them questions like, if you want to change the block size, how do you do that? 1:46:45 And they're like, oh, you just do it. 1:46:46 Well, if you want to change the algorithms, how do you do that? 1:46:48 Oh, you can do it. 1:46:49 I was like, well, what if you want to go to proof of work? 1:46:51 He was like even saying, yeah, you can change anything. 1:46:53 If Ethereum becomes proof of stake, same deal with it. 1:46:55 Any proof of stake is like that. 1:46:57 No, but they're saying essentially changing the code base everyone's running. 1:47:00 Yeah. 1:47:01 You can do that with proof of stake. 1:47:03 Proof of stake, you're not going to be able to do that with Ethereum. 1:47:05 I mean you could if enough stakes switched over to run another code base. 1:47:08 No, you're just changing – you'd just be able to steal stake and change the – 1:47:12 No, but I mean – 1:47:13 You're not going to be able to change what code people are running. 1:47:16 Yeah. 1:47:17 That does sound a little bit like doing brain surgery on yourself. 1:47:21 Well, I mean what I'm saying is if 51% – so like a proof of stake 51% attack, 1:47:26 if 51% of the stake of Ethereum decided to run another code base, that becomes Ethereum. 1:47:31 You're just changing the state of the blockchain. 1:47:33 You can't change what people are running. 1:47:35 What do you mean? 1:47:36 People change what they want to run. 1:47:37 Anybody can run whatever they want to run. 1:47:39 That's not what I'm saying. 1:47:40 All right, anyways. 1:47:41 Okay, so I think – 1:47:42 Let's move on. 1:47:43 People are talking about like you send a message across the blockchain that says we're updating. 1:47:47 You must download this message which contains code, which contains like a Git thing or something. 1:47:54 So my idea of Tezos was they're combining version control. 1:47:58 So now they're going to force my computer to run like arbitrary code. 1:48:00 That sounds great. 1:48:01 Well, based on the majority of what people want. 1:48:06 So essentially the way I walked away from it was I was talking to Arthur, 1:48:11 and pretty much the conclusion of our conversation was combining version control in with the actual blockchain protocol itself. 1:48:19 So you can literally make any code change. 1:48:21 Yeah, but are you excited about this? 1:48:23 No, no, no. 1:48:24 We're scamming ourselves. 1:48:25 First off, I don't even know if this is true because both of y'all don't seem to know what I'm talking about. 1:48:31 I haven't read about Tezos' governance model. 1:48:33 I don't know what it is. 1:48:34 Yeah, but the best thing you can do is like just stop paying attention to any of these projects I almost feel. 1:48:38 It's hard to stop paying attention. 1:48:40 But this is after the fact. 1:48:42 Because I really like my own project a lot. 1:48:44 Well, you should launch an ICO, Paul. 1:48:46 Paul, this is after the fact of them raising a quarter billion dollars. 1:48:50 I'm not talking about this before they did that. 1:48:52 Yeah. 1:48:54 So I mean that's the only reason I'm talking about it. 1:48:57 They raised so much money. 1:48:58 They often have like whales and stuff, ringers, you know, that just cycle money in. 1:49:05 They pay them back so they don't actually have the money. 1:49:09 But it's just to make – you know, it's like a chandelier. 1:49:12 It's just to create an appearance of popularity. 1:49:15 I did want to – 1:49:16 So I don't know how much they actually raised. 1:49:18 But it's a very common practice. 1:49:19 I wonder if they're going to be able to – 1:49:20 A lot of this is – you know, I think the other thing is I've heard that a lot of this is just people trying to launder all this money that they made. 1:49:27 People made early Bitcoin, huge amounts of early Bitcoin money. 1:49:30 Wow, there's something to be said for that. 1:49:31 I mean you could have a total ICO scam just to launder your own money. 1:49:35 Yeah. 1:49:36 And then they make a lot of money in Ethereum, and they just don't know how to get rid of it. 1:49:40 So they just put it through – 1:49:41 They just keep making money. 1:49:42 They're trying to – they don't know what to do. 1:49:46 They just keep making more money. 1:49:47 They're trying to get rid of it. 1:49:48 They're tired of winning. 1:49:50 They're like, you know, I want to convert this million dollars, and I made $30 million trying to – 1:49:57 Yeah, that's funny. 1:49:58 It's very much like a springtime for Hitler. 1:50:01 Yeah. 1:50:02 To show the producers. 1:50:04 Yeah, the producers, where they had to make an unprofitable show in order to make a profit. 1:50:09 It's like taking advantage of a tax scam or something, but the show ends up being a huge hit. 1:50:13 And they go broke. 1:50:17 That's Ethereum is springtime for Hitler, I think. 1:50:20 All right. 1:50:21 So last note on that, I probably have no idea what I'm talking about as far as Tezos is concerned. 1:50:27 We can just skip that. 1:50:30 It's big. 1:50:31 AlphaBay. 1:50:32 So here's a topic that isn't really a topic anymore. 1:50:34 AlphaBay went down for a while, and then now it's back up apparently. 1:50:39 It's back up. 1:50:40 It's back up. 1:50:41 So Paul, now that you're in Atlanta – 1:50:42 It's like playing Russian Roulette, and you didn't die. 1:50:44 But Russian Roulette is still stupid. 1:50:48 So don't leave any money on there. 1:50:50 It's only a matter of time. 1:50:53 But yeah, today – 1:50:55 I wonder how big AlphaBay is now. 1:50:57 I wonder how much they do. 1:50:58 I would love to know. 1:50:59 Yeah, I would love to know the revenue. 1:51:01 Yeah. 1:51:02 Like the Excel graph or whatever the hell it is of their – just the revenue in dollars. 1:51:08 I would just love to see that, and I would love to just send that to the world, to CNN or whatever. 1:51:16 That might be dangerous considering people at AlphaBay are like Russian-owned or the Russian mafia would come after you. 1:51:24 Yeah. 1:51:25 Anyways – 1:51:26 No, no. 1:51:27 I don't need their permission or whatever. 1:51:29 Oh, okay. 1:51:30 Just send it to Gwern, darknet researcher extraordinaire, and then he can publish it on his site. 1:51:39 Well, it would be interesting to actually see the true size of that market because nobody really – 1:51:44 I mean they obviously know how big it is. 1:51:46 But I mean for us, we can just guess. 1:51:51 Do you want to guess? 1:51:52 We'll interview AlphaBay next week. 1:51:54 How about that? 1:51:55 Do you want to guess though just based off of what Silk Road, what Ross Albright had, like 80 million on his laptop? 1:52:01 Yeah, I mean it's got to be – 1:52:04 It must be bigger than that. 1:52:05 Well, yeah. 1:52:06 That's the question is how much bigger is it than Silk Road? 1:52:11 Is it roughly the same size or is it triple or quadruple or ten times as big? 1:52:17 I mean you think they have made in profit – 1:52:24 God, I don't even know. 1:52:25 It could be a hundred million. 1:52:26 It could be a billion dollars. 1:52:28 God, I just have a hard time even imagining – 1:52:30 It could be ten billion. 1:52:31 I have no idea what it is. 1:52:32 A billion dollars in profit. 1:52:33 Because they're on the margin. 1:52:35 They just take the piece of the trade. 1:52:37 I don't know. 1:52:39 Ross Albright made 80 million. 1:52:41 80 million. 1:52:44 How long was Silk Road up? 1:52:45 Two, three years? 1:52:46 One sec. 1:52:47 What was the market cap of Bitcoin? 1:52:50 That's true. 1:52:51 Holy shit. 1:52:52 Because if you think about the market cap of Bitcoin and how long it took them to acquire that 80 million versus – 1:52:56 When Ross was busted, it was like 70 bucks. 1:52:59 It was Bitcoin. 1:53:00 So in other words, it was about one-fifteenth of the price or something? 1:53:04 Or what was that? 1:53:05 Dude, it was much lower. 1:53:06 It was much lower. 1:53:07 Because if you're talking about market cap too, there were a lot less coins back then because that was when we were still pumping out 25 per. 1:53:14 So it was like 12 million coins in circulation, something like that. 1:53:20 But I don't think it's – I think they probably get a pretty good margin out of it. 1:53:24 You know what I mean? 1:53:25 I don't think – this isn't like CVS where I've got to go and I've got to buy a toothbrush and there's one toothbrush that looks pretty good. 1:53:31 There's one that looks basically the same. 1:53:33 And one's heroin. 1:53:35 And so it's not like we're just a comparison shop. 1:53:44 I think people just go to AlphaBay and they didn't get arrested by the police and they just go back. 1:53:49 So I think they probably get – I don't know. 1:53:52 The margins are probably like 10 percent or something. 1:53:54 I have no idea. 1:53:55 Yeah. 1:53:56 So if they do take 10 percent on trade – 1:53:58 That's a lot on the entire throughput. 1:54:00 And how much do you think the sales are? 1:54:02 It could be in the billions. 1:54:03 I have no idea. 1:54:04 Again, right? 1:54:05 It could be in the billions. 1:54:08 It's just amazing. 1:54:12 All right. 1:54:13 Let's move on to the topic of the evening unless you don't want to keep talking about random stuff. 1:54:19 Whatever it is, please tell me it's the last thing. 1:54:21 Actually, before we get to the last thing, Paul, now that you're in Atlanta so much, have you been enjoying all the meetups that have been sprouting up? 1:54:29 There's been a meetup every single day of the week. 1:54:32 Every day of the week. 1:54:33 Literally, the other week, there was a meetup every day of the week. 1:54:37 Every day of the week, there's a meetup. 1:54:38 And Paul, I think this is why you relocated to Atlanta or you're now in the southeast. 1:54:44 You're turning to the southeast because of all the meetups. 1:54:46 The meetup scene? 1:54:47 Yeah. 1:54:48 I've decided that instead of doing anything productive for society and just going to be one of these people who just goes around to meetups, I'm going to be a professional meeting attender. 1:54:57 And I'm going to be a professional meeting attender and I'm going to have all my business cards. 1:55:01 I'm going to give them all out really quickly and I'm going to need to order more. 1:55:05 That's how many business cards I'm going to give out. 1:55:07 I'm going to need to order them every week because I'll be out of business cards. 1:55:11 Seriously, you should totally come down. 1:55:14 I'm going to go on LinkedIn and I'm going to friend everyone on LinkedIn. 1:55:17 Even though my profile is public and that's stupid, I'm going to friend everyone on LinkedIn that I possibly can. 1:55:22 Don't say that, Mike. 1:55:23 I'm going to have all the LinkedIn friends. 1:55:24 So we run a meetup group of our own. 1:55:28 Who knows? 1:55:29 It's the Atlanta Blockchain. 1:55:30 Everyone knows that. 1:55:32 Yeah. 1:55:33 Paul needs to come down and do a talk on Drivechain. 1:55:37 Paul is right here. 1:55:38 Paul is giving a talk on Drivechain. 1:55:40 Any interest in doing that? 1:55:41 What day of the week is it? 1:55:43 It's Wednesdays. 1:55:44 It's like the last Wednesday of every month. 1:55:46 Or the third Wednesday, is it? 1:55:48 Paul, we'll make it any day you have. 1:55:50 It doesn't matter. 1:55:52 Yeah, Bitcoin Wednesday. 1:55:54 We can work around your schedule, Paul. 1:55:57 Bitcoin Wednesday has a quantum superposition. 1:55:59 Some places always have Bitcoin Wednesday. 1:56:01 Other places, there's no Bitcoin Wednesday. 1:56:06 Bitcoin Wednesday, though. 1:56:07 Yeah, that's us. 1:56:08 Bitcoin Wednesday. 1:56:09 Hey, I have a question. 1:56:10 Oh, is it normally? 1:56:11 Whatever. 1:56:12 I have a question for you all. 1:56:13 Yes. 1:56:14 If someone offered to give you money, would you promote their conference about blockchain? 1:56:20 Depends on how much money, of course. 1:56:23 If it's hundreds of millions of dollars, you can donate it to Africa and save all these lives. 1:56:27 And then you can buy all the ethical karma that you need. 1:56:30 Karma arbitrage. 1:56:32 I fully support karma arbitrage. 1:56:34 Karma arbitrage. 1:56:35 Here's another question. 1:56:37 If someone just wants you to promote their meetup where they charge money for attendees, but yet you run a meetup where it's completely free, what would you do about that? 1:56:51 Okay, what is it? 1:56:53 They're at the meeting at the same time? 1:56:55 They have a meetup. 1:56:56 No, no, no. 1:56:57 They have a meetup, and they have a registration fee. 1:57:00 We run the Atlanta blockchain that's completely free, and we provide beer and pizza and stuff. 1:57:05 So we have to bribe people to come? 1:57:06 But essentially, this person wants me to advertise their meetup. 1:57:12 Would you do it? 1:57:13 Okay. 1:57:14 And this is also with the same thought process that you know they don't have the same views of blockchain that you do. 1:57:20 You know what I'm saying? 1:57:22 Sometime, yes, I do know. 1:57:24 Because almost no one has the views of the blockchain that I have anyway. 1:57:28 So I have to deal with that every moment of every day of my existence. 1:57:32 Well, let's just say they have modern views of blockchain, less classical. 1:57:37 No, no, no, no, no. 1:57:39 Let's keep the answer. 1:57:41 I don't want him to – he knows the question. 1:57:44 Stay with the original question. 1:57:46 Okay. 1:57:47 So sometimes people like it when it costs money to charge an event because it kind of screens people out. 1:57:52 It's kind of like a nightclub thing that charges the cover even though there's nothing really in there. 1:57:56 It's just good because it filters out a certain type of person. 1:58:00 So some people prefer that because they're like, oh, this is a serious thing. 1:58:04 The event organizers have something to lose if it sucks, which is that they won't get people to – so some people like that. 1:58:11 And other people don't like that at all. 1:58:13 Like if you give the pizza, it's like sad. 1:58:16 I mean I'm sure everyone comes and eats all the pizza. 1:58:18 Do you have pizza left over? 1:58:19 That's the ultimate burnout for all of us. 1:58:21 Pizza goes pretty quick. 1:58:22 Yeah, we try to order it. 1:58:24 Yes, that's good. 1:58:25 So yeah, I think you're doing it right. 1:58:27 They might want a different thing. 1:58:29 I mean how much are they charging? 1:58:31 Because it will be like an outright fraud at some point. 1:58:34 It's just like charging – you get something when you buy the consensus ticket for like $2,000. 1:58:43 I don't know what you get, but you get something. 1:58:45 I guess what I'm really wondering, should we be charging a cover for our meetups if everyone else is doing it? 1:58:52 You know, maybe if lots of people come and if the pizza sells out, that would indicate that you have demand. 1:59:02 All right, well, that was some random – 1:59:04 People come, do you get sponsors? 1:59:06 Yeah, no, we got sponsors. 1:59:08 Tyrion is one of our sponsors. 1:59:09 We have Tyrion. 1:59:10 We have for a little while Shapeshift. 1:59:12 We have some random guy. 1:59:14 Some random guy. 1:59:15 Some random guy. 1:59:16 Like literally a random guy. 1:59:18 He's like a – what is he, an accountant? 1:59:20 He was a CPA. 1:59:21 He was a CPA. 1:59:22 He's a CPA. 1:59:23 He sponsored our meetup for like six months because he wants to meet people on blockchain. 1:59:28 Oh, that's cool. 1:59:30 And let's see. 1:59:32 Oh, gee, we have a barber shop. 1:59:35 All right. 1:59:36 What's enough about that? 1:59:37 Let's talk about the topic of tonight, why everyone listens to our podcast, the controversial stuff. 1:59:43 We leave it for the end. 1:59:45 How long has this been slugging? 1:59:47 Two hours. 1:59:48 Like two and a half hours. 1:59:50 Well, I mean, Paul, if we put the interesting stuff at the beginning, then people are going to take snippets and put them on Reddit and everyone gets in trouble. 1:59:57 So I want to start putting the good stuff at the very end. 2:00:00 We're going to hide them strategically. 2:00:02 We'll hide them strategically like in the middle to end portion. 2:00:05 Yeah. 2:00:06 And then you can just – you can be like Mike at Space. 2:00:08 You can just put a black – oh, no, Brian Hoffman. 2:00:10 Excuse me. 2:00:11 Mike at Space's videos are perfectly edited. 2:00:13 Brian Hoffman occasionally just leaves the black two minutes at the end. 2:00:19 That's his troll. 2:00:20 So the entire video is like 11 and a half hours long. 2:00:23 So like 10. 2:00:25 Okay. 2:00:26 So let's get to the rumor mill. 2:00:28 So we talked about UASF earlier. 2:00:32 I think we kind of alluded to something being up Coors Sleeve. 2:00:35 I've heard rumors and I – 2:00:38 I just want to tell everyone that I often cannot hear anything they're saying. 2:00:41 Sometimes I just have to guess based on context clues. 2:00:45 And I heard something like I think Coors Sleeve and there's a conspiracy, 2:00:50 something like that. 2:00:51 So if I say anything to offend anyone, 2:00:54 I just want blanket immunity for everything I ever said 2:00:58 because I don't even know what I'm talking about or what is even going on. 2:01:03 All right. All right. All right. All right. 2:01:05 Luckily, they are back. 2:01:06 They're back to their normal terrible video quality. 2:01:09 For a while they were, oh, my god, it just happened again. 2:01:12 When all the color washes out, somehow I don't even get – 2:01:16 it's like having a non-color television. 2:01:20 Like I don't even know how that – 2:01:25 I mean I'm plugged into the Ethernet. 2:01:27 I'm plugged into the Ethernet. 2:01:28 All right. 2:01:29 Maybe that helps. 2:01:30 I just took us off. 2:01:32 Now I do. 2:01:33 Yes, I do. 2:01:34 Yes, that does help. 2:01:35 All right. 2:01:36 Now I just see a smiling Ronald McDonald photograph. 2:01:38 All right. 2:01:39 So maybe we should have done that a long time ago. 2:01:41 Yeah, and actually that does help with audio a lot. 2:01:44 I just can't see any of your faces at all. 2:01:48 So now I don't know any of your facial expressions. 2:01:50 Just imagine us just laughing hysterically. 2:01:52 All right. 2:01:53 So the rumor being Core potentially if they UASF off, 2:02:01 they're going to change the algorithm and use MimbleWimble. 2:02:08 Oh, yeah. 2:02:09 Well, here's the thing. 2:02:11 I agree with the Nakamoto Institute. 2:02:14 You guys know who those guys are, right? 2:02:15 Yeah. 2:02:16 No, I don't. 2:02:17 Really? 2:02:18 Okay. 2:02:19 Well, there's basically some cool people who are – 2:02:21 they're kind of more my style of kind of more like investor, 2:02:27 definitely kind of like the economist style type thing. 2:02:33 Certainly Dan Krawitz is very Austrian and proud of that. 2:02:37 But just basically we're kind of all inventing our new economics here 2:02:41 because this is an uncharted territory. 2:02:44 But they're more like the kind of – they represent kind of the investors, 2:02:47 I feel, of Bitcoin, 2:02:49 whereas the core devs represent the technical, the makers and the maintainers, 2:02:57 the people who fix bugs and they do a great job and everything like that. 2:03:01 But the Nakamoto Institute, there's an essay which is like it's about the money, 2:03:06 and it's not really about the tech. 2:03:08 So my concern is that anyone who feels that this is a viable strategy, 2:03:15 that we can redo everything now that we know what to do with MimboWimbo 2:03:18 and we'll do it all right this time, 2:03:21 my concern is that they won't have any respect for what that type of decision would imply, 2:03:29 which is that – this is weird because now I can't see either of them at all 2:03:33 because I'm just staring at a blank thing. 2:03:35 I don't even know if anyone's – 2:03:36 We're hearing you. We're hearing you. We're listening intently. 2:03:39 Okay. Great. 2:03:42 So the point is that you have to have some respect for the fact that this was pitched as money, 2:03:50 and you can't just go around changing it because you think you have a good reason. 2:03:56 It's similar to the case where the miners go back and just start stealing from old, 2:04:01 months-old SegWit outputs where it implies that you're going to – 2:04:07 there's nothing to say that you won't do this yet again. 2:04:11 It's a violation of the contract is what you're saying, not the – 2:04:14 It absolutely is. 2:04:15 So if someone were to say, okay, we'll do this the right way with MimboWimbo, 2:04:21 what's to say that seven or eight years after that, 2:04:25 there isn't some disagreement between whatever it is, Andrew Poelstra and Greg Maxwell, 2:04:30 and then they create like MimboWimbo squared or whatever, 2:04:34 and they say, now we've got the opportunity to do it right. 2:04:36 I don't think people really understand what kind of staying power the very first one has 2:04:42 because only one person can be first, and that makes it unique. 2:04:46 But many people can be second, especially if they are derivatives of a first thing. 2:04:52 And many people can be not first. 2:04:54 So being first is constant. 2:04:58 So if they did forge MimboWimbo, I'd have a hard time calling that Bitcoin. 2:05:03 What would you call it, Paul? 2:05:05 Hey, let me ask you a question, Paul. 2:05:07 Is SHA-256 necessary for Bitcoin? 2:05:11 I think just because— 2:05:16 while the old chain lives, it will be like kind of Bitcoin for a really long time unless something really extreme happens. 2:05:24 And so since the old chain was started with double-shot 256 mining, I think that is what defines Bitcoin, part of what defines Bitcoin right now. 2:05:40 Well, yeah. I would say the only—for me at least, speaking for myself, the only condition that you could still have a Bitcoin if you change the mining algo is if the miners decided they wanted to up the supply curve and they wanted to issue themselves more Bitcoins. 2:05:57 Then that would justify— 2:05:59 Well, if the miners want to break any rule— 2:06:01 Yeah. 2:06:02 It's not Bitcoin. 2:06:03 Well, hold on because then that could go to the one megabyte rule if you define it that strictly. Then if they raise it to two megabytes, is that still Bitcoin? I mean I would say yeah. 2:06:13 I think I am comfortable making the definition that strict. And what I'm just going to say is if we switch from one megabyte Bitcoin to something else and we buy our hard fork, I think that really is—if anything, that's Bitcoin 2.0. 2:06:32 You're saying that the original Bitcoin had some deficiency and we're throwing it away. 2:06:36 But it's still Bitcoin. I mean I don't—to me it is. To me it's still Bitcoin. 2:06:40 Well, hold on. 2:06:41 Versus bimbo-wimbo would be something else. I mean it would—I think it would be cool to have— 2:06:46 Yeah. 2:06:47 Paul, did you just say that— 2:06:49 It's so alien. It's so weird. 2:06:51 Paul, did you just say that Bitcoin, if it goes two megabyte blocks, would be like a Bitcoin 2.0? Is that—did I hear that right? 2:06:57 He's saying the new chain isn't the same. 2:06:59 If we upgrade via a hard fork, it is no longer—we've discarded Bitcoin 1.0. 2:07:04 But wasn't it— 2:07:05 I'd agree with that. 2:07:06 It's a failure in some way. 2:07:08 But wouldn't you say that— 2:07:09 There's nothing really wrong with that, you know. 2:07:11 But wouldn't you say that Bitcoin was already a failure with some kind of, you know, denial of service issue where they had them put that cap on originally? 2:07:21 Or what was the original purpose of the one megabyte cap? Because wasn't that a hard fork when they— 2:07:25 No. 2:07:26 It was a soft fork? 2:07:27 Yeah, it was a soft fork. 2:07:28 No, when it was added, it was a soft fork. 2:07:30 There was no— 2:07:31 It was added by Satoshi. 2:07:32 There was no block over a megabyte until that point? 2:07:34 You can always restrict. You can add a rule that restricts, and that's what they did. They added a rule that restricted. 2:07:39 What did they—why wasn't there one block over one megabyte? There just wasn't anyone who spammed the blockchain, or— 2:07:46 No, you can't. I mean— 2:07:48 There wasn't like a miner who said, oh, I want to mine this crazy— 2:07:51 You're talking about before, like before the institute, the one megabyte block size? 2:07:55 Mm-hmm. 2:07:56 It was just luck, pretty much? 2:07:58 No, I mean, there wasn't any transactions. 2:08:00 It doesn't matter. I'm just saying. 2:08:03 Wait, when did they put the one megabyte block— 2:08:06 I think 2011 or some shit. 2:08:09 July 2010. 2:08:11 2010. So it was like before there was—July? Holy shit, there was nothing. 2:08:15 So you're saying that that's a defining characteristic of Bitcoin 1.0 is the one megabyte block. 2:08:20 Well, yeah, but he's just saying 1.0. He's saying that— 2:08:22 I know. 2:08:23 That doesn't matter much, right? It's just that's where you draw the line. That's 1.0, and this is 2.0. Is that right? 2:08:30 I'm saying the hard fork is where I draw the line, but you're right. It's not actually a hard fork. 2:08:35 If you ran software that was before 2010, it would just be a nothing to you. 2:08:40 Right, that's true. 2:08:42 You're correctly implying that by me endorsing this definition, I'm handcuffing myself to the railroad tracks of wherever I'm led by this soft fork parade. 2:08:53 Every single soft fork, I have to admit, that breaking it would destroy my definition. 2:08:59 And I'm not comfortable with that, and I don't unconditionally endorse that. 2:09:04 So it's more—the relationship between a soft—and the way I see it, the soft fork is really about what's allowed. 2:09:11 And if the same amount of stuff is allowed, then it's soft. 2:09:16 But I wrote a blog post about this because it's so weird. 2:09:21 There are actually several different things at once, different dimensions. 2:09:26 And hard fork is kind of whether or not a new network is created. 2:09:32 But then if it's not hard, it's sort of considered to be soft. 2:09:36 But then if it's soft, it can still vary on two other dimensions. 2:09:42 One is how much stuff is allowed. 2:09:44 And the second is, even if everything is still allowed, how much anxiety or pressure you feel to upgrade your own software and how kind of coerced you are by the— 2:09:54 Right. 2:09:55 So my point is that adding the one megabyte limit is not really a—it is technically a soft fork, but it's really more of what I call a mean fork. 2:10:06 It's something that dramatically constrains the user's ability to act. 2:10:12 And so there's nothing like—I mean, we could have a soft fork that was just a 51 percent attack of just permanently mining empty blocks. 2:10:20 And that would be a soft fork that you can't include transactions. 2:10:23 Right. 2:10:24 But you understand that, of course, that would not really be a protocol upgrade. 2:10:27 That would just be like lunacy. 2:10:29 So there's a lot of nuance to the question. 2:10:31 But it would still be a soft fork. 2:10:33 If the miners and the developers both agree that should be done, that's it. 2:10:38 Right. 2:10:39 The rules could be tightened so much that the system just doesn't do anything anymore. 2:10:43 Yeah. 2:10:44 You could even—it's technically a soft fork that you just never find another block. 2:10:48 Yeah, you could totally do that. 2:10:50 It's a weird rule that they have to have like 400 consecutive prime integers, like more than whatever, and they never do. 2:10:56 Well, yeah, you could hard fork the difficulty up to an unrealistic level that you could never, ever possibly meet. 2:11:03 You could say all zeros on the difficulty and, well, there you go. 2:11:07 That's a soft fork. 2:11:08 So that's what I mean. 2:11:10 So when I say that it's a more nuanced question than just tightening or loosening the rules. 2:11:14 You can even, as Peter Todd is one of the many people, but lots of people discovered it independently before he published. 2:11:23 You can even do the evil fork where you tighten the rules permanently, but you add an escape door that has a totally new set of rules, and you've basically added rules. 2:11:36 Well, that's kind of what SegWit does. 2:11:38 I mean it's extension blocks in general. 2:11:41 No. 2:11:42 I mean it's not evil, but— 2:11:44 Because you can still transact the old way, whereas in the evil fork you can't. 2:11:49 Oh, I got you. 2:11:50 Because you've locked out the old way because you've restricted it so much you can't possibly—okay, now I get it. 2:11:56 That's why it's 100% mean, just like the 51% denial of service empty blocks. 2:12:01 Those would be 100% mean. 2:12:03 Right, right. 2:12:04 Those are 100% mean. 2:12:05 It's very mean. 2:12:06 It's at least 31, 30 seconds mean because— 2:12:10 In that case, I would qualify SegWit as at least partially mean because what it does is it offers a discount to SegWit transaction, which makes them take up more of the block. 2:12:19 So the other dimension I had was loudness, and I say SegWit is not very mean at all. 2:12:24 It's not very mean, but it's— 2:12:25 It's a little mean, but it's mostly loud because it introduces this anxiety that you should upgrade even though you're allowed to transact the old way. 2:12:32 You're allowed, but you feel bad about—you might need to— 2:12:39 You're anxious. 2:12:40 Not transact. 2:12:41 Yeah. 2:12:42 Eventually, your counterparties might tell you, and they might say, I only want to be paid through the Lightning Network or through SegWit, and then you basically have to upgrade. 2:12:50 Right. 2:12:51 So then there's the loudness. 2:12:54 Coercion is a funny thing. 2:12:55 Upgrade was passive, but it's yelling at you this whole time. 2:12:58 Coercion is a funny thing because it's not a 100% you have to do that. 2:13:03 You have a gun to your head, but it's prodding along a little bit at a time. 2:13:09 It's these ecological effects. 2:13:11 Exactly. 2:13:12 It's the environment. 2:13:13 It's the environment. 2:13:15 In a soft fork like SegWit, it doesn't change. 2:13:19 Yeah, you can totally run your own software on your node, and it totally executes the same rules, but the network that you connect to has fundamentally changed in a very large way. 2:13:27 So it's not the same Bitcoin you were running before because the rest of the nodes don't act in the same manner. 2:13:34 Exactly. 2:13:35 The meanness slowly deletes the definition. 2:13:37 Yeah. 2:13:38 You could do a mean fork of Bitcoin that has no messages, so like the 51% attack, a mean fork that just tightens everything to zero. 2:13:46 And you can do the exact same fork to Ethereum. 2:13:49 And at that point, the two would basically be the same. 2:13:52 They have different mining systems, a different timing, interblock time or something. 2:13:59 But functionally, they'd be the same to the user. 2:14:03 And this goes to your question about how do you define Bitcoin. 2:14:07 What the mean fork does is just kind of dim the lights and just eventually get to a totally dark room where there is no definition of anything because all the stuff has just been cut out. 2:14:22 So that's kind of a weird thing. 2:14:26 But yeah, I'm not happy about the fact that I would be. 2:14:29 The soft fork you can't prevent. 2:14:31 As far as you know, the miners have been doing it since the dawn of time. 2:14:35 You just don't really know. 2:14:36 They just have a really complicated version. 2:14:39 Oh, that's true. 2:14:40 Sometimes we do it on the fourth Tuesday of every week and whatever. 2:14:46 Miners could be running any rules. 2:14:49 If miners were colluding, they could run any arbitrary rules via soft fork as long as it's a tightening, right? 2:14:55 And you wouldn't even know that those rules are in place because you're not running the software, right? 2:15:04 Yes. 2:15:05 But your original question was how do I define? 2:15:07 Do I just double shot to 56? 2:15:10 A part of Bitcoin? 2:15:11 My original question. 2:15:14 Yes. 2:15:15 So I'll take that. 2:15:17 Wait, so I'll take that. 2:15:18 Wait, that was your original question. 2:15:20 I know because I'm pretty sure. 2:15:22 Well, I guess what I'm really curious about now is ever hard fork? 2:15:28 Because I know you're kind of painting a picture where you're pro soft fork. 2:15:33 Yes, I'm against the hard fork. 2:15:35 But if we need a hard fork, we need one. 2:15:38 But I don't think we need one right now. 2:15:40 I kind of like the precedence of the hard fork sets that we can hard fork. 2:15:45 Because otherwise, if we get into a situation, if we've never hard forked since Bitcoin's been basically a thing, then it's just going to be much, much worse when we do have to do it. 2:16:01 The stakes will just get higher and higher and higher as time goes by. 2:16:05 That's what concerns me is if we refuse to ever hard fork. 2:16:09 I think that's Peter Todd's secret plan. 2:16:11 It's just we'll delay the hard fork forever and then we'll just never be able to do it. 2:16:15 I think sidechains can be a part of this. 2:16:20 We want to have part of the protocol that is sort of guaranteed. 2:16:23 We say, look, no matter what happens, you'll be able to rely on this thing to be digital gold. 2:16:30 And it will have these properties that don't change. 2:16:33 And then the sidechains can be totally free, experiment, do whatever you want, really weird stuff on there. 2:16:41 And you can hard fork or soft fork those to your heart's content. 2:16:44 So I think that's something that we want. 2:16:46 My position has always been, ever since the advent of Segregated Witness and the Lightning Network and that whole plan, I've always been in favor of that in general terms. 2:17:01 But I think that the on-chain network has to scale along with it in order to make it viable. 2:17:07 You can't just leave a static block size amount because it wreaks havoc on the incentives. 2:17:16 I agree, but my point is you can do it with sidechains. 2:17:18 Right. No, no, no. 2:17:19 So that's what I was getting to is I like the sidechains aspect because I consider that to be on-chain scaling. 2:17:28 It's a layer two of Bitcoin Core, the mainchain, but it's a layer one of itself. 2:17:34 Well, I don't consider tier two itself, Lightning Network tier two, to be Bitcoin proper. 2:17:41 It exists above it. It's a bolt-on layer. 2:17:45 And I understand it's proofs. It's all theoretical transactions, but it's still not… 2:17:50 I agree with you. There's a lot of weird equivocation going on where people say it is a Bitcoin transaction. 2:17:57 I actually had that argument with Greg Maxwell two years ago and I was like, no, it's not. 2:18:01 I know, but they're not. The process of a Bitcoin transaction is what they are. 2:18:06 Speaking of Greg Maxwell… 2:18:07 Byte for byte they are. I agree with you that it's a false equivalence. They say that it's a Bitcoin transaction. 2:18:15 It structurally is a Bitcoin transaction. 2:18:17 If it's a true two-way peg sidechain, I consider that on-chain. 2:18:21 Frankly, I think the Lightning Network is better than regular Bitcoin transactions. 2:18:26 In a lot of ways it is, especially for microtransactions. I mean, my god. 2:18:30 And they're instant and they're more private. 2:18:32 So I think the privacy is… Tumblebit will be basically free. 2:18:36 Rolling over the channel when it's plugged into Schnorr, that will be way better. 2:18:41 Everything about the Lightning Network will be better. 2:18:43 And then we get the other crowd that is totally anti-anything off-chain. 2:18:47 How can I say those things, though, if I say one's better? 2:18:49 Well, you know, there's the other crowd who is like the RBTC hardcorers who are totally anti-anything off-chain. 2:18:56 You know what I mean? Everything 100% has to be on the main chain. 2:18:59 And I'm like, that's silly, too. 2:19:01 I think there's a lot of anxiety and they are worried. I'm not going to speak for them because I don't really know what's up over there. 2:19:09 It's funny with the extremes. 2:19:11 I think there's just some anxiety over, like, will anyone take care of our needs for greater block space? 2:19:20 And for a while, the answer was just no. 2:19:22 Like, they were getting kind of, you know, like delayed and delayed. 2:19:27 And it was kind of looking like the limit would never be raised. 2:19:31 And I still think it really… I mean, SegWit will maybe raise it to this, you know, 2.24-ish. 2:19:38 That's nothing. 2:19:40 And for those of you who don't know, it theoretically goes up to 4, but in practice, it would probably be like 2.2. 2:19:46 Yeah. 2:19:47 But I think we just shouldn't. 2:19:52 I mean, it's easier to have one that specializes in being small and one that specializes in being large than it is to have a compromise or even to have two that are medium. 2:20:03 I mean, two that are medium is much inferior to having one that just specializes in being small and can do lots of special small things like run over Tor. 2:20:13 And like the Luke Jr., we can take the thing way down to like half a megabyte. 2:20:20 I don't think that's really a big problem. 2:20:22 If you have this other one, you have this other option. 2:20:24 Yeah, if you have an overflow option. 2:20:25 That's the big one. 2:20:26 Yeah, and it's on-chain. 2:20:27 That's big. 2:20:28 Because that's the big thing. 2:20:29 40 megabytes or something. 2:20:30 It could be huge. 2:20:31 It doesn't matter because everyone is using SPV and only a couple of people run nodes. 2:20:34 It doesn't matter. 2:20:35 And if people are really worried, they transact on the big one. 2:20:38 They transact on Lightning. 2:20:40 And they settle it into the small one. 2:20:42 And then they have to pay a $5 transaction fee. 2:20:45 It doesn't matter because it's their life savings or something. 2:20:47 So, I mean, what does it cost to make on TD Ameritrade or something? 2:20:51 I think it's very – that setup is smarter. 2:20:55 That's a smarter setup, specialized, teamwork, synergy, whatever. 2:20:59 Yeah. 2:21:00 Well, I mean I agree with you completely as long as you have sidechains for overflow for on-chain scaling. 2:21:05 As long as you have that, then there's no issue. 2:21:08 As long as you have both. 2:21:09 Yeah. 2:21:10 I completely agree with you. 2:21:11 I mean like all the scalability stuff is about like multiplying, getting more bang for your buck. 2:21:14 Exactly. 2:21:16 Well, see, and for me – 2:21:17 No one ever wanted more buck, right? 2:21:18 You want more buck also. 2:21:19 And for me, if you use a Tier 2 strictly exclusively, you use a Tier 2 and that's supposed to be your scaling is just on a Lightning network. 2:21:28 Well, then your only competition ever is to you do a regular transaction back on the Bitcoin network. 2:21:36 So the maximum fee that you can theoretically have on the Lightning network is as much as a Bitcoin transaction. 2:21:43 Well, as those go exponentially up with the static block size, that's what your cap is going to be on the Lightning network because that's what it takes to close a channel or open a channel. 2:21:53 So fees on Lightning network as is, as long as there's some reserved block space, they're going to be really, really cheap. 2:22:00 But if there is literally no ability to make a main chain transaction, then they could be very, very expensive. 2:22:08 And I don't know. 2:22:09 That's my take on it. 2:22:13 Yeah. 2:22:14 Actually, it's funny. 2:22:15 The Lightning network works better on a larger block size. 2:22:19 So it's even better. 2:22:20 It's like a very, very strong interaction. 2:22:23 It's very interesting in that way. 2:22:25 So the Lightning network is even way safer and faster and cheaper on the large block chain. 2:22:33 It's very kind of bizarre that way. 2:22:35 Yeah, it is. 2:22:36 So maybe most people use Lightning on the large one and then they'll Lightning back over into the small one maybe. 2:22:40 It's funny because if you have the block space on the main chain, you don't need it. 2:22:45 It's like this – it's like a quantum thing. 2:22:47 If you have – if the space exists, then you don't need to use it. 2:22:52 Because you could just do everything on the Lightning network and it's fine. 2:22:54 Yeah, but a lot of things in game theory are like that. 2:22:57 Like if we just took all the guards off of the front wall because the enemy never attacks us until there are guards there. 2:23:04 Yeah, exactly. 2:23:05 It's like we just take them off. 2:23:06 Why do we even need the front wall? 2:23:07 They never attack. 2:23:08 It's like the first house that takes off its iron bars on the window. 2:23:15 You don't want to be the first house. 2:23:16 Yeah, exactly. 2:23:18 Nobody gets robbed. 2:23:19 You don't want to be the first house. 2:23:20 You put those iron bars up. 2:23:21 No one has been bothering us. 2:23:23 We don't need them anymore. 2:23:25 Ever since we hired the security guard, we don't have any problems. 2:23:28 Let's get rid of it. 2:23:30 So that's called off-path reasoning. 2:23:32 It's very important. 2:23:33 It's like, oh, if we got rid of the security guard, something different might happen. 2:23:39 Right. 2:23:41 So were you trying to get to something else? 2:23:45 Question. 2:23:46 You brought up some interesting points about you, both Paul and Mike. 2:23:54 You're talking about overflow into a sidechain or whatever. 2:23:58 A little bit confused. 2:24:00 Were you saying that this is superior to Lightning Network because with Lightning Network you have issues going back and forth to the actual chain? 2:24:10 No, no, no. 2:24:11 What I was trying to say is that it's better to use – the Lightning Network is of a lower network. 2:24:17 So you'd have your own Lightning Network on the small main chain. 2:24:20 You'd copy it. 2:24:22 It would be the same. 2:24:23 But you have a different network, Lightning Network, on the sidechain. 2:24:27 And the cool thing is, of course, as I mentioned before, is that they're interoperable. 2:24:32 So you can easily send money. 2:24:34 If you have an account on – it's like I don't want to go into the details. 2:24:40 But if you have an account on the main chain and the sidechain and I have an account on the sidechain and the main chain, I can pay for sidechain Bitcoin to your sidechain. 2:24:47 And you can pay for main chain Bitcoin from your main chain Lightning to my main chain Lightning. 2:24:52 So there's no – 2:24:53 You can make both of those dependent on the same exact same random value R. 2:25:00 So we just say if someone announces R – 2:25:02 Hold up real quick. 2:25:03 You're getting too far. 2:25:06 Pretty much what I'm asking is pretty much you're not going to have to clear back to the main chain to make payments. 2:25:15 You're saying you can just pay straight from the sidechain and there's no need to have on ramps or off ramps or whatever. 2:25:22 There's no need to clog up the blocks or whatever moving coins from the sidechain back to the main chain or something? 2:25:30 That is one thing that I was saying. 2:25:32 But what I was trying to say is that the Lightning network to Michael B. Casey's point is better if you can close it immediately. 2:25:41 If there is cheap block space that you can execute a Bitcoin transaction and instantly collapse a Lightning channel, if that's always an option, Lightning is far more effective than if not. 2:25:56 That's what we're saying. 2:25:59 It's the Lightning network on the large chain that is probably the best thing of everything. 2:26:06 Yeah, I agree because it's the most – 2:26:09 When you say the large chain, are you talking about bigger block chain? 2:26:13 The large sidechain. 2:26:14 Okay. 2:26:15 Large block sidechain. 2:26:17 That's what he's talking about. 2:26:19 Because they each have their own Lightning network. 2:26:22 Go ahead. 2:26:24 I guess the part I really didn't grasp was the fact that you wouldn't have to move coins from a sidechain back to the main chain or whatever. 2:26:33 You can if you want. 2:26:35 It would still be Bitcoin. 2:26:36 You can do it through the Lightning network if you also want to do that. 2:26:39 But it's so much better to do it through the Lightning network because otherwise it takes a long time. 2:26:46 The Lightning network is instant. 2:26:47 Yeah. 2:26:48 It's wonderful. 2:26:50 In fact, I would imagine that there would be tiny little fees almost. 2:26:53 Yeah. 2:26:54 Because there would be these people who say, okay, we will walk the coins back from the sidechain to the main chain. 2:27:00 Yeah, per fee. 2:27:01 But if you want to take the fast lane, we'll let you do it for a fee of whatever, half a percent or something. 2:27:09 You brought up another cool thing coming down the pipeline or whatever. 2:27:13 You're like, oh, if only we had this, this, this. 2:27:15 You brought up Schnorr signatures or I don't know what you're talking about. 2:27:19 Can you talk about that for a sec or maybe both of y'all know? 2:27:22 The cool thing about Schnorr is very cool for a lot of reasons. 2:27:25 I've heard of it, but I've completely forgotten what it is. 2:27:28 Paul can say it better. 2:27:29 Yeah. 2:27:30 Start from the bottom on that. 2:27:31 The big thing about it is – I don't know how much it would be confusing. 2:27:35 The cool thing is signature aggregation though. 2:27:39 What Schnorr lets people do is if you – so I don't – yeah, because I don't want to make – first of all, I don't want to make any mistakes. 2:27:49 I don't want to make it too weird. 2:27:51 Hit it at a high level then. 2:27:53 What you can do is you can make these transactions smaller by aggregating. 2:27:59 So you have to – transactions are just all the data and then the signatures. 2:28:05 It turns out that signatures are a pretty significant percentage of that data, and that's why the segregated witness moves a lot of data out, 2:28:14 and that's why we can get this thing up from one megabyte theoretically up to four megabytes or 2.2 2:28:19 because the signatures, which is the witness data, those are the same thing. 2:28:25 That is a big chunk of the data. 2:28:28 What Schnorr allows you to do is without any – in many cases, it allows you to just kind of smoosh a bunch of these things together. 2:28:38 So you can sign on behalf of lots of different people, and you can have the one signature be good for all of them. 2:28:45 Or different outputs. 2:28:46 So say you have unspent transaction outputs and somebody sent you like 50 different transactions. 2:28:52 Like right now, you're trying to do one – somebody sent you 50 cents transactions, like tons of them. 2:29:00 Right now, if you wanted to send that to another address with one transaction, that's going to cost you a crap ton in fees. 2:29:07 But with Schnorr, since all of those input signatures are aggregable, you end up with one single signature, 2:29:13 and it's the same size as – well, a little bit bigger, but it's the same size as one single signature for all of the – 2:29:21 How does this fit in with SegWit? 2:29:25 It doesn't. It's a different feature set. 2:29:28 So in other words, these different – so SegWit happens to be a weird thing. 2:29:32 So SegWit enables script versioning, which enables Schnorr. 2:29:37 But SegWit – as I explained before, so SegWit moves the signature away, far away, and it makes the – to old nodes, 2:29:45 it just looks like these are what they – the infamously labeled anyone can spend transactions. 2:29:51 So you have all the transaction data that says like pay from these outputs or something like pay from – 2:29:57 basically pay from Michael Tidwell to Paul Sztorc, 17.8 or something on this date. 2:30:05 So that's all the stuff that's there, but then at the bottom is your signature. 2:30:10 Okay. So in other words – 2:30:12 It's like a little – 2:30:13 So in other words, if you want to do – 2:30:14 It's like a little – It's like a little – If we want to do like on-chain transactions – or I'm sorry, a non-SegWit transaction could possibly use Schnorr signatures? 2:30:23 No, that would be hard for it. 2:30:24 Right now – 2:30:25 No, no. I'm talking about with SegWit. 2:30:28 No, if you don't have SegWit, then Bitcoin is expecting the signature to look a certain way. But if you do have SegWit, then you've kind of almost done kind of an evil fork type thing where you move the signature away and now the door is open to any other weird stuff. 2:30:46 Yeah. 2:30:47 Because it looks like an anyone can spend to the old nodes. 2:30:49 So the old nodes don't bother anymore. 2:30:52 And one of those things is you just change the little version on the transaction to some other new version. And now you say it's totally new rules. It's anyone can spend to the old – to the intermediate nodes. 2:31:01 So you have three phases. Pre-SegWit, those people think everything is anyone can spend. They don't know what's going on. 2:31:07 Second phase, everyone is expecting it to be normal elliptical curve CDSA transactions, but they think the witness will be somewhere else. 2:31:18 And then they think if there's a version flag that's more than one or whatever it is – I don't know the details, but whatever it is, they say that that's anyone can spend. 2:31:29 And then in the third phase, if it's set to some specific thing like two, they say check all the rules for Schnorr. Don't check the CDSA. 2:31:37 CDSA, yes, I said it right. 2:31:40 I screwed up. 2:31:41 Try saying that three times fast. 2:31:43 And then there's one that's really hard. Oh, my god. Libsecp256k1 or something. 2:31:50 God, I hate that one. 2:31:51 It's a very funny kind of tongue tie thing. 2:31:55 I don't even try. 2:31:57 But the point is you have this way of making weirder transactions possible. 2:32:06 And Schnorr is great because of the signature aggregation thing. 2:32:09 So that's smaller and it increases anonymity, privacy greatly because you don't need to interact with these people. 2:32:18 It just smushes them together. 2:32:21 Actually, I think – oh, I can't remember. 2:32:23 I don't want to make a mistake and say that they interact. 2:32:26 There's different types of signature aggregation. 2:32:28 No one's going to make it this far in the podcast. 2:32:30 You're fine. 2:32:31 Interactive and non-interactive. 2:32:33 Yeah, you're probably right. 2:32:34 But the cool thing is what the signature aggregation does do is give a very strong incentive for people to use CoinJoin type stuff. 2:32:43 So we can do CoinJoin now, but there's no reason to, which is kind of a headache. 2:32:47 And it makes you look kind of suspicious because who would be doing such a thing? 2:32:50 But what Schnorr does is give you a great – it gives you the holiest of the holy certainly in the field of applied game theory, which is the pretext, which is the fake reason. 2:33:03 So it's the ultimate weapon. 2:33:05 It lets people say that they're doing this just to save money, but what they're actually doing is making super, super anonymity for everyone. 2:33:12 They all CoinJoin together. 2:33:14 That makes their transactions cheaper because they take up less space. 2:33:21 What you have there is a situation where people would roll over these different lightning channels as CoinJoins, and they would then be cheaper to use, and they would also be super, super private. 2:33:33 So that's a really wonderful thing. 2:33:35 There's a lot of philosophical overlap between Schnorr and Mimblewimble because – I mean even though Mimblewimble takes it a step further. 2:33:43 Mimblewimble is super aggregation. 2:33:46 Mimblewimble is very, very, very non-interactive aggregation. 2:33:52 So that may have been where I got confused. 2:33:55 Mimblewimble, you can just aggregate almost just about everything. 2:33:59 The entire block is basically an aggregate, right? 2:34:02 It's very, very – Andrew Post's presentation has a wonderful image where he cuts out these redundant transactions, and you can just keep doing that all day long so that you have something that you can show as a history. 2:34:20 Basically, the blockchain can shrink under many cases. 2:34:23 Yeah. 2:34:24 It just starts cutting out redundant stuff. 2:34:26 It says I paid 10 to you. 2:34:28 You paid 10 to someone else. 2:34:30 It just cuts out the middle part. 2:34:31 It just says I lost 10. 2:34:33 This other guy ended up with 10. 2:34:35 It just starts aggressively just chopping everything off. 2:34:38 It's really wonderful. 2:34:39 Paul, if they do fork and they end up using UASF because they don't want their chain to be completely destroyed by a big mining pool like Bitmain or something, would you use that Bitcoin? 2:34:54 Even if it's called Wimblecoin, is that going to be the new de facto coin? 2:34:59 Are you going to be excited about that? 2:35:01 What they would do is they would make sure that everyone owned – 2:35:03 Yeah, they would use the same UTXO set, right? 2:35:06 Yes. 2:35:07 I would assume that they would do that. 2:35:09 So would you be excited about that? 2:35:11 I would say not for a while. 2:35:13 I really wouldn't. 2:35:14 I would just – 2:35:15 What would you want more, a SegWit2x with two megabyte blocks with no Drivechains or this Mimblewimblecoin potentially? 2:35:23 I really – honestly, to be totally honest with you, I'm talking about my own book here, but I really think whoever gets sidechains first could seriously win. 2:35:32 So I really think that – 2:35:33 It always comes back to sidechains. 2:35:36 So Paul, could you do sidechains on Mimblewimble? 2:35:39 I know they have – because of the aggregation, it's very – I don't know if they could script on it. 2:35:44 I mean could you even – 2:35:45 The thing is it's very, very, very specialized, but Andrew Polstra presented it at Stanford. 2:35:50 Oh, so he figured out how to do it. 2:35:51 Scriptless. 2:35:53 Yeah, his thing is really weird, and what it basically does – oh, wow. 2:35:57 This is really hard to explain, and I don't want to explain it wrong. 2:36:01 He does things that have nothing to do with encryption, but such that they would add up to something that is also an encryption key. 2:36:12 Yeah, I will have to look at that. 2:36:14 I will have to look at that talk. 2:36:16 Probably only he really understands this. 2:36:17 Is it posted online? 2:36:18 The point is he figured out some clever way of – it's kind of like – 2:36:24 We'll put it in the show notes if there's a video. 2:36:27 But he figured out some way of doing some scripting in MimbleWimble. 2:36:31 But the weird thing is sidechains, none of that stuff is actually scripting really. 2:36:36 It is just checking new rules. 2:36:40 It's like all very custom. 2:36:43 It's very, very custom. 2:36:45 So it's not like a new opcode even though it is kind of, but you have to track all these other different things. 2:36:51 And you could – excuse me. 2:36:55 You could – I don't know. 2:36:58 It would be a lot of work, especially if that thing is written in Rust and it's like a totally different – 2:37:02 Yeah, it's probably realistic to say, yeah, it's feasible. 2:37:06 It's possible, but implementation is going to take a while. 2:37:12 Yeah. 2:37:13 So Paul – 2:37:14 I don't know. 2:37:15 I mean it's just so new. 2:37:16 I would not want to use it because it's new. 2:37:17 I don't like things that are new. 2:37:18 The soft fork is wonderful because it's like evolution. 2:37:21 It accumulates experience. 2:37:25 It's like Nassim Taleb's Lindy effect. 2:37:28 So you don't think it ever – 2:37:29 It's been around for a while. 2:37:30 I'll still be here. 2:37:31 You don't think it ever accumulates like how we were talking about earlier, like accumulates like tanglement and crud and stuff? 2:37:39 No. 2:37:40 I completely disagree. 2:37:41 I know a lot of people have that view, the technical debt view. 2:37:45 I don't. 2:37:46 I think it's different with the protocol. 2:37:47 It's like English. 2:37:48 It's like English accumulates these oddities, but English has also infected the entire world. 2:37:55 And now people have to learn to speak it in India and in Germany and everywhere. 2:38:00 And it's just like – 2:38:03 What's your view? 2:38:04 I don't think – 2:38:05 So would you say – 2:38:06 I think it's better. 2:38:07 I mean we have these things in our body. 2:38:10 We have like in our – 2:38:11 The human cell has like the code to build like the dog's nose, but it's been like commented out. 2:38:18 There's these things that comment out code. 2:38:20 And you could say like that's inelegant or you could say – 2:38:25 I mean if you think it's all inelegant, like go in and edit your own DNA and then good luck surviving because you have a 100 percent chance of getting cancer and dying immediately because it's too complicated. 2:38:38 So when the complexity is the thing and there's huge amounts of risk, I prefer to accumulate this because my option is just to not upgrade and wait and see if anything bad happens with the new code. 2:38:50 But it does create this annoying thing. 2:38:52 It's not centralization, but it is kind of a concentration of expertise, which is what we have now. 2:38:57 And that is unfortunate. 2:38:59 That's an interesting point. 2:39:00 Because it creates these barriers to entry. 2:39:02 These barriers to entry that other people can't work on the code. 2:39:04 There's no possible way you could catch up if you just started now. 2:39:07 That's an interesting point. 2:39:08 It would already be so different by the time you caught up, and it would take forever, and it would not be worth it. 2:39:13 So we have a concentration of technical power, which is inconvenient. 2:39:18 It's incumbents in that manner. 2:39:20 So what do you think about Monero hard-forking every six months and how they're just – that's what they've chosen? 2:39:26 Is that just because, oh, well, that's Monero. Don't worry about them? 2:39:29 Or do you think that's a viable model? 2:39:33 No, that is evidence that it is not as bad as I say and that it's not really as complicated as the DNA of a mammal or something, which is fine. 2:39:48 Or it may be evidence of their inability to do something. 2:39:55 Their fluffiness. 2:39:57 I don't know. 2:39:59 It's weird, actually. 2:40:01 It's funny you bring that up. 2:40:02 Sidechains can kind of do this discarding every six to 12 months because of what I mentioned earlier about the accounting. 2:40:11 So you can do a much better kind of pruning. 2:40:13 I think that's kind of a facet of it. 2:40:17 But, yeah, in general, I don't like – I mean say you do a hard-fork every six months. 2:40:21 How long can that last if you really want your thing to be the cryptocurrency of the internet? 2:40:28 Then you will only be a matter of time before people start knocking on your door. 2:40:33 And again, it's whatever flavor of violence you prefer. 2:40:37 It's either the mafia or the government or whatever it is. 2:40:40 People will show up and they'll be like, you're hard-forking at six months. 2:40:46 Can you do this weird thing for me? 2:40:49 Or maybe they'll just be buying you dinner or whatever, and they'll be getting to know your kids. 2:40:53 That's what I think is going to end up happening with those. 2:40:56 If we do have scheduled hard-forks, I think they'll become like must-pass omnibus bills that things are going to make their way into because we have to do it now. 2:41:05 And it's there, and it's either we'll take it or leave it. 2:41:08 We already have the Segment 2X. 2:41:11 It's kind of like vaguely by committee kind of like whatever compromise thing. 2:41:18 Governance is complicated. 2:41:20 So if you want that, then it has pros and cons. 2:41:23 But I just think the base layer in particular should be stable. 2:41:31 It should emphasize stability. 2:41:33 The thing I like about you, Paul, is you might be one of the only people that are like, yeah, let's stay small blocks, but here's my solution, which I like. 2:41:40 I like that a lot about you. 2:41:42 I really don't understand why more people don't try to help make Drivechain happen as soon as possible. 2:41:46 We're trying. 2:41:47 I really feel like it's just this one thing. 2:41:49 Block time is pro-Drivechain. 2:41:51 Yeah, totally. 2:41:52 Block time is pro-Drivechain. 2:41:54 Everyone will stop being mean to each other, and they'll all be happy. 2:41:59 And then even it's super anti-competitive in a good way. 2:42:03 So you think literally where Bitcoin is going to be all kumbaya? 2:42:06 It threatens all these other things, right? 2:42:08 I mean, how does it not just pull a gun right at you? 2:42:11 We'll all hold hands. 2:42:12 That'll be awesome. 2:42:13 We'll all hold hands through the Drivechain. 2:42:15 Through the Drivechain. 2:42:16 We'll all hold hands. 2:42:17 I mean, that's kind of how they work. 2:42:18 They work kind of like on – 2:42:20 And what I also don't understand about it is that I have support from lots of people that maybe I should try to – I don't know how much they would like it publicized. 2:42:30 But I have contacted – obviously, it's supported directly by Jeff Garzik, and I have support from – I have support from Maude Revere and Jihan Wu and Adam Back and Luke Jr. 2:42:42 So I just – I don't understand like where – 2:42:44 You need a Paul Sports agreement. 2:42:47 Yeah. 2:42:49 A Paul Sports agreement. 2:42:50 You need everyone to sign in. 2:42:51 A Paul Sports agreement, a Paul Sports ICO. 2:42:53 Can I make the New Haven, Connecticut agreement? 2:42:57 New Haven, Connecticut agreement and a Drivechain ICO. 2:43:01 That's what you – 2:43:03 I need the ICO. 2:43:04 That was my mistake. 2:43:05 Yeah, you didn't do an ICO. 2:43:06 I didn't do an ICO. 2:43:07 Hey, Paul, we're going to wrap this up in a little bit. 2:43:09 I guess I did. 2:43:10 We definitely should. 2:43:11 But real quick. 2:43:12 Longest episode ever. 2:43:13 Yeah. 2:43:14 Is Greg Maxwell Ignotus Pervella or whatever? 2:43:19 How do you say his name? 2:43:21 Ignotius. 2:43:23 Ignotius Perverella. 2:43:25 Oh, my god. 2:43:26 Perverella? 2:43:27 Perverell or something? 2:43:29 Perverell. 2:43:30 Is that Greg Maxwell? 2:43:32 We owe it to the guy to look up how his name is pronounced. 2:43:35 Is he one of the three brothers? 2:43:37 Yeah, I think so. 2:43:40 Ignotius Perrevella, I think. 2:43:42 You know, that would be an interesting question. 2:43:47 It depends. 2:43:48 I would really like to check his productivity on various things at various times. 2:43:53 You can check his commits on different projects. 2:43:59 I know. 2:44:00 That's what I'd like to do before I answer the question. 2:44:02 But let's just see off the top of my head. 2:44:04 I'm going to say, per the base rate fallacy, 2:44:07 I'm going to say that probably no, because there are so many people that could be Andrew Paulson. 2:44:12 I like how you reasoned that live. 2:44:14 So, I appreciate that. 2:44:16 Paul, now that you're in Atlanta, I guess we'll be seeing you next week. 2:44:20 Same chair over here next to us. 2:44:22 Definitely. 2:44:23 Paul, thanks so much for coming. 2:44:25 Yeah, so, Mike, I think the knots has been found. 2:44:27 Yeah, and our blocks have Drivechains now. 2:44:30 Awesome. 2:44:31 Paul, you want to finish this up? 2:44:33 What a show. 2:44:35 What a show this is. 2:44:37 Thanks for propagating, everybody. 2:44:39 Have a good one. 2:44:40 Oh, my God.