0:05 From LayerTwo Labs, etc, etc 0:09 Today we're going to talk about 0:12 Citria 0:13 you know, we always try to 0:16 We don't like controversy over here and we try always to 0:21 just 0:22 Be super nice to everyone. And so, you know when this when this controversy appeared we decided that the only rational thing to do was 0:30 Thunderdome the situation, you know to combatants enter 0:35 One leaves only one leaves alive 0:40 Gen z if you're wondering what is thunderdome then 0:44 Ask your great-grandparents 0:46 What a movie is a movie is when someone has an idea 0:51 And they want to translate that idea into something that everyone would watch in the same big room together at the mall 1:01 Anyway now 1:02 We've killed enough time in Super Testnet this year 1:06 So, you know how it is 1:08 Everyone we all know the game those of us who have been in this industry for a while a new buzzword will come out 1:16 Bitvm in this case 1:19 And then, you know, there's all kinds of 1:23 forces that are at work about like 1:26 How will this be commercialized? Will it be commercialized at all? A lot of people will 1:30 Go too far or they'll have advisors or a marketing department tell them do such-and-such and then there'll be a lot of you know 1:39 Optimistic people let's call it. So basically 1:43 Super Testnet is an engineer who has actually worked on bitvm and 1:49 Orkin is someone who has 1:52 gotten something to work on bitvm also and 1:55 They had like a press announcement this 1:58 Week and so now here they are. I don't know. I didn't really have a lot of thoughts about 2:04 Sounds good Paul. Thank you. Thank you for the introduction 2:07 Hi Orkin. How are you doing today? 2:10 Hi, I'm good. How are you? 2:13 I'm doing very well, and I would like to apologize for calling your company a scam you win the debate 2:20 Congratulations 2:22 And I'm just here to like talk about the technology and like you can claim anything you want and in this space 2:29 I want to just give our answers and resolve this conversation as friendly as possible 2:34 Because I'm also an engineer developer working on 2:38 Such different things like ZK and bitvm as much as possible. And I think this will be a technical talk and 2:46 Everyone will enjoy including us 2:49 Great. Why don't you tell us about what you guys have made? 2:53 Maybe quickly I can introduce myself because I know that most people know about your background or polls, but 2:59 Maybe I can talk about myself a little bit 3:03 So basically, I'm Orkin 3:05 I'm in Istanbul Turkey. I based in here an emerging country and ChainWay Labs 3:11 Our company we founded one and a half year ago. We are a bunch of engineers coming from Turkey 3:17 For the last one and a half year we built several different products one on privacy one on Bitcoin wallets and 3:25 For the last one year we were working on a ZK roll-up solution on Bitcoin 3:30 Which evolved a lot during the process with the like invention of bitvm by Robin, which I will talk in more detail 3:37 But this is basically the background of me and my team 3:40 My 3:48 Initial skepticism towards your company 3:50 What was based on the fact that your announcement said that you or it's indicated to me seemed to me to say you already have 3:57 a working layer 2 that resolves settles on Bitcoin and 4:02 I don't think you actually do have a late working layer 2 that already settles on Bitcoin. Can you clarify that? 4:10 Sure, I can talk about what we are working for the last one year and what this 4:16 announcement also indicates 4:18 I think I can pin to it into this I think 4:23 Space, but I need to figure out how during that time I can talk 4:28 So basically last year we built a Bitcoin wallet, which also support ordinal 4:32 It was an extension wallet and during that time we realized that okay 4:36 We know ZK well, and we learned Bitcoin scripts as much as possible. We learned taproot 4:41 So what if we can like build some kind of client-side validated protocol using ZKP to enable? 4:48 different financial things 4:50 That can have Bitcoin secured, right? 4:54 Basically like an RGB like other protocols, but we wanted to use ZK to have as much as capability as possible 5:00 So initially we started 5:03 With a like redacted paper 5:05 in 5:06 August I also trying to find the tweet of that. So initially our idea was build a CSV solution 5:13 It was like in technically it was sovereign ZK rollup 5:17 Which which is a rollup that use Bitcoin as a data availability layer. I just shared 5:24 the announcement there 5:26 So it was basically a protocol that we 5:30 started to build 5:32 During that time we were 5:34 Integrating the RPC endpoints building the storage module and in like quick time. I can say three or four months. We 5:41 built some CSV protocols running on Bitcoin and 5:44 I'm also 5:46 Pinning that thing that is on September 29th. If I'm not mistaken. Yeah 5:53 Here it is. Please. Do you mind if I just 5:56 So like are we the sovereign rollup thing 5:59 I really do not like this term because in practice what it means is that something else that's not been something like a theorem 6:07 That's not Bitcoin at all. Just uses the Bitcoin is like a kind of a parking lot for unrelated 6:13 Ethereum data and then this is called like a Bitcoin project when that's basically not true 6:21 But I don't know if they're you you said sovereign Rob and then you switched 6:25 I don't know if we're still talking about sovereign rollup or not 6:28 and I bet that probably a lot of people listening don't know either if 6:32 the project you've most recently mentioned is 6:35 something that is 6:37 See because we all are very familiar with what the Bitcoin technology like with the Bitcoin scripting language can and can't do 6:44 And the certain things that it can do and there's no reason to make an announcement 6:48 About those because they already exist and 6:52 Some of those the things that it can't do and then there's no reason to make an announcement about that either 6:56 I don't know. Can you do you understand what I'm 6:59 Trying to say. Yeah. Yeah, I was just going through that the sovereign thing was a previous construction that we have 7:05 it wasn't client-side validated protocol, but after this announcement a week after that Robin basically invented PTFE and 7:13 The first thing that people say as you know, like can this enable two-way pegs? 7:17 Also, it's Burnett's question was that in the between builders group? For example, he was much more skeptical than anything anyone else 7:24 But he started building template circuits since day zero and he was the first builders that actually did that between implementation 7:32 Right during those times we started 7:35 Researching about between and we just went to the for example Bitcoin Amsterdam 7:39 Also, I think we met there with you Paul 7:41 I can't exactly remember but we just went there to like meet with Robin and Lucas to learn more about PTFE 7:47 How this can enable two-way peg how we can verify ZKP's here 7:53 So after that point basically we 7:55 Immediately converted from client-side validated protocol to actual roll-up and since that date we are working on it 8:02 and as you can see on the peanut to it, there is a 8:06 Functionality that we are sending transaction through an EVM wallet and the data that transaction needs is inscribed in Bitcoin 8:13 Basically with the proof on it and we are reading from a Bitcoin and you can see the exploring that also and recently 8:21 Verified a ZK proof in between our growth 16 proof. It is also the first pin it to eat of super test nuts 8:28 a 8:29 Week ago. We verified growth 16 with 20 billion cycles in between and yesterday 8:34 We managed to make it 4 billion with adding two new instructions, which is our left shift 8-bit left shift and 8-bit right shift 8:41 and 8:43 Like this point we already have proof on Bitcoin living in Bitcoin five or six months ago 8:49 All right. Now we verified the proof in between 8:53 So basically, this is the whole concept of ZK roll-up that needs to have a ZK roll-up 8:58 And we basically done it and this in basic announcement says, okay, we managed to do it and we are committed to doing it 9:06 These are the things that we need to get solved with sidechains 9:09 Also, this includes the right chains how we can solve these problems and what is our approach? This is the basically 9:15 the summary of the post that we shared 9:17 You 9:25 Okay, great 9:26 so 9:28 If I could summarize I think I think I can I'm starting to see where you're coming from here 9:35 so the my 9:38 Objection to your initial announcement was that you say you already have an execution layer and 9:43 I think you're you can defend perhaps you're trying to defend that remark by saying that you do have an 9:51 execution layer first you put the data on Bitcoin then you validate the data using the grout 16 function and 9:59 That's that's it. And it then it's it's 10:07 Nope 10:13 Okay, wait you guys got cut off there for me and you became connecting and now you're both speaker muted 10:22 Now you seem to be back 10:28 Hmm I don't hear anyone now. I don't know why this software is so buggy given that you know, it's very popular 10:36 Maybe it's just me. I don't know. Can anyone else hear anyone? 10:43 Hmm 10:47 Seems we lost Super Testnet at least I just disconnected. I don't know why 10:53 Can you hear me you yeah, I can hear you now 10:56 yeah, you both of you and he went for in a couple plenty of other people in the audience just 11:01 switched to connecting I saw and 11:05 And hopefully they'll be back 11:07 the 11:09 I don't know why you know, I would think 11:12 I'm sure Ilan is on it 11:14 But this is honestly like I do a lot of I know an awful lot of important people are hanging out on spaces 11:19 Including presidential candidates and whatnot. I don't know why they don't 11:23 Put a little bit more 11:26 Okay. Yes, you're back great 11:28 The last thing I heard you say was something about trying to defend that statement and then something else 11:34 What you said and to try and frame it as a as a perhaps answer to my to my initial question 11:41 So what I'm trying to get at is is did you are it does the code work? 11:46 Did you already have a execution layer that settles on Bitcoin? 11:50 And I think you're you could summarize or I'm going to summarize that what I think might be an answer to that 11:55 already have an execution layer that settles on Bitcoin? 11:58 And I think you're, you could summarize, or I'm going to summarize what I think might 12:02 be an answer to that. 12:04 I'm asking for your clarification on it. 12:06 Sounds like you're saying, 12:07 Yes, we do 12:08 We do have an execution layer that settles on Bitcoin because we we've already shown that you can put the data on Bitcoin 12:13 We showed that in September 12:15 And uh now we're showing that Bitcoin can that using BitVM we can actually validate the proof 12:21 Uh, and once you've had the data on chain and it's validated that's that's executed that you're done 12:27 Uh, so is that is that a fair summary of uh of what you're what you're trying to demonstrate here? 12:33 I mean, yeah, that is actually core of my point 12:35 We obviously have some missing points. For example, we need to combine these two in the code actually and not separated process 12:42 But overall, yeah, we have an execution that is ZK proven and we have a verifier on Bitcoin in BitVM that verifies this ZK proof 12:54 Okay, well that's 12:56 That's fair enough for me then I retract my entire criticism and I publicly apologize 13:01 Uh, you guys do you guys satisfied me you do you do have what you claim you have and it was not a lie 13:06 Good job 13:09 And also I maybe 13:11 Sorry, Paul continue 13:13 I was just thinking that maybe you should explain more in detail the difference between 13:17 what 13:18 you thought they had and what they 13:22 Do have 13:26 Um, yeah, so I I thought they had a um 13:31 a blockchain that uh, 13:33 BitVM that BitVM validates the transactions on it and uh, 13:38 and then 13:39 Uh, I'm, sorry. I I shouldn't say I thought they had that I thought they claimed to have that 13:44 And uh, is it like a separate blockchain from Bitcoin? 13:47 That uh, you put transactions on there and then BitVM validates them and that's not what they're claiming 13:52 they're actually using Bitcoin itself as the um, 13:55 As the data available what they call a data availability layer. They're just putting all the transactions on Bitcoin 14:01 uh, so 14:02 Since that's their claim, uh that fits with what they said in their paper 14:05 I and I misunderstood it and I should have read more carefully before making wild accusations about people lying 14:12 uh, so I apologize 14:15 Well, maybe but I think the 14:19 It's very hard to 14:21 like what is the audience here when 14:24 Like I I don't know exactly what what it's like for 14:28 a normal person to hear something like 14:31 The first zk roll-up that settles on Bitcoin 14:35 um 14:37 When you think of a roll-up you would think that the the underlying data 14:41 Is not on the Bitcoin L1 because sort of the whole point of the roll-up is not to do that 14:49 So i'm not saying that anything is misleading or whatever i'm just saying it's kind of very confusing 14:55 No, no, I can maybe I can clarify some point that you have some a little mistake there 15:02 Uh, so basically in roll-ups, there are two different approaches to put the data on Bitcoin blockchain 15:07 uh, I call the roll-ups execution shards, uh because of 15:12 they basically offload the execution but 15:16 Uh, not offload the data and settlements because that makes an L2 secure basically 15:23 a global L2 universal L2 secure 15:25 In in our 15:27 Current architecture. We are creating a zk proof from bunch of transactions 15:32 And the zk proofs output what we call state gifts 15:36 Which is basically the difference between the previous storage slots and the latest storage slots 15:42 So we are compressing thousands of transactions. Let's say there's an mm on citraya and you made 100 transaction 15:49 There is only one data one story slot that changes 15:53 Uh, so this is only basically, uh, we scaled let's say thousand x because of that 15:58 We are putting data thousand less times more than we actually must 16:03 Put the bitcoin. This is where execution shards roll-ups can be helpful 16:08 This is something I needed to clarify 16:11 And this proof is getting verified with bitvm 16:13 Also, it is inscribed in bitcoin so that if you are running a node you can just you don't need any other network connection 16:19 You can just look at the bitcoin blockchain get the proof and validate it written as some mathematical function which we call verifier 16:32 Yeah, I I have criticisms of this approach on the grounds that 16:36 using bitcoin as a as a data dump for this type of uh stuff is inefficient and 16:42 and etc, but that's separate that just uh, 16:46 It's not a scam to say you're doing x and if you're actually doing x, uh, 16:50 And you are you know, you're doing what you say you are. So, uh, even though I don't like it, uh, it's not a scam 16:56 so, um 16:58 Thank you for the apologize. Also, this is pretty like it is extremely kind to hear that 17:04 I also feel your concerns like there are lots of people coming claiming they have 17:08 Altus they have roll-ups they have blah blah and most of them are like trying to sell scam coins to people 17:14 I can understand that 17:16 and 17:18 Being skeptical is not a problem 17:20 Like I like I accept we have a bunch of young developers in turkey and calling scammers is not something we desire 17:27 uh, but thank you for the kind words and uh 17:29 We will clarify all of these by open sourcing all the code i'm going to test that fully public 17:34 And we hope that you may someday work on it. Also 17:38 Do you think um, there's uh 17:41 Will you consider um putting the data somewhere else other than bitcoin 17:46 Yeah, we can put but uh in in that case imagine this way there's some proof generated and put it into bitcoin so you have 17:53 Enabled with troubles, but if you cannot find that data, then you cannot provide them 18:01 This is a problem of obtain data we can put the data off chain if you want less security than bitcoin 18:06 but by putting data on chain we 18:08 We know that if you have a bitcoin node running which is the most censorship resistant node 18:12 Then you can withdraw from the chain 18:14 But if you put the data somewhere off chain 18:16 Then this means that you need to be able to find that data and they the node operators must share with you 18:21 Basically, this is some security thing that we need to consider which exists with all the sidechains 18:28 We are thinking about some mixed options called volitions passing the data both off chain on chain and leaving this option to users 18:34 This is what we are exploring today and hopefully in the mainnet this will be available 18:41 It seems like for the first something like seven years of bitcoins history 18:47 when people launched a 18:49 new 18:51 Blockchain a new a new token it came with its own blockchain 18:55 and if you wanted to be a part of that network you were you ran the node you you ran, you know 18:59 the Namecoin node or you ran the 19:01 Ethereum node or whatever and then you were part of that other network and 19:06 Since the launch of ERC 20 tokens, it's become common for people to not create a new blockchain 19:12 But rather just use another blockchain is kind of a host for your data 19:17 For your for your token, and I don't really like that model because it gives rise to something called the data availability problem 19:24 Which is like what if you want to launch token, but you know, nobody's going to run your blockchain software 19:29 no one's going to run a node and where do you put the data and 19:32 I think it's just it's kind of a symbol of laziness 19:37 if no one's interested enough to run your network nodes, then your project is probably garbage and 19:42 It's it's silly to try to just dump that data somewhere else where you're like, oh, well Bitcoiners are running the nodes 19:48 Or Bitcoiners are running nodes. We'll just dump the data there 19:52 That seems like a bad idea bad precedent to me 19:55 Anyway, Eric, I noticed we have Eric wall here and he had his hand up 19:59 So Eric if you wanted to say something 20:03 Welcome 20:04 Yeah 20:06 Honestly Paul I came up because I saw that you were having technical issues and didn't know if people could hear you speak 20:11 so I wanted to help you with that, but the 20:14 other thing I wanted to say was you said that 20:18 you were talking about like the definition of a roll-up and whether that it sounds strange that 20:24 You have a roll-up, but you put all the data on the chain anyway, like isn't that a contradiction? 20:28 Aren't you supposed to roll something up? 20:30 So maybe it'd be helpful just to give the like accurate description of what a roll-up is 20:37 So that everyone is on the same page 20:40 so I was 20:42 so you a roll-up per definition is a system that dumps all data that is required to 20:52 Construct the state of the roll-up it dumps that data on the layer one 20:57 but then you run external software that looks at that executes it and 21:04 Creates the layer two state. So the definition of a roll-up is data on chain 21:10 Execution of chain. So the thing that is getting rolled up is like the execution 21:15 The terminology here has always been slightly confusing. So it's 21:19 Nothing weird if you're a little bit confused about these terms 21:23 but in order to be a real roll-up, you have to put all the data that is necessary to 21:29 recreate the state from 21:31 Genesis the L2 state from Genesis by just looking at the L2 data and there are two ways that people do that either they put 21:38 Like all the transaction data on the L1 21:42 If you're using an account model, this can 21:45 This can be pretty small you can get something like a transaction can be as small as 13 bytes large 21:53 that's all the data that you have to put to transfer the value of a 21:58 Token from one account to another account and then the signatures are all rolled up into like a ZK proof for example 22:04 But then you have all the data all the inputs that goes into your L2 state 22:09 So I do have a question though because that that definition seems very broad 22:14 I mean, it seems like it would include both the lightning network and drivechains also, so I mean, I guess I would ask what? 22:21 What is there a layer to that is not a roll-up? 22:24 Well, the lightning wouldn't really apply like light lightning doesn't have a global state. There's no global state of 22:31 Well, that's true 22:34 But each channel, of course each channel has its own state 22:39 then only the two people see 22:42 Drivechains don't apply here because you cannot look at just a Bitcoin chain and from that know exactly who owns which coins on 22:49 The drivechain chain like that's the whole purpose of a drive 22:51 Well, you can if you have the extra if you you do know the deposits and withdrawals only by looking at L1 22:59 I've been asked to make sure that Paul doesn't let this conversation become a drivechain topic. So yeah 23:06 Okay, yeah, yeah, but I'm not asking about that specifically I'm just saying about his roll-up definition I think it includes the other thing 23:13 The other thing that I was gonna say I disagree with that. But the other the other thing that I was gonna say 23:19 Is 23:20 that the the the the reason that there's a confusion like in these groups about the terminology here is that 23:28 There's this term called a sovereign ZK roll-up that I was partly, you know 23:35 Involved in like coming up with this strange term, but what it basically means is that 23:42 You take a layer one system like Bitcoin and if you find a way to inscribe arbitrary data into it 23:47 What you put there like what you put there? 23:51 Can be called a sovereign roll-up if you have another external node that looks at that and interprets it differently 23:57 So basically ordinals by this definition would be a sovereign roll-up. I know it sounds funny 24:03 But that's how the terminology works 24:06 BRC 20 tokens. There's also a kind of sovereign roll-up if you also put a ZK proof verifying 24:14 Like compressing the signatures, basically 24:18 You know serial knowledge proving the execution then now we have a sovereign ZK roll-up and you can build that on Bitcoin today 24:25 That is what you don't get from that from that kind of thing is that you don't get a peg 24:30 Two-way peg between Bitcoin layer one and the layer two, so 24:35 That's that's a sovereign system, but it's isolated from the Bitcoin asset itself 24:39 It inherits the properties of the Bitcoin layer one in terms of like real resistance and data availability 24:45 so all the tokens that are like natively minted in that environment are 24:50 Like very secure, but they don't they cannot interact with the Bitcoin asset unless you peg it in through a federated 24:56 Thing like a federated multi-sig so that's a sovereign ZK roll-up 25:00 so now imagine that you're building a sovereign ZK roll-up and then BitVM comes along and 25:05 It has this way of like optimistically 25:10 Like building a type of optimistically verified 25:14 bridge with a 25:15 Not the honest majority assumption, but an assumption that at least one of the parties are honest 25:21 Then what is the thing that you built now you have a sovereign ZK roll-up and now you have an optimistic bridge 25:26 for the Bitcoin assets now if you are now 25:31 focused on the Bitcoin asset itself, you don't actually have a 25:36 roll-up in the true sense of the word word because if you have a roll-up a layer to 25:41 Roll up, then the definition is that you as a user 25:46 normal person interacting with the system you have the 25:51 Unilateral access and right to deposit and withdraw your assets to the system 25:57 Like that's how that's how a roll-up a real roll-up should work. Yeah 26:01 most roll-ups in Ethereum don't even work 26:03 I mean, but isn't it don't even work. I mean, but I'm okay. Yes 26:08 To get to my point BitVM 26:11 currently does not fit into that definition of a classical roll-up because there's a 26:17 Limited number of actors that are allowed to 26:22 You know 26:24 This do the dispute resolution 26:26 Validate the CK proofs and be in control of the peg basically 26:30 So it's like an it's it's a and one out of n honesty honest assumption in this peg 26:37 That is not actually how a roll-up is designed 26:42 So this these a bit VM roll-ups are not like actually roll-ups or layer twos by the strictest definition of the word 26:49 But they do give you so this is why there's some confusion 26:51 You can start out as a completely legitimate 26:54 Sovereign ZK roll-up then you add this bit VM bridge and now maybe it feels strange for you as companies to be like 27:01 Yeah, we're not a ZK roll-up anymore. We're a we're something else because you're focusing on two different 27:07 Parts of what your system is like actually doing are you focused on the sovereign part? 27:12 Well, then you are ZK roll-up, but if you're focused on the Bitcoin asset and the Bitcoin bridge 27:17 Well, you're not actually a role if you have some new flavor of pegging mechanism that we don't quite have a word for yet 27:23 We make all these things bit VM roll-ups, even though that's confusing term also a bit VM bridge 27:30 so that's basically how we got into this confusing terminology and 27:33 Yeah, I just want to set that record straight working if you think that I said anything that was incorrect, please 27:40 Correct me, but I think that's sort of captures the gist of it 27:43 Yeah, I have like several miner things, but it is too technical about roll-ups details 27:48 So I don't want to bring that into this conversation, but you are over a lot, right? 27:52 but I wanted something to pause previous points like if it's the right chance at all up then basically because 27:59 So what the whole point of roll-up is like Eric said is the exact chart the execution offload the execution 28:05 But the execution gets verified in Bitcoin afterwards 28:10 Like this is unlike drivechains today. Let's imagine we have a ZKP verification on the base 28:15 There is a single opcode that can verify some ZK proof 28:19 And this means that the verified thing is the whole L2. It is not only deposits not only with troubles 28:26 Not only like part of thing you are verifying every single 28:31 Transaction with a single ZK proof, but what happens in the rough changes basically you trust miners to look back to dial to 28:40 Verify something is going correctly and get back to maintain and vote for it 28:44 This is inherently different trust assumption between roll-ups and drivechains 28:50 Well, yeah the I think you would agree that the the deposits and the withdrawals are both 28:54 Verified on L1 in the case of the drivechain and it's like people say trust the miner 29:01 Yes. Yeah the withdrawals and the deposits are not everything in between but this is a common thing. This is how do we cut? 29:08 The question is how do we have something with the question for sidechains in my opinion is like how do we have something? 29:14 That is a lot like a lot like a blockchain where it has a global state because everyone has many desirable properties 29:20 People like a lot of what the block I mean, it's so she the blockchain is the is the invention and this all this new stuff 29:28 Including the lightning network is like kind of not even panning out. So 29:32 Yeah, but I think the idea is how can we have something like that where we only have some people validate some parts 29:38 So the hope the whole the whole purpose of it is to intentionally 29:42 Ditch some of the make some people only validate some parts of it. That's the entire 29:47 Goal and then people always say about, you know, trusting the miners. It's like, you know, it's like people saying Microsoft Windows will only work 29:56 It will only work until Bill Gates crashes his private jet into the Microsoft headquarters 30:02 And it's kind of like, you know 30:04 I guess it's not gonna happen because it's a cost the miners basically nothing and they collect transaction fees if the miners want 30:09 Although fact that the miners want the fees is the reason that it will work 30:13 And it's also the reason why it will be incentive compatible for like a hundred years and the these other things will not I think because they will pay the fees to someone else and yet it's all 30:24 Built on the what the miners will include in L1. So so that's just like my 30:30 These are the same questions that I always get, you know that I've gotten for eight years and you know people still don't 30:36 They don't agree with me by now, then they're not going to but 30:39 I haven't heard anything new in eight years ever since 30:43 Publishing drivechain in November 2015 people always say well, what about what if the miner suddenly decide they don't want money 30:51 And you're like, okay 30:52 I guess it won't happen 30:54 There are several other things in enroll ups you pay all the fees to the L1 miners. You are not paying fees to any of our anywhere 31:01 Yeah, that's good 31:03 So you have a situation where the intermediate state transitions on the L2 are also 31:14 Those are summed up into a big L1 fee 31:18 I guess yeah, that's correct. That's the desirable situation. Yeah, that's that that is going to be necessary. I think 31:24 But our 31:26 You know, I think may of 2016 I made a presentation about why it's very good for miners to be able to kill off 31:33 Sidechains that they don't like because the side different sidechains can interfere with each other which this would later be known as 31:39 cross-chain mev 31:42 to able to kill off sidechains that they don't like because different sidechains can 31:47 interfere with each other, which this would later be known as cross -chain MEV. 31:54 So this is a problem that I invented and solved long before anyone else heard of 31:58 Oh, no, we got people connecting again 32:01 Oh, this software is so weird 32:04 I think everyone's back though. Can everyone people are people still can people still hear? 32:09 Let's see if it um 32:11 Okay, good. Satoshi. Enjoy says yes. I can we had a lot of 32:15 Okay, good 32:16 I just saw like five people go connecting or whatever on my little screen 32:20 I don't know why this software is so weird 32:23 hopefully 32:24 they can uh, let me see if we um 32:28 Orkin, can you hear did you hear everything? Are you work? Yes. It connected for a while. My software was working correctly 32:35 Okay, good 32:37 uh, so yeah, I think the whole thing is like kind of like 32:40 uh, it's the the invention of trustlessness on on L2 is really like to me it is like saying 32:48 Because 32:49 the 32:50 The way BIP300 works is a case 32:53 It takes a hash of all the state transitions over the three months 32:56 And so you have to that is the thing that has to be wrong 32:59 in order for 33:00 Anything to go wrong at all 33:02 so to me it really is like will microsoft crash the private chat into the and then when people 33:07 Protest or they say we want to change it like this. We want to change it like that. I just decide 33:12 Well, they don't understand how it works and it's a waste of my time to explain to them 33:15 no offense to you know, but I just it's my personal decision that i've made after years of just thinking like 33:21 no, no, I definitely understand like your logic behind the game theory between uh, 33:26 Drivechain miners like merge miners and the actual miners also, but I basically don't agree with most of them 33:31 But this is not important and I think in a separate space we can talk about drivechains and rollups and uh, 33:37 so on in more detail 33:39 It's too bad that we lost eric. Hopefully he comes back 33:42 Oh wait, it looks like he's back on my screen 33:45 uh, he's a listener now, I see hopefully he can come back up because honestly I asked him about 33:51 his roll-up definition 33:53 and 33:54 He gave a very informative answer 33:57 Which is great 33:59 But unfortunately, I really think that most people listening in the audience will just conclude that there is no 34:04 That the roll-up word is a useless word 34:07 Because it can mean all sorts of different things of different shapes and sizes and so that they should just 34:12 Abandon the word and just kind of ignore it 34:15 I hope that's not too harsh to say but I just think an average person is going to be thinking 34:21 What does roll up mean? It means ordinals. It means 34:24 It might mean the lightning network. Eric says no 34:28 I wasn't totally convinced 34:30 I think this all will be cleared cleared on we have testnet running and people will experience how it's going to look like and 34:36 We are pretty clear about like the trust assumptions. Uh, if you read our documentation, you will see that 34:42 There are just one trust assumption of the witvm and the other is 34:46 Uh near trustless in the longer term. Uh, this is all about practical 34:50 I think people will see people will experience and then decide 34:56 So I can ask a question as a normal user that might help 34:59 Um with the definition 35:01 so it seems to me that he's saying that the bridge from bitvm is not a roll-up specifically because 35:08 It's the one of n feature and it's not anybody can um, uh, 35:13 Peg out 35:14 Um, is that correct specifically because it's a one of n. Um, and not just like literally anybody else 35:19 Is that why he's saying it's not a roll-up? 35:21 That's what I heard him saying 35:24 Okay 35:27 Or could maybe you think something else I don't know yeah to me it's like 35:33 So basically, okay you go 35:35 Yeah, basically 35:36 I think that in in the longer term in more general sense if we cannot unilaterally exit, this is not an L2 35:42 This is my thing today 35:44 Only like think that can you can unilaterally exit is arc and lightning and stuff drivechains 35:49 You cannot unilaterally exit. You need miners roll-ups. You cannot in between 35:55 but there is 35:56 You're right about that. But but I think there is a fundamental contradiction between unilateral exit and scale 36:03 So if you scale to 8 billion people 36:06 Then there's no if you have 8 billion people on L2, but they cannot fit on L1 36:11 Then they can't unilaterally exit 36:14 actually, uh, you know again, I don't want it to become the drivechain show necessarily but drivechain does have the ability to 36:19 have the 36:21 stuff consolidate on L2 36:23 As does arc I think 36:25 Uh, but it may not because if it depends on exactly when everything stops working 36:31 but um, there's no way 36:34 You know what? I mean? 36:34 Like if 8 billion people use L2 if they cannot fit on L1, then they cannot unilaterally exit to L1 36:39 It's a useless feature that will never be 36:42 well, I have a question here too because 36:45 Ultimately 36:46 No matter what you're gonna do. It's up to the miners 36:48 Anyways, if you're doing something on L1, um, if they really don't want a transaction to happen, it doesn't happen. It doesn't happen, right? 36:55 um, so like 36:56 Can you really have unilateral exit no matter what without them? You're still relying on the miners like 37:03 Yeah, you need to assume bitcoin is safe bitcoin miners are honest but this doesn't mean that the chains they merge mine is honest 37:10 Also, you need to assume that bitcoin miners are honest in bitcoin and after that you can talk about these definitions 37:16 If you say that bitcoin miners are not honest then there is no point 37:19 The way I see them as being honest is they have an economical incentive to be honest, right? 37:24 So if they have if they're if they're acting based on their economic incentive, then they're being honest 37:30 So if they are running off their economic incentive, then they can secure the other chain's peg outs 37:36 So it's basically the same answer if they're being honest and they're running off economic incentives 37:41 Then they will secure the peg outs of the other chain 37:45 I'm kind of like lumping it together. You see what i'm saying? Yeah, that's correct. That's correct 37:48 This is why we advocate that our tools must pay fees to bitcoin and like 37:53 Get bitcoin security and both in meanwhile pay to bitcoin to make the incentive alliance 37:58 Okay 38:04 Okay, we seem to have let's see we have super testament is back in the audience as a listener 38:11 and uh 38:13 I don't know. I don't see 38:15 Eric seems to have bounced. I see him as a speaker coming on and off. Really? 38:22 Oh, man, this is too bad. Also, maybe it's false fault if he's the only one maybe it's me. I don't know 38:27 Maybe you should I saw I saw um, eric also do the same thing often 38:32 I often have a lot of problems with this 38:35 And I get a new phone I get everything people who listen don't know they'll be tired of hearing this by now 38:39 I always complain about twitter spaces. I always talked about how I don't think there's phones and you're having a problem 38:44 I don't know why it's happening to me 38:48 I really don't understand it. I really have troubleshoot shot it but it's uh, oh there's eric as a speaker again 38:54 Can you try to speak Eric in Super Test now? 38:56 I only see him as a listener. 38:58 I can leave and rejoin him or do something else. 39:00 don't know. I'll try also. 39:02 As Paul Sztorc. 39:04 Because I feel bad. 39:05 I know that they both want to get 39:08 Makes it look like we're highly manipulating the 39:12 Who can see them both as speakers? I don't know. So maybe I don't want to see eric as I see eric 39:17 I'm gonna leave too. I don't know 39:19 Um 39:31 Okay, i'm basically the host now this is pretty funny 39:50 As listeners, I don't know why 39:52 Yeah, I wish I did now 39:54 Well now at least now I see them as listeners 39:56 They were as speakers before or can do you see them as speakers or listeners? I see them as I see 40:00 I see them. We have speakers up there. It's probably you then we can deduce that they don't want to speak anymore. Maybe 40:07 Your cash is uh 40:09 I don't know and I want to often when I join I have to join like a couple different times. I just see a blank 40:13 Thing with no people just messaged me and saying whenever I try to connect it just cuts the audio from me 40:21 Huh? 40:22 Interesting. That is really weird 40:25 I don't know 40:26 What to do about it? 40:29 What action can we take that will help I don't know 40:34 Well, the last thing we can try is nothing comes to mind come back because we already did so 40:40 Yeah, let's let's make that make the time come back let's try 40:49 Yeah, we can crack the mysteries of bit vm and and zk roll-ups but twitter space 40:56 basic usage of twitter space we 40:59 That's above our pay grade, you know, we don't um 41:02 We don't um 41:06 That's that's the real blockchain, I don't know i'm just trying to make like a you know a little joke of this situation 41:15 Anyway, hopefully maybe they'll all be trapped 41:19 Yeah, no, he's back yeah here he is I don't know I do not understand that 41:25 It's interesting 41:27 unfortunately, I think we must assume that 41:30 I don't think there's anything we can do to hopefully they can come back up. I don't know 41:36 Yeah, maybe they can uh minutes. So meanwhile, like I want to thank again, you know, like doing the space i'm 41:42 Recognizing my message and giving me opportunity to speak as well. And I want to take yeah, of course 41:47 it's actually very great that you guys are a team of engineers who are like because you know often this this type of thing does 41:52 happen very very often where it's like 41:55 So the story will be like x someone will come up with x and that person will be like a really hard-working 42:01 brilliant person 42:04 They come up with x and then like a bunch of like, you know 42:07 Sociopathic vulture people will like swoop in and they'll like start like whatever like a fake company 42:12 And it's just like powerpoint slides only or something like all kinds of crazy stuff has happened over the over the many years 42:19 and certainly 42:21 I mean if certainly if eric were back up here or whatever other people that we know they could certainly tell 42:27 a lot of funny stories 42:29 Especially I think for the last year we see done a lot 42:33 Like i'm a little maybe a bit younger than you so i'm not in this place for like tens of decades 42:39 but uh, I sort of think those kind of things happen, but uh, I also like how 42:45 Super Testnet is skeptical and i'm glad that we've resolved all the issues and 42:50 I know that we are we have a fault to like not publish the code fully. Uh, but in the 42:55 In the next month, we will publish everything 43:00 Oh interesting Super Testnet sounds speaker, but there's this weird beeping sound 43:04 Yeah 43:06 Is this you beeping Super Testnet? Are you in a car? 43:16 Okay, we used to mute everyone 43:19 Button, but now I don't know. Well, nope 43:21 Oh when you unmuted mute, is this really what is going on with this? 43:27 This cannot possibly be oh, it's his own microphone maybe 43:32 What could i've never heard of i've never heard even that type of beep before in my life 43:39 Well 43:41 Mysteries abound always a new day. Hey, you learn something new every day today. I learned that 43:48 I learned again. I didn't really learn this today, but I learned that twitter spaces is cantankerous 44:00 But what I did learn today is 44:03 Is 44:05 Citria 44:06 So what is it with uh people in turkey, you know, that's the question 44:10 It's like there's all these people coming out of turkey who are like great blockchain engineers all of a sudden 44:16 What's the story behind that 44:19 Like I can say maybe the the economy and governments, uh 44:23 They are not good at it. Obviously and they're controlling money pretty hard and they're pushing some 44:30 Irrelevant regulations and this makes people make adopts 44:35 in course crypto in general, but 44:38 Mostly, that's the best kind of adoption. So you see mostly stable coins 44:43 Uh, it is mostly stable coins. I know some people that yes 44:47 but 44:48 Their immediate thinking is that we need to get out of turkish lira and buy some u.s dollars in a particular manner. Yeah 44:56 That's very interesting to hear this is a very common story like for example 45:00 If I travel around the world people love usdt 45:03 Uh, usdt is like so big 45:05 Like way bigger than you would think. Yeah, so that's like the biggest one over in 45:10 Yeah, istanbul. Constantinople as it used to be called 45:15 Um, yeah, it's usdt is the most 45:18 It is a step because people now 45:22 No, it definitely is 45:25 I think like it's a big wake-up call for 45:28 Bitcoin, you know, unfortunately a lot of these people push these kind of half-baked theories in my view about like 45:34 bitcoin is 45:36 Automatically going to succeed 45:38 Bitcoin is already one. All we have to do is wait stack and wait, you know immaculate conception all this stuff blah blah blah 45:45 and 45:46 they 45:48 uh, you know, I don't really like it because 45:51 The early days of bitcoin everyone was always like what can we do? How can we get? 45:54 We'll get new egg to accept bitcoin we'll get we'll make I made a new wallet 45:58 everyone was always like doing things and making things and um 46:02 We could go into a long digression on maybe why this happened as i've done many times 46:08 But i'm not going to bore everyone with that today. I think 46:11 the point is just that this idea is out there that 46:14 um bitcoin like has no competitors or something and that it's just like automatically going to win 46:20 and 46:21 the 46:24 When people use usdt it's kind of like a little bit more apparent that oh no 46:27 People are just going to use like whatever they want to use and it doesn't have to be 46:33 People are like what do people want out of their money? 46:36 Okay, they know what they don't want. They don't want like, you know 46:40 terrible government turkish lira 46:42 money 46:43 and they want 46:45 Network, I mean the usdt is to me. It's a like a point for the network effects 46:51 column 46:52 It's like they want to be part of something big 46:55 They want to use like what their friends are using. Yeah, that's correct. And uh 47:00 In more general, I think this is like a step like you said 47:02 But uh, even though I don't like the like approach you take or so 47:06 I like the vision of you make every transaction a bitcoin transaction 47:10 Basically, they people have different needs than just like making payments or storing some value in this coin 47:15 Uh, but if we enable lots of real economical use cases like private 47:20 Transfers even the most basic thing we need to enable 47:23 Then the demand to bitcoin will also increase as well as not just in turkey, but in globally 47:33 Yeah, cool great 47:35 well 47:37 Super Testnet 47:39 And others are either unwilling or unable more likely to come back up as speakers, which is not great 47:46 I don't know why that is. I don't know what action we can take other than completely resetting the space 47:52 Which will kick everyone out 47:54 which seems like 47:56 and 47:58 Although that seems like it would work. It does seem 48:03 Far from ideal 48:05 I don't know why I don't know why if anyone knows. Hey if you want to dm me any kind of explanation or 48:12 suggestion on why 48:14 I always have a miserable time 48:16 I think it must be me because even though other people do complain. I don't 48:21 I don't get it though. I don't really do anything 48:25 I'm, not doing anything. I don't understand what the issue is 48:28 But whenever i'm in the spaces, they always I always have to join like several times. There's always blank people 48:33 And then I will eventually freeze and then I will just glitch out and like crash the app 48:39 Yeah, I didn't have any any problem except the long-time connection but apparently supertestnet and eric cannot join us because 48:49 I wonder if they have like an alt account they can try with 48:53 um, I don't know if that will help or not, but that might 48:56 Then they'll dox their alt account. They'll have to come up and they'll have to be like 49:01 It's me supertestnet the second just make like a new one right now 49:05 Uh, yeah, I don't know 49:08 But I think the benefit of usdt is also that it's like chain agnostic right if one chain is having problems or it's like 49:14 You know too congested or whatever fees are up. You can always just use another chain 49:18 And the fact that it's like the same asset on many chains kind of kind of helps 49:23 Yeah 49:24 I think that's true 49:25 I think I you know, I see a lot of people like usdt on on tron 49:29 Or it's clear 49:31 to me that for just from talking to them 49:34 that they 49:35 Have no idea what they're using like they just use some app they use like a jack's wallet or something and they they have like 49:41 no idea like what 49:43 They don't you know, they're not running a node. They don't know 49:47 What a node is so 49:50 But this is a very interesting thing everyone I think everyone should do this 49:54 whenever you travel or just whenever you talk to anyone just 49:57 If you want if you're interested in this, it's definitely very good for bitcoin if you just ask people, you know 50:05 To be honest about 50:07 Like hey, do you use what do you do you use any of this stuff? Like do you buy do you own any of this stuff? 50:13 Do you? 50:15 And it is really weird. Um, it's not what it's really often not what you would expect and I remember thinking like 50:20 like ethereum used to be 50:22 This is me boring everyone with war stories now, but you know 50:26 It's like it certainly used to be the case like in 2015 ethereum was like the worst project ever 50:32 And then the dow hack happened in 2016 and then blah blah blah all this stuff happened 50:35 but everyone still thought of ethereum as like a terrible thing and then 50:39 slowly 50:41 I would say maybe like 50:43 like 50:44 2020 or 2019 or 50:47 Nft is getting big and stuff like that 50:50 I think it was before nfts like 2021 in the summer when defi was like defi. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah 50:58 Show it's kind of 50:59 And you'd see like oh lots and lots of normal people 51:03 are like 51:04 using this and then you would see this stuff like I like I don't know like I got invited to 51:08 New york city nft and I you know, I don't really own any nfts 51:13 But I knew one of the people organizing it and I lived close to new york city. So I was like, whatever i'll go 51:20 And they had great, you know, they had really great for what it's worth. They had great food 51:24 Which was free 51:26 But um, but yeah everything all the nfts everything was being 51:30 All the bidding and everything was done in eth. That was like a kind of a neat moment for me. I was like 51:35 Oh and all this stuff is in eth 51:37 like a hundred percent 51:39 but then in in the bitcoin culture, it's 51:43 Really still on autopilot like it was from like as if this is still the year 2016 or something. So that's 51:50 That's not great. So and then yeah, like if I if I go I go travel around the world a little bit 51:55 And 51:56 Usdt is so big and then we heard it again. Yes. Hello. Hey orkan. Yes hand. Hello 52:02 Yes, so Super Testnet. I was talking with him to dm, but maybe we can just close the 52:07 Space and reopen it because he tried six times from different browsers, but he's still unable to join. Okay 52:13 Let's just close it and reopen it then 52:16 Okay 52:17 two part space 52:19 Okay 52:21 Okay, sorry about that everyone try to rejoin if you can, okay 52:51 You 53:21 You 53:51 You 54:22 You 54:29 Hey, I hope this time Super Testnet and eric can join 54:37 Wait, are you there? Hello? Oh, yeah. Oh, I hear you now. Yes. Okay, let me share this. 54:44 Let me copy this link over. I don't know why it's... I don't know why it's doing 54:50 such a thing. Let me see if we can do this. 54:55 Okay. Okay, wait. Okay, great. 55:20 Okay, good. Let's see if we can... Sorry, the old one is still running, so let me do that here. 55:50 Okay, there we go. Weird interruption there, but new spaces here. Supertestnet can speak in this one. 56:15 I posted the link below the old one. I'm going to close that one now. Let's see if we can close that one. 56:30 Okay, that one's now killed, so hopefully those people will be able to come over, 56:34 and it won't be as confusing, but it's a pretty confusing, obviously, situation. We'll see if it's... 56:39 We'll see if that is able to work. Of course, the downside of doing it from my own account is that 56:49 this is the account where, for some reason, it will fill up. The cache will fill up, and then it will 56:53 just crash and die. Naturally. Nothing can work forever, I suppose. It will kill... If it 57:02 crashes on my phone, the entire space will go down, but whatever, you know. I'm more fatigued, as they 57:09 say, right? I haven't heard them say that, but it sounds like a thing people might say. 57:16 Someone said it once, I think, and or wrote it down. Okay, great. So, we'll see if we get... 57:25 Let's see what happened to... What is his exact screen name? Because it's got cut off in 57:32 the window, and I don't remember exactly what it was. I think it's Orkin. Okay. 57:40 We'll get that. I'll try to figure that out. 57:45 Okay. I will message his name to you. Yeah. Okay, thanks. 57:53 There you go. I just posted it there in a DM. 58:02 Okay, cool. Thanks. 58:06 Oh, I get it now. Really? That's his name? Are you sure? 58:12 I'm pretty sure. 58:16 He was a different... He was like a red icon. This is someone with only 76 followers. 58:20 Man, I guess I don't know his name. 58:24 I thought it was... I thought it started with Krita or whatever. 58:29 I think I accidentally got a spammer... a scammer's link here. I misunderstood it again. 58:37 Someone says, add a co-host will help. Okay, that's smart. Yeah, we'll get that. 58:50 Wait, he's here. I think he's... Did you... You forgot the underscore, I think. 58:57 I forgot the underscore, and I capitalized the thing, 58:59 although I don't think Krita cares about capitals. But yeah, I forgot the underscore. 59:04 And that, kids, is why I can try to ban all that stuff. Uppercase, lowercase, 59:11 underscores and things from domain names. 59:16 Here we are. Let's see. We'll make Satoshi enjoy our co-host. I don't know why. 59:20 Because then maybe if it crashes, it won't. Oh, wait. Here we go. 59:25 Suppose you invite the same person as Eric? 59:27 No, I'm not. I'm not the same person. 59:30 Okay. Okay, here we go. Now I have redundancy. 59:37 Now we'll see if any of this works. It may or it may not. 59:46 Happy Friday, everyone. I'll try to invite Eric as well. 59:49 All right. Oh, good. Yes, here he is. Okay. So, Super, maybe there were things you wanted to say. 59:56 Maybe you forgot about them. Maybe you remember them. 1:00:01 I was hoping to say, well, that's all for me. Have a great rest of the space. 1:00:06 That's very polite of you to say, and very important. 1:00:10 I'm just kidding. I don't remember all the... I was frantically trying to connect, 1:00:18 and that was all I was doing. 1:00:20 Let's see. Some of the things we were talking about were, like, unilateral exit. 1:00:24 We talked about that. We talked about what is a roll-up anyway? Does this word even... 1:00:28 Oh, yeah. I did have a thing to comment about unilateral exit, 1:00:31 and it had to do with Eric's assessments of what... He called it the BitVM bridge is not 1:00:39 exactly the same as a roll-up because you don't have a unilateral exit due to the fact that 1:00:44 one out of N people need to be trusted, to be honest. 1:00:48 However, there is a model of a BitVM bridge that does not have that assumption, 1:00:52 and from which every user can exit without needing to trust a federation, 1:01:01 or even one out of N in a federation. 1:01:04 And I wrote about it in a little paper I wrote called Unisob, 1:01:07 which is unnamed non-custodial in Kuwait sidechains on BitVM, 1:01:12 where I propose a model that doesn't have that same trust assumption, 1:01:16 but in fact, every user can unilaterally exit. 1:01:19 So I'm hoping to build my own sidechain that uses this model, 1:01:25 but I haven't done it because I've been working on other projects. 1:01:28 But yeah, that is on my to-do list, is to make a better... 1:01:32 Great name. I love it. 1:01:34 But I have this argument that I raised a moment ago about the unilateral exit 1:01:42 being a useless feature, even though a lot of people love this feature. 1:01:46 When it comes to scale, it doesn't do anything because you have the other half... 1:01:52 You can't, like, everyone can't get to L1. 1:01:56 So the L1, you can never scale past the size of L1 if you want unilateral exit. 1:02:02 So I just think it's... 1:02:03 I think this is a really... 1:02:05 This is a case wherever the entire industry has, like, fallen into a... 1:02:09 Well, you might be able to get... 1:02:13 I don't think it's the case that just because not everyone can get on the L1, 1:02:20 therefore, no one should have the ability to, or I don't think that's your claim either. 1:02:25 But I think that if you build a system where no one can get onto the L1, 1:02:31 it's worse than building one where you can do that. 1:02:36 But it's true that not everyone will be able to do it. 1:02:38 But as long as you make it so that anyone can create this contract, 1:02:43 if they have enough money, then that's better than a situation where no one can, in my opinion. 1:02:52 I mean, yeah, I would agree with that. 1:02:54 I think... 1:02:55 So that's why I want... 1:02:56 I even... 1:02:57 Although Robin's model... 1:03:00 Go ahead. 1:03:00 Okay. 1:03:01 Yes. 1:03:02 What I'm thinking in my head is every single L2 has some kind of argument for why they're going to... 1:03:09 Why you will get your money on L1. 1:03:11 You know what I mean? 1:03:12 And none of them have, like, some kind of magic fundamental status. 1:03:16 They're always kind of just... 1:03:18 They're always merely an argument, like, even in the case of Lightning. 1:03:22 It's like you have a channel... 1:03:24 There is the, quote, unilateral exit, but this assumes that all kinds of things, you know? 1:03:28 Like that you won't be... 1:03:31 Like that the fee environment will be conducive to you redeeming the justice transaction, 1:03:36 or that you will be able to get it in in time before the... 1:03:40 So it's a very, very strong argument. 1:03:43 But I think every single L2 has this argument. 1:03:46 So then it's as if the unilateral exit people, they want to sort of sort... 1:03:51 They have to sort the toys into two bins, 1:03:53 where it's like one has unilateral exit and the other does not. 1:03:57 But in my point of view, all of them have some kind of argument for why... 1:04:03 Yeah, they have some kind of argument for why you will get the L1 coins if you want them. 1:04:09 Every single one of them is in that bin, and then there's none in the other bin. 1:04:13 So I think you're right. 1:04:14 I mean, I think we sort of agree. 1:04:16 I'm not sure. 1:04:17 I don't know. 1:04:18 I think the stress is... 1:04:21 I think the nuance makes it so that the unilateral exit term 1:04:25 does not do a lot of work that people think it does. 1:04:31 In Bitcoin, you only get a transaction on L1 if you can afford it. 1:04:34 And if we end up in a future where 8 billion people are using Bitcoin, 1:04:39 and if we end up in a future where blocks are still what they are currently, 1:04:43 I don't see how everyone can afford it. 1:04:45 And consequently, every L2 must have a conditional exit 1:04:51 where you can only do it if you can afford it. 1:04:53 However, depending on the design you make, 1:04:55 you can have more flexibility on these things 1:04:58 if the design of it is made in such a way that 1:05:04 determining whether you get an exit has to do with whether you can afford it 1:05:08 and whether miners are censoring you and Bitcoin standard trust assumptions, 1:05:12 rather than some federation is going to let you out if they decide to. 1:05:20 Or similar things like that. 1:05:21 At least that's my perspective. 1:05:22 I like to build things that adopt Bitcoin standard trust assumptions 1:05:27 and as few as possible new ones. 1:05:32 I have a comment on this. 1:05:35 It has some hypothetical ZKP opcode and recursive covenants. 1:05:39 You can design a system where you can batch all the withdrawals on the L2 with ZKPs 1:05:45 and submit a single ZKP to the base layer 1:05:48 and move the UTXO to some covenant UTXO 1:05:51 so that people can take their money and leave at some point in the future. 1:05:57 The thing is that, okay, I understand that 8 billion people 1:06:01 cannot exit to the Bitcoin at once, 1:06:03 but they can exit in the batches and in the future they can 1:06:06 separate their UTXOs from the main UTXO with the Bitcoin equivalent security 1:06:12 if you have covenants and ZKP verification on the base layer. 1:06:16 Yeah, that's a very good point. 1:06:17 In that case, you unilaterally exit the L2 to a different L2. 1:06:23 No, to the L1. 1:06:26 Well, not really though, because you don't have the L1 UTXO, 1:06:31 but you could have some kind of like CTV thing 1:06:34 where you know that you will get one sometime in the next whatever. 1:06:38 Okay, that's something different. 1:06:40 I feel like CTV is much more secure than any kind of things. 1:06:47 Interesting. 1:06:51 Because I think the smart thing is not to... 1:06:54 The smart thing is not to... 1:06:57 Well, as I've said, it's just the idea of pursuing the ability of everyone 1:07:02 to have their own L1 UTXO, that just is large blocks. 1:07:10 There's no other thing that that is. 1:07:12 Some people shouldn't have their own UTXOs, 1:07:14 but if they want, they need to own it. 1:07:16 But if they don't, they can basically use an L2 which has a single UTXO. 1:07:21 The idea of migrating out of L2a and into L2b, I think has merit. 1:07:29 You could design a system like that where... 1:07:32 Well, and I guess in some sense, L2a would then be L3, 1:07:36 because then you're actually exiting into another... 1:07:39 Into what from its perspective is L1 is actually yet another L2. 1:07:46 Yeah, I think it is like if you dig down in theory too much, 1:07:50 but in practice, I feel like it is Bitcoin-equivalent security 1:07:54 and the most viable way to do it. 1:07:55 But yeah, it is available, of course. 1:08:08 Super, anything else? 1:08:09 Let's see, after we talked about unilateral exit, we did talk about... 1:08:13 Do you have any thoughts on this whole roll-up? 1:08:14 I mean, I don't know about this. 1:08:18 I just don't know about this word. 1:08:20 It seems to be... 1:08:21 I feel like I understand it decently, 1:08:23 but I feel like other people have very different definitions for it 1:08:27 and I feel like it's not a very helpful word. 1:08:30 The stuff that Eric shared earlier was news to me. 1:08:34 I didn't know that, at least according to the definition he shared, 1:08:38 if I understood it properly, 1:08:40 all roll-ups by definition store all transaction data on the L1. 1:08:46 That's news to me and I don't like it. 1:08:49 Then it's kind of silly. 1:08:52 Even that was not exactly what he meant to say. 1:08:54 I think he meant to say something like 1:08:57 every roll-up has the property that you store something, 1:09:01 like the IKEA furniture, all in the box in its smallest crunched-up way. 1:09:08 That's stored and if you combine that with the stuff on the L2, 1:09:12 you get the whole picture, 1:09:13 but you can never get anything other than the whole L2 picture. 1:09:16 Then he did talk about storing the signatures. 1:09:21 I think he was saying, 1:09:23 it would be great if he was here, 1:09:25 I think he was saying the signatures are in a different transaction on the L1. 1:09:31 Maybe I can explain clearly. 1:09:33 Eric did a great job, 1:09:34 but I can talk in detail, much more technical maybe. 1:09:37 Basically, if you want to build a ZK roll-up, 1:09:41 this means that you aggregate all the transactions on the L2. 1:09:45 We call them batches, 1:09:46 and you basically put the batch in a ZK circuit. 1:09:49 A ZK circuit basically states that every single transaction is correct 1:09:53 based on the latest state, 1:09:55 and the signatures are correct, everything is correct. 1:09:57 Then you output a thing that's called state difference. 1:10:00 It is the difference between the latest Merkle tree 1:10:03 and the initial Merkle tree. 1:10:04 So you are not putting transaction signatures 1:10:06 because they are not needed. 1:10:08 ZK proof already verified that. 1:10:10 You are just putting the data that you need to reconstruct the state. 1:10:14 So if you put all the state diffs and the proof to the L1, 1:10:19 this means that if you scan the L1 since block zero, 1:10:23 you can adapt this difference into the genesis state, 1:10:25 and eventually you will have the all L2 state 1:10:28 so that you can create a Merkle proof of your account, 1:10:31 then you can exit unilaterally in the L1. 1:10:34 But if you post that... 1:10:37 I'm still way back in the first three sentences you said, 1:10:39 and you've gone 14 sentences past that now. 1:10:42 Sorry? 1:10:44 I said you left me behind a long time ago. 1:10:50 Where did you lose me? 1:10:54 I'm still processing this statement you said earlier that you... 1:11:00 Well, I can't even remember the earlier statements now. 1:11:03 I'm just way lost in this whole... 1:11:05 There's so much new stuff to learn in this roll-up conversation. 1:11:12 So... 1:11:15 I thought it was a little confusing also, 1:11:16 but I don't really blame you. 1:11:18 But maybe you could just start over maybe. 1:11:22 Yeah, I can start over. 1:11:23 But I guess I think the key is how do we sort... 1:11:26 If a word is a good word, like red versus not red, 1:11:31 it's like, when is it a roll-up and when is it not a roll-up? 1:11:34 Okay, if you can reconstruct the whole L2 state from the L1 data, 1:11:40 if you are posting some kind of data 1:11:43 that eventually led you at the latest state of the L2, 1:11:46 this can be difference of state, 1:11:47 this can be full transaction data, it doesn't matter. 1:11:50 If you can reconstruct the full L2 state, 1:11:52 and if you have a single proof that can verify the whole L2, 1:11:55 which is in case ZK roll-up, ZK proof, sorry, 1:11:58 then this is a roll-up. 1:11:59 And if you post the proof to the L1... 1:12:01 No, no, no, you keep going. 1:12:05 It's not, let's just pause there for a second. 1:12:08 So if I can try and restate that, you talked about... 1:12:12 Oh, no. 1:12:19 I can't hear you. 1:12:20 He went into connecting again. 1:12:24 Why? I don't know why this is happening. 1:12:27 Must be him then. 1:12:29 Yeah, probably. 1:12:33 By him, I mean mysterious network things 1:12:36 that are, oh wait, now I see him as a speaker again. 1:12:40 Super, are you there? 1:12:42 No, it's only doing that before it kicks him out. 1:12:46 Because of the way it refreshes the screen, 1:12:47 I think I always see that. 1:12:50 Well, okay, I find it hard. 1:12:52 Maybe I can also help. 1:12:53 I find it also hard to say, 1:12:56 if everything that is needed is on L1, 1:13:01 then why is there a different word for this 1:13:03 than other things? 1:13:05 Yeah, because if you use state difference 1:13:07 or if you have a light node, 1:13:08 you don't have to process all the transactions. 1:13:10 Imagine you have a Bitcoin SPV, right? 1:13:12 Bitcoin light node. 1:13:14 Then if you post all the transaction data 1:13:16 and if you want to know the latest L2 state, 1:13:19 you need to have a, for example, 1:13:20 if this runs some virtual machine, 1:13:22 you need to have that virtual machine 1:13:24 on your mobile phone 1:13:25 and you need to process all the transactions, 1:13:27 which is incredibly high resource computing, right? 1:13:30 But with rollup keyword, 1:13:32 you actually get a ZK proof or fraud proof 1:13:35 that can give you the state truth trustlessly. 1:13:38 This is the whole point of having a rollup. 1:13:41 And if you post that data as well on chain, 1:13:44 either state diffs or full transaction data, 1:13:46 then you can also unilaterally exit. 1:13:49 If you don't push data to the L1, 1:13:52 you need to push to somewhere else. 1:13:54 And that becomes a data unavailability problem. 1:13:58 So you still get the state truth trustlessly 1:14:00 with the proof that you get, 1:14:02 but you need to find the data to exit. 1:14:04 These are two separate things you need to consider. 1:14:08 In the ZK rollup, 1:14:09 you just have a single proof 1:14:11 that you can verify the whole chain 1:14:12 by just looking to the latest proof, 1:14:14 either via Bitcoin SPV or full node. 1:14:17 And also you post some minimal data to Bitcoin 1:14:20 to reconstruct the state again 1:14:22 so that you can unilaterally exit. 1:14:24 This is the whole point of the rollup debate. 1:14:25 I have a question. 1:14:29 To recreate the state, 1:14:30 do you need the latest and the first one, 1:14:32 or do you need the first one 1:14:33 and all of them to the latest? 1:14:37 If you are using state diffs, you basically have the genesis state and you apply the difference to the Merkle tree in every single post. 1:14:44 So you need you need all the diffs to recreate the current state. 1:14:50 So in a way, it's like you're using Bitcoin Layer 1 as a SPV for your Layer 2. 1:14:59 Yeah, I will say that. 1:15:01 Not exactly, but like if you really zoom out a little bit. 1:15:04 I'm not sure about that. 1:15:07 But the whole point of hosting the data to the L1 is not the optimistic case. 1:15:11 You probably have the data in your node also. 1:15:13 You don't need to scan all the L1. 1:15:15 But in some case, if someone censors you and you cannot get the data to exit, then you can have your Bitcoin node running, which is the most censorship resistant node, then you can have the data. 1:15:25 This is the point. And ZK proof and fraud proof is just the thing so that you can get a single proof of all the blockchain. 1:15:32 So you can verify this in BitVM. 1:15:34 You can verify this in Bitcoin script. 1:15:35 You can verify in your mobile phone. 1:15:37 This is the point of compressing the execution with ZK or fraud proofs. 1:15:45 I have a question as far as how it seems like the state diffs is not that much data. 1:15:51 But as far as the BitVM side and how much data you need initially to start this, like what's the total amount of data to get this like up and running? 1:16:02 So in BitVM, everything is communicated off-chain and if everyone happy with the optimistic path, there is no on-chain footprint of things except all the like proofs and state diffs. 1:16:11 It has to happen on on-chain. 1:16:13 But in BitVM, you don't need any on-chain data if you are agreeing off-chain. 1:16:17 But if there is a disagreement, then in 40 transactions, you can prove that something is going wrong in the current BitVM. 1:16:25 Sorry, I'm going to interrupt you. 1:16:27 Before even that, the BitVM needs to be put on-chain, right? 1:16:32 It is just a single taproot address. 1:16:34 There is nothing put on-chain. 1:16:36 Got it. Got it. 1:16:36 And then after that, if there's a dispute, then it's 40 transactions of like minimal amount of data? 1:16:43 Yeah, it is just 40 Bitcoin transactions to resolve the dispute. 1:16:46 And it is in the current BitVM architecture. 1:16:48 If you make BitVM much more smaller, like not 4 billion steps, but 1 billion steps, then the amount of transaction needed on-chain is also getting smaller. 1:16:57 Got it. And as far as the state diffs, and they can be per block, per 10 blocks, really depends on your layer 2, right? 1:17:06 Yeah, there is some trade-off here. 1:17:08 If you push the data for every single L2 block, then you don't have any data scalability. 1:17:14 And if you like batch them together, you get data scalability, but you get pre-confirmations, which means that operator can reorg your thing. 1:17:23 This is trade-off. And if you breed some kind of like two or three sequencers on L2, then you can mitigate the reorg problem and use the L1 as effective as possible. 1:17:35 Got it. And in the current form, it would be the 1 of N for the dispute, as long as there's 1 of N of the federation is being honest. 1:17:44 Then you can peg out basically, right? 1:17:47 Yeah, that's correct. And hopefully in the future, if you have some ZKP verification on the base, then it will be trustless. 1:17:54 If you have your own node, you can let it exist. 1:17:57 Nice. And now, as far as the fees that are on the layer 2, is this dependent on the architecture to build it in a way where those fees are going to be going back to the L1 miners, but they don't have to be? 1:18:10 Is that how it works? 1:18:11 No, all fees have to go L1 because you are posting the data to the L1 and you need to pay for it. 1:18:19 So let's say you do a transaction on the L2. 1:18:23 So it's going, the fee is going somewhere and that fee is just... 1:18:28 Yes, fee is collected by sequencer, which is some kind of operator, and then it posts the data on-chain while posting it basically pays a fee. 1:18:37 Uh-huh. Is there any way for this sequencer, if the whole Federation wants to lie, can they take the fees from this sequencer or something? 1:18:47 No, it is not about the Federation. 1:18:50 If they take the fee, basically, there will be no proof on the base layer and they will get slashed eventually. 1:18:56 I see, I see. So it's just part of the transaction fee on the base layer. 1:19:02 Yeah, kind of. 1:19:03 Okay, I think I'm starting to get it a little bit. I don't know, Paul, you have a questions? 1:19:10 Well, actually, I have a bunch of random like esoteric questions, like what exactly the 20 billion cycles figure refers to. 1:19:19 Yeah, sure. 1:19:20 But I don't know if anyone else is interested in such details. 1:19:23 So basically, I guess you are a bit familiar with Btfm, right? 1:19:28 Yes. 1:19:29 Yes. 1:19:31 So in the SupertestNet initial implementation, Btfm was basically running some Bristol circuits, some garbled circuits, bits like byte by byte, some kind of that. 1:19:40 But in the latest architecture that Robin is right now designing and building, it has some kind of instruction set, which is pretty similar to RISC-V architecture set. 1:19:51 And they designed it in a way that it can run 4 billion computer cycles so that you can get 40 transactions on Bitcoin to resolve a dispute. 1:20:02 You can obviously increase that to, for example, 20 billion, then you will get lots of on-chain transactions to resolve the dispute. 1:20:09 They limit it in 4 billion. 1:20:11 And as of yesterday, we managed to build a growth 16 verifier that can run under 4 billion cycles. 1:20:17 This means that you can basically build any computation you want in ZK circuit and create a proof for it, then verify this proof in Btfm so that Bitcoin verifies all the off-chain execution, no matter what it is. 1:20:37 I'm not sure that I totally get it, but I'll have to study it more. 1:20:43 Guys, I have tried. 1:20:44 I invited SupertestNet many times. 1:20:46 As the speaker and the co-host, but it doesn't seem to work. 1:20:50 It seems to be cursed. 1:20:52 Yeah, maybe we need to like leave it today. 1:20:54 It is almost 10 p.m. 1:20:56 Friday night. 1:20:57 So, yes, of course. 1:21:00 Well, hey, thanks for joining and explaining your project. 1:21:07 Thank you for having me. 1:21:08 Yeah, I have a question. 1:21:10 Are you launching a testnet sometime soon? 1:21:13 Something to look forward to anytime soon? 1:21:15 Hopefully in April or May, we want to have a public testnet. 1:21:20 Nice. 1:21:21 It worked, I think I'm back. 1:21:23 Welcome back. 1:21:23 Oh, it did work. 1:21:24 Look, you are back. 1:21:25 Wow. Amazing. 1:21:28 Great space, guys. 1:21:32 One second, I don't know if Orkin, if you're going to leave yet. 1:21:35 Now that SupertestNet is back, if you want to give him a chance to ask anything. 1:21:38 But if you have to go. 1:21:40 Yeah, if you have a question, I can continue. 1:21:42 But if you don't. 1:21:43 Was there something you wanted me to say? 1:21:45 No, I feel like before, like you were trying to understand things and then, you know, you got cut off. 1:21:50 So I wanted to give you a chance now that you're back. 1:21:55 Can we get Eric Walsh's opinion on this? 1:21:58 Oh, yeah, we did have him up before, but then the space glitched out and we and I think I have invited him to speak. 1:22:07 But the spaces are being very weird today. 1:22:11 Yeah, they are. 1:22:13 I like Eric Walsh, Eric Walsh is a dude. 1:22:16 Yes, he is. 1:22:20 Don't be shy, Eric. 1:22:21 Come and show us some love. 1:22:25 Richard Hart ain't in here, bro. 1:22:31 Come on, Eric. 1:22:32 I can't wait for the Richard Hart, you know, documentary or whatever they do. 1:22:36 It's already out, dude. 1:22:37 It's a shit show. 1:22:38 Yeah, it was already out. 1:22:40 What was it called? 1:22:41 It's called The Highest of Stakes. 1:22:44 Nice, I'm going to look it up. 1:22:45 I love that type of thing. 1:22:46 I love like all documentaries about like doomed things. 1:22:51 Like I love like the Theranos documentary, I love like Fire Festival, like I love that stuff. 1:22:55 So this is like... 1:22:56 Yeah, it was out a while ago. 1:22:58 I'm going to enjoy it. 1:22:58 Alright, I missed it. 1:23:00 I think all the heck. 1:23:00 No, it's on Amazon, I think. 1:23:03 All the heck. 1:23:03 I'm going to watch it. 1:23:05 All the heck, because oh my God, oh my God, a movie's coming out, the chart's going to pump. 1:23:09 And it literally did the complete opposite. 1:23:13 I'm waiting for Jack Levin movie to come out now. 1:23:16 The front run Jack Levin movie will be out soon. 1:23:20 This industry is so crazy. 1:23:24 Like it can't even be like, I've never even heard of anything like this. 1:23:28 This is like, you know, forget about anything you've ever read about Dutch tulip mania, 49ers, Gold Rush. 1:23:37 Like this is like all that stuff is like tiny, slow moving slugs compared to like what's happening in this industry all the time. 1:23:45 It's complete craziness. 1:23:48 It's crazy. 1:23:49 What do you think about the price of Bitcoin at the moment? 1:23:52 What is it? 1:23:53 It's gone over nearly 48,000. 1:23:55 Oh, yeah. 1:23:56 Everyone always wants to talk about the price. 1:23:57 I mean, I have like a, I think it's kind of like, you know, it's a little bit like the CEO talking about the stock price. 1:24:04 It's like, well, you know, we should be like focused on making the community great and making everyone. 1:24:11 But it's true that when the price goes up, it is validating and it does produce more recognizability for the coin. 1:24:17 So that's so it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, which is why that's one of the reasons why it moves in these huge, has a lot of momentum. 1:24:24 You know, like if it goes up, it's likely to go up. 1:24:27 And then if it goes down, it's likely to go down. 1:24:28 It's like a huge whiplash. 1:24:31 Yeah, I agree. 1:24:32 I think it's probably I like that, you know, I think it's good. 1:24:37 You know, when it goes up, it's good. 1:24:38 It makes it easier for everyone who works in the industry slightly. 1:24:42 It makes it easier for everyone who is in the community. 1:24:46 I think Eric Walsh has come in. 1:24:47 It looks like he might have left and then come back to see if he could talk. 1:24:51 Yeah, I don't know why. 1:24:52 I mean, for some reason, I don't know why. 1:24:55 For Supertest, it was broken for a while and then it just sort of fixed itself somehow just moments ago. 1:25:00 Can't be explained. 1:25:01 But I invited SupertestNet to co-host, but then he showed up as a speaker. 1:25:06 I'll invite Eric as a co-host. 1:25:08 Let's see if we can't get it to work. 1:25:10 My guess is that we probably cannot, but I don't know. 1:25:16 It says you're allowed up to two co-hosts to remove one co-host. 1:25:19 But no, I already had two and then I removed one. 1:25:21 So I only have one. 1:25:23 I think the whole thing is just glitched, unfortunately. 1:25:26 Often people see different things up here. 1:25:28 So I don't know. 1:25:30 Well, I can see Satoshi Enjoyer as a co-host. 1:25:35 Yeah, but I had two before. 1:25:36 I had Satoshi Enjoyer and I had the LayerTwo Labs Twitter as co-hosts. 1:25:41 I had two co-hosts and one regular host. 1:25:46 Maybe we'll switch. 1:25:48 See, the thing is, my own phone will often crash for some reason. 1:25:52 It's not my phone because I got a new phone twice. 1:25:55 But for some reason, when I use Twitter Spaces, it crashes. 1:25:59 So if I don't have a co-host, it will explode. 1:26:01 I think Eric Rohl is using the Twitter glitch as a reason not to come up. 1:26:07 Hmm, maybe. 1:26:08 No, no, I can see the profile picture of both SuperSusNet and Eric. 1:26:13 They move up to where they would be speakers and then they come back down. 1:26:17 But they're still as listeners. 1:26:20 I don't know if it's on my end or not, but I have to go help my wife cook. 1:26:24 So hopefully it's on my end. 1:26:26 I need to look for that. 1:26:29 Hey, thanks for coming, guys. 1:26:31 Thanks for doing this, man. 1:26:32 This has been great. 1:26:32 Very educational. 1:26:33 You guys have an amazing weekend. 1:26:35 And hopefully your problems will get fixed immediately. 1:26:38 We'll see. 1:26:40 Enjoy the rest of tonight. 1:26:41 Bye-bye. 1:26:42 See you. 1:26:43 Thank you. 1:26:43 Thank you, everybody. 1:26:45 It's unlikely because even when I can't even make the LayerTwo Labs account a co-host again. 1:26:50 I don't know why. 1:26:52 Because... 1:26:53 Let's see if I try one more time. 1:26:55 There we go. 1:26:56 Eric Walsh just left. 1:26:57 Maybe he might come back. 1:26:59 He might leave and come back. 1:27:00 Oh, he's back in. 1:27:01 Well, he does know a lot about roll-ups. 1:27:03 I'll give him that. 1:27:04 He's probably annoyed because we were... 1:27:06 It says you still cannot... 1:27:08 Who does it think is the other... 1:27:10 Let me see this. 1:27:13 I don't know who it thinks the other co-host is. 1:27:17 I don't know. 1:27:18 It's... 1:27:19 Okay. 1:27:20 Well, now we're back to only one co-host, though. 1:27:22 That didn't seem to help SuperSusNet at all. 1:27:24 I don't know why. 1:27:25 I don't know anything that's happened, but... 1:27:26 I can see only you as the host. 1:27:29 I can see LayerTwo Labs as the co-host. 1:27:33 And SuperSusNet as the speaker. 1:27:35 Oh, I see SuperSusNet as the listener. 1:27:37 I don't know, guys. 1:27:38 I apologize to everyone who's spending their Friday listening to this inane babble. 1:27:44 But it is what it is. 1:27:46 I don't know. 1:27:47 I don't know what action we can take that will resolve these matters. 1:27:52 Paul, do you think Richard Ault's going to prison? 1:27:55 I think, you know, since he's like a crafty Florida man, and I think that he will probably be able to just lay low for like a really long time. 1:28:03 It's like a certain type of personality, you know what I mean? 1:28:06 So I think that, I don't know if he will eventually be caught. 1:28:09 I don't know. 1:28:10 And there's a sense in which it's kind of like he was so, like, just weird about it all that you're kind of like, how do you not know that this is... 1:28:24 Like, everyone, I think most of the people involved, like, knew. 1:28:29 Like, I'm not really making a lot of sense right now, but it's like Charles Ponzi. 1:28:33 Apparently, he like, he would tell some people, like people who figured it out, they would say, no, this is a scam. 1:28:39 But we're scamming, like, the next guy. 1:28:42 You're in on it with me, you know? 1:28:45 Yeah. 1:28:45 And then they lost all their money and they blamed themselves. 1:28:47 You know, you can't cheat an honest man. 1:28:49 I believe that's, I think that's even a British saying or something. 1:28:54 I'm not sure, but... 1:28:54 I mean, we're talking about billions, literally billions of dollars, you know? 1:28:58 I know, yeah. 1:28:59 So I think, I think they're definitely going to try. 1:29:02 I mean, I honestly think he may just, like, anyone know where he is? 1:29:05 I think he's like, what country he's in or anything, I think he's totally vanished. 1:29:08 So he's been served, he's received it and he's instructed lawyers to represent him on his behalf. 1:29:16 So, yeah, he's received the SEC complaint. 1:29:21 Yeah, trial and absentia, something like that. 1:29:23 Yeah, possibly. 1:29:27 Yeah, and then if he's found guilty, he's going to be, he says, yeah, I'll show, I'll get right on that. 1:29:33 They're like, report to this jail and he'll just be like, yeah, he's going to be in Thailand or something. 1:29:40 He's in Finland, Helsinki. 1:29:43 Oh, that's cool. 1:29:44 I've always wanted to go to Finland, honestly. 1:29:46 It seems like kind of a cool place. 1:29:48 Yeah, now in NATO, so. 1:29:54 Where are you from? 1:29:56 I'm American. 1:29:59 You've got a very American accent. 1:30:01 I don't, I have a weird, I have a weird accent that no one can explain. 1:30:08 Yeah. 1:30:10 Yes, but I am from, I'm from Connecticut, from outside of New York City. 1:30:15 So. 1:30:15 OK, nice. 1:30:17 Oh, Eric Walsh has come back in. 1:30:19 Maybe he's received. 1:30:19 He's come back in. 1:30:20 I don't know what we can do. 1:30:23 When he comes in, I send him the invite. 1:30:25 I'd love to hear it. 1:30:27 He was talking before in the other, let's see if I can invite him. 1:30:31 No, I cannot invite him to co-host, but I can invite him to speak. 1:30:35 I would love to hear Eric's. 1:30:37 The first one. And he was, yeah, he was laying down a lot of knowledge on us about the exact definition of a roll up. 1:30:44 I don't know. 1:30:45 I hope it works. 1:30:50 Basic science suggests it will not work because it has not worked. 1:30:55 But for Super Testament, it's for some reason, it just randomly worked at some point. 1:30:58 It let me up as well. 1:31:01 Yeah, I know. 1:31:01 That's other people up. 1:31:04 I got John B. 1:31:05 Thirteen. 1:31:06 He's up also. 1:31:08 Yeah, because they want him to come up. 1:31:10 What's up, guys? 1:31:11 Are you listening? 1:31:13 Yes, I hear you. 1:31:16 Oh, Super Testament is back somehow. 1:31:20 You see, I don't see him. 1:31:23 See him and hear him. 1:31:24 And now I see a request in one, which but I don't see who it is. 1:31:27 Let me see. 1:31:28 Don't give up, Eric. 1:31:29 We'll keep fighting the good fight. 1:31:34 I'm going to have not had a good time today, and so I'm going to head out. 1:31:39 But I appreciate all the attempts. 1:31:43 OK, great. 1:31:44 Hey, thanks for coming. 1:31:47 You're welcome. 1:31:47 Thank you for asking. 1:31:50 Paul, you should you should use Nostr Nests. 1:31:54 It's just like a space for. 1:31:56 Oh, that's great. 1:31:59 OK, cool. 1:32:00 Yeah, I didn't know that we had a phone. 1:32:05 So I do. 1:32:08 I think Nostr is a very good I think it Nostr is sort of unlikely 1:32:12 to work, but I'm very, very supportive and I'm happy that someone is trying it. 1:32:20 You know, we all live off of the. 1:32:23 The entrepreneurs who an optimist 1:32:27 who make new things, I'm pro Nostr, but I don't really 1:32:32 I'm just like a network effect kind of stickler. 1:32:35 And now that Elon, Elon is going to breathe new life into it 1:32:38 by kind of like into Twitter. 1:32:41 But but how the fuck the history man in the world 1:32:46 can't make the space work properly? 1:32:48 I don't know. 1:32:49 Nostr Nests works fine. 1:32:53 I mean, I think we'll try Nostr Nests next time. 1:32:55 I think we will. 1:32:57 There are some bugs, but there is no money there, almost no money 1:33:01 instead of billions here. 1:33:03 Yeah. Billions no fix code. 1:33:07 Yeah, apparently not. 1:33:08 I don't know. 1:33:10 OK, we have David here. 1:33:11 Hello. Hey, what's up? 1:33:14 So I unfortunately missed the first initial call. 1:33:17 And then I think that was right when Eric was up here 1:33:18 and he's talking about roll ups and dropping some knowledge and stuff. 1:33:20 And I'm just like, I'm very interested to get that conversation back. 1:33:23 I know he's like driving through Costa Rica right now 1:33:26 and not able to get up in the channel. 1:33:27 But Paul, do you mind kind of giving like your overview 1:33:30 of the assessment of what he was saying? 1:33:31 And maybe we could try to like piece it back together because. 1:33:34 No, I think that'll be torture for him and for but I can try. 1:33:38 He seemed to be saying a roll up for him. 1:33:40 The important thing about the roll up is that everything that's needed is on. 1:33:45 L1. And you can then expand it. 1:33:50 So like, for example, what I think most people would imagine 1:33:52 the quintessential roll up would be something like you have all these 1:33:55 transactions, the signatures can be shrunk down 1:33:59 into like one tiny thing. 1:34:04 And you put that on L1 1:34:06 and that that will later expand to be this huge shape 1:34:09 that signs for like whatever, like 2000 transactions or whatever it is. 1:34:14 And since the signature is like a signature can be very big. 1:34:17 So like if a Bitcoin transaction is like 220 bytes. 1:34:22 Signature could be like 64 or 71 bytes for each input. 1:34:27 So already that's 71. 1:34:31 It's almost almost half the, you know, a third. 1:34:35 Of each transaction, assuming it has one input only is the signature. So if you could, if you could strip all those out, and then maybe what you do is you publish, like, it really was the case somewhere else that on the L2, everyone made a transaction and everyone signed it. And there's all these signatures there. But like on L1, you have a super compressed signature and then like the transactions themselves. So it's, I think that's what people would say is the quintessential roll up. And I feel honestly, I feel terrible. 1:35:05 I don't know if there's something else that is the real understanding that I feel bad for myself and for everyone else. Because I feel like if my understanding is so bad at this point, then I don't know what other normal people are getting out of it. But then he released him. Yes. 1:35:21 Well, I can try to take a stab at maybe what he was trying to say. And you can let me know if it aligns. 1:35:29 Yeah, I mean, I think you have to break apart, like the concept of a roll up into, like, whether the L2 is inheriting the kind of consensus and the security of the L1. And then if it has like the trustless bridge, and I imagine what Eric was trying to say is that we could, in Bitcoin's current state, build what's called like a sovereign roll up, which means the data, all the transaction data is posted to the L1. 1:35:52 But because we cannot natively verify a zero knowledge proof, we can't create the trustless bridge. And so if we can, and so kind of Paul, like you were saying, it's like no matter what, with no sort of software whatsoever, we can always post the transaction data of the L2 into the L1. And that means that the L2, the roll up essentially cannot, you know, it cannot reorg independently of L1. 1:36:19 So that's the way to inherit the double spend protection of the L1. The problem is, it's like, well, is that really useful if you can't also create the trustless bridge Bitcoin? So in this scenario, you have the sovereign roll up, and then you would essentially need like a federated BTC into the roll up. Does that make sense? 1:36:41 It does make some sense. Yes. 1:36:43 Okay. And then I think if you want to create the trustless bridge, essentially what would happen is you have all of the transactions happening on the L2, you're posting that transaction data into the L1 in the sovereign sense. But then, like you said, you're using a zero knowledge proof on the L2 to compress all the computation, to compress all of those signatures into one singular proof that kind of validates that all of the state transitions on the L2 were valid. 1:37:10 What we want for that is like some sort of soft fork, like verifying a stark or a snark. But now, if we can do that with BitVM, then you potentially have a way to again, post the transaction data from L2 onto the L1 along with zero knowledge proof, and then you're using BitVM to verify that ZKP. 1:37:31 And that gives you kind of like somewhere in between trusted and trustless because BitVM has like the one event trust assumption. 1:37:40 Sure, but I did ask him like, his definition was very broad. And I asked him like is lightning network a roll up basically something like that. And he said there's no global state. But then I said each channel there is a state common to the two people who are in the channels. 1:37:59 So even though that's the case, it's just kind of a quirk of the lightning network specifically, that it has lots of people who are each have a global, global in quotes, state just between two people, but lots and lots of overlapping ones. 1:38:18 Yeah, I mean, one lightning doesn't have a global state, but it also like it can't have any sort of like expressivity to it. Right. 1:38:27 And I think that's, that's one of the keys that that like a potential ZK roll up like enables because you could you could operate in this L2 and you could have, you know, any sort of execution environment you want. So like any sort of programming language, you could have, you know, EVM, you could have, you know, rust or Cairo or clarity or like, like, whatever. 1:38:46 And because you can essentially compress or shrink down like, like all of the execution that's happened on there into a singular ZK proof, that that's how you can have this full level of like expressivity in L2. So I agree with Eric that it's not really a roll up because it doesn't have L2 or it doesn't have a global state, but it also just it has no semblance of like expressivity. It can just do payments. 1:39:10 So now we could have, you know, fully end to end encrypted transactions, we could have Bitcoin back borrowing, you know, we could have, you know, any sort of like truly fully programmable feature like we can have on the roll up. And that's like a major win. 1:39:29 Okay, now we have a bit. 1:39:32 Oh, we have bit code is here. Hello. 1:39:35 Hi, guys. Hi, Paul. 1:39:37 You have a new picture. 1:39:38 Yeah, yeah. 1:39:40 It's a good one. 1:39:42 Yeah, something like some, some videos with the kind of animated avatar. And it's all about Bitcoin and making some, some clear, clearing up the, you know, the, the confusion and misunderstanding of Bitcoin. 1:40:05 So I wanted to push back on all this with with Zeke Rollups, because, you know, like the many people do not understand Bitcoin, they don't do not understand that Bitcoin has the smart contracts, has the ability to to have swaps atomic swaps, lending, borrowing, betting, whatever. 1:40:33 And, you know, Paul, that that's that's the reality. 1:40:36 So we don't need Zeke Rollups, because if the Zeke Rollups would be helpful, or they could solve something. 1:40:51 The Satoshi and how Finney will will already implemented those things. 1:40:58 And you know that because how Finney is talking was talking 20, 30 years ago about about Zeke Rollups. 1:41:06 So the thing the thing is that everybody talking about something, but they forget to implement the peer to peer environment and decentralization where those where those Zeke Rollups or those records will be held. 1:41:26 Who will host those records? 1:41:30 A server room, server data center, who has no decentralization is no peer to peer. 1:41:38 That's why we'll fail. 1:41:39 Well, this is the availability problem question, I think. 1:41:43 Yeah, but the best solution, the best solution is drivechain. 1:41:47 That's it. 1:41:48 Yeah, I know. 1:41:49 You know it, but you know. 1:41:51 Really quick, like on Bitcoin platform, people like, you know, Satoshi and Greg Maxwell and Elie Ben Sasson, like, it's very clear where they're talking about using, you know, zero knowledge proofs as like the ultimate, ultimate, truly endgame compression technique to be able to scale Bitcoin. 1:42:06 So you say like they would have implemented, but the technology hadn't yet evolved enough to where it was ready and roll ups themselves hadn't been invented. 1:42:14 And so in those conversations, you see people like Elie Ben Sasson, who ended up going on to being one of the co-founders of Zcash and then Starkware, which is now like one of the top roll ups. 1:42:22 Like, he essentially took those conversations from like scaling Bitcoin in 2013 and conversations with Maxwell and Satoshi even before that and kind of created roll ups. 1:42:32 So, like, I just fundamentally reject your claim that it's like, oh, like we would have done it, Satoshi would have already figured it out. 1:42:37 It's like, it's like, no, the technology wasn't there, but they did acknowledge, like, if it was ready, we would love to implement it. 1:42:44 I think I can tell you, Paul is scaling Bitcoin since 2014. 1:42:51 I think in the coin witness post that Greg Maxwell made, it wasn't totally clear to me. 1:43:00 Maybe it was to you, though. 1:43:01 But I think he was, I think he was saying something like, if we had magic ZK snark moon math, as it was called at the time, you could shrink the block size. 1:43:14 I mean, excuse me, you can shrink the blockchain. 1:43:17 Sorry, I said the wrong thing. 1:43:18 Too much block size, you know. 1:43:20 So he's saying you can shrink all of the stuff and have a proof that is very small that the blockchain is right. 1:43:27 But no matter what you do, you will always need to have someone serve the historical blockchain data so that the proof itself can be reconstructed. 1:43:37 And so no matter what you do, everyone is on the hook for storing and serving all the data in the blockchain forever. 1:43:47 And so for that reason, I always interpreted and maybe you interpret it a different way and maybe your way is right. 1:43:53 I don't know. But I read the coin witness thing as being like not a scalability solution kind of at all. 1:44:01 And what it really is, is it just something that makes SPV mode slightly more secure and SPV mode is already like 99 percent secure. 1:44:11 So the last one percent is not even that important because how often has it been the case that someone has synced an SPV node and then they've been shown like the wrong chain? 1:44:23 Like that has like never happened in the history of Bitcoin except for like maybe one time when there was a lot of weird coincidental stuff that was all accidental and related to like bugs and stuff in like 2015 and has never happened since. 1:44:36 Yeah. So touch on a couple different points there. One, there's a thread that John Adler is like a current, I mean, maybe like one of the smartest guys in the world space that he wrote where he kind of expanded on Greg Maxwell's 2013 coin witness post. 1:44:49 And he talked about how, you know, that original idea of coin witness and ZKPs has kind of evolved into the world space. 1:44:56 So there's kind of an additional evolution from from the coin witness. So you can find John Adler's post where he discusses that. 1:45:05 The next point you mentioned was about like data availability and like fundamentally you are correct that that a limitation of rollups and ZKPs is like if you don't have the data in order to compute the ZKP, then everything essentially freezes up. 1:45:18 The way to get around that is, of course, you post the data on the L1. 1:45:22 But the limitation there is that, you know, we run out of essentially block space and Bitcoin can never scale to like hold that much data. 1:45:30 This is the nuance where I think the rollup conversation gets difficult. Like rollups are not one singular thing where it's like you have to post data onto the L1 or you have to post it off chain. 1:45:40 It's kind of this umbrella that can say, hey, the optionality for each type of user is there where if somebody is like, I want to definitively make sure that the data is available, I'm willing to pay a higher fee, then they can post their data directly on the L1. 1:45:54 If somebody else is saying, well, I don't really mind. I can trust this federation. I can post the data there. 1:46:00 Somebody else is like, well, I really love what Celestia and these off chain data solutions that were kind of spun out of Ethereum are doing. 1:46:06 I'm fine posting my data there. Or somebody could even say, hey, I want to take personal sovereignty and I want to store my data locally on my own computer kind of science side. 1:46:17 So when people say, and I think this is what Eric was trying to get at, is that we don't have proper definitions for rollup because people are like combining or they're kind of complaining like all these different terms where it's like a rollup is technically where you post it directly on L1. 1:46:33 But then this other term called like a Validium is a rollup, but you're not posting the data on L1. You're posting on one of these off chain data solutions. Ultimately, and I'll just recap with this and then end, you could have this ecosystem where all of these different options, data availability options can cross compose and share liquidity with each other. 1:46:53 So Paul, if you want to be directly on the L1 posting your data to make sure that you can always compute the proof and you can always withdraw, you can do that. I can store mine locally and then Bitcode or whatever can store his on these off chain data solutions. We can all cross compose it with each other despite the different security assumption. And that's a giant umbrella of I think what everybody's excited about. 1:47:15 Yeah, I agree that everyone should be excited about that. And that sounds like it's very likely to happen. And there will be these competing L2s and things. I really worry that this rollup word is just not, it's not, it's just confusing everyone. And maybe we should find new words. I don't know. Anyway, now we have Alex K joined and then Bitcode and John have their hands up. So I don't really know. I guess we should go back to Bitcode since he was talking before. 1:47:37 Yeah, I want to clear up something. Bitcoin can absorb 10 times, even 100 times more data than the world has today. And this is, I'm not 100% million percent sure. Why? Because Bitcoin can absorb gigabytes of data. It doesn't mean that you cannot put data. You need to know how to do it. 1:48:07 And I agree with you. I'm for solutions. Somebody don't want to use. Yeah, they can find different solutions. But, you know, the thing is that everybody is pushing in and saying, oh, we need to go off chain. Why? Why I want to go off chain when I have the best security ever produced in the world on Bitcoin blockchain? 1:48:28 Well, it's just the price. I mean, obviously, everybody would want to be on Bitcoin. Yeah, but for that, Bitcoin is much cheaper than anything else. Because off chain, I need to pay all the time. On Bitcoin, I pay once. That's it forever. For the eternity. 1:48:48 Okay, John has a hand and then we'll go to Alex K. 1:48:51 So I post the Citroën block production and pegging schematics. So on the white paper, they say that there's a sequencer. So that's the bridge, right? 1:49:13 And let me read here. A sequencer, unlike a validator or a miner, doesn't need to validate the validations over production blocks from other sequencers or nodes because every block produced by sequencers undergoing improving, which acts as a natural and trustless validation mechanism over blocks. 1:49:39 So the thing is, they say, and the beginning of the pegout, I don't understand all the schematics, but he says that at least just like on BTVM, at least if one verifier is honest, everyone is, the peg is protected, right? 1:49:57 Unlike a multisig, for example, that you make a multisig of three or five, if three people wants to rug the two, they can. And on the system, everyone has to want to rug. So the incentive is to not rug everyone. 1:50:19 The question here is what the frequency that it's being written on the blockchain of the Bitcoin, because if it's 10 on 10 minutes, it would be, I don't know, a lot of data and the fees will go up on the layer one too. 1:50:44 I didn't totally understand that a hundred percent. What are you exactly asking about? Who's paying for the roll up fees? 1:50:53 Yeah, I understand that's just like BTVM works, but I don't know. The thing is, my question is, doesn't this work just like the JPEGs, the originals that you have to make a transaction and the fees go up on the layer one? 1:51:23 So the fees have to go to layer two too. So, you know, on the Citrea blockchain or Citrea roll ups. 1:51:32 I think you're asking that, isn't there something that will charge a fee on L2 and will that subtract from what is paid to the L1 miners? Is that what you're saying? 1:51:50 Yeah, my question is, because we need to, this is for scaling, right? And a lot of things. But what you gain from us, layer two, is to have lower fees and more speed on the transaction. 1:52:12 So if everyone needs to inscribe on Bitcoin the transaction, you have to pay the fees. 1:52:26 Oh, that's a good point. Yes. Well, let me try to clarify. This is what when Orkin talks about state diffs. So, you know, you're not technically inscribing or posting every single transaction onto the Bitcoin L1. 1:52:42 You're essentially just inscribing what's called the state difference, which is like the netting out of all the transactions. Like if Paul and I sent, you know, 100 transactions back and forth to each other, but then the net change was only, you know, one Bitcoin, that's the transaction that gets submitted to the Bitcoin L1. 1:53:00 So then the question becomes, well, okay, if the miners and the nodes receive this data and they say, well, Paul should be getting, you know, one Bitcoin. It's like, how can you prove that all of the state transitions were valid? All of the 100 transactions that we did off chain were valid. And this is where the ZKP comes in. 1:53:20 So there's two things here. The state diffs allow you to get a modest compression on the data that you're submitting to L1 as opposed to every single actual transaction. And then the ZKP is what allows you to prove that the state diff was actually fully into consensus. So there's two different things going on there. State diff compresses the data you have to post. And the ZKP, you know, tells the nodes you don't have to go through and validate these transactions. You just have to verify that this ZKP is correct. 1:53:50 And this is why in a pure, like, ZK rollup model, you know, some of these white papers, people like John Light's research say, well, you can get anywhere from, call it like a 20 to 50x, you know, scaling improvement. It's from these state diffs, like this ability to kind of compress down the data that you have to post onto L1. 1:54:16 Now, if you want to get far, far, far more scalability improvements than that, then you would be posting the data or the state diffs to an off-chain data solution. But then you're taking on, obviously, more trust and more risk that these off-chain data. 1:54:37 These data providers, that they would essentially censor you or block you and prevent you from being able to create the proof. 1:54:42 But hopefully that makes sense. 1:54:49 Yeah, but that's that's the same concept like drivechain. Drivechain already has that and is a native Bitcoin extension. 1:54:57 For me, drivechain is not off-chain, to be clear, because it uses the same infrastructure from Bitcoin. 1:55:04 The nodes and there is no mining like on Bitcoin, but and the same principle applies to the drivechain, to the sidechains data that is confirmed on L1. 1:55:19 That's what you explained, David. 1:55:21 What do you think? People will use, like in the future, what do you think? 1:55:27 People will like to have something that is more peer-to-peer decentralized or people will use some custodial data providers and companies that will censor you or block you? 1:55:43 I mean, that's happening all the time since the beginning. 1:55:51 Yeah, I mean, I just think, hey, I'm a fan of drivechain, sure, like do it, like I would love it. 1:55:56 But, you know, I just don't know if there's enough momentum there. 1:56:00 And like there is something to be said about having something like novel and new and shiny. 1:56:05 And I do think I just think there's so many solutions that are being built around this kind of like we'll call it the quote unquote roll up space or the Validium space or ZK proofs like that. 1:56:17 I think it does have advantages that drivechains don't necessarily. 1:56:21 And like one of them is that ability to like share liquidity and have like trustless cross-chain composability amongst rollups. 1:56:29 Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah. 1:56:32 There is for sure. I can tell you and I can prove you. 1:56:35 And also I can I can use I can use a different blockchain to just utilize the sequencers indexers. 1:56:42 And it's very quick, very fast, very, very stable. 1:56:46 The settlement layer is instant. 1:56:50 You know, the fee that you pay per transaction is fixed. 1:56:54 One dollar, you know, like I can implement so many things like I'm saying I like because I I know what I'm talking like, you know, it's like the we need to understand one thing. 1:57:10 And if we if we like idea, I don't know if anybody, everybody here likes the idea of peer to peer and decentralization like or decentralized systems. 1:57:22 You know, if anybody disagree with that, fine. 1:57:25 But if we are on the same page, we need to we need to focus on on the on the big thing on drivechain and and help drivechain to be, you know, and then you can you can upgrade on drivechain so many things. 1:57:38 So there is a I mean, you can put Bitcoin in a picture in a digital form. 1:57:46 You can put in a emoji. You can put anywhere, you know. 1:57:50 So and we are talking here. Oh, you can always have you have the opportunity to have a crushing whatever. 1:58:00 No, Bitcoin can be can be teleported. 1:58:04 If you want to like Bitcoin is like. 1:58:10 How to say like on Bitcoin, everything is possible. Just you need to know how to do it. 1:58:19 Yeah, I think Jim ever lost Alex K. 1:58:24 I would like to hear if he was had an update on the apocalypse. 1:58:36 I mean, I think that's a great, interesting theory, but it's not happening yet. 1:58:41 But any day now, I talk to you a couple of days ago. 1:58:46 Oh, great. You have any thoughts on it? Great. 1:58:49 I mean, I actually very much align with his like apocalypse assessment. 1:58:53 And there's like probably two major reasons. 1:58:56 Like one, I think the idea that he would mention is like recursive covenants or sorry, not recursive covenants, recursive inscriptions, where instead of just being like, oh, hey, we can fit this image and like a four megabyte block. 1:59:08 It's like you could essentially try to upload like an entire website, like the entire, you know, WikiLeaks or something. 1:59:14 And that could be, you know, huge sums of data that could span across many different blocks. 1:59:19 And so you can kind of recursively like link these inscriptions together across blocks, which could just be like massive backload of data constantly wanting to be into the blockchain. 1:59:29 And they're kind of willing to pay like a minimum fee, which would raise the fee environment. 1:59:33 The one that I think is more compelling is like, whether you agree with rollups or not, like there are several teams, including Citria and Orkin, who are building rollups who, you know, are going to attempt to create these zero knowledge proofs and post them onto the L1 along with the state diffs from these L2s. 1:59:53 And there's several other teams that are trying to do that. 1:59:56 And they are like forced to do that. 2:00:00 Basically, every single block. 2:00:02 And because they're earning transaction fees on the L2, they actually have the money to be able to pay the fees. 2:00:09 So they're a much more, you know, like inelastic buyer of the block space. 2:00:17 And I think when those things start to happen, I do think fee block lifts is going to start happening. 2:00:24 And I even posted on this like on Twitter where I was like, if your L2 scaling solution like doesn't work in an IP environment, like you need to reconsider it because I do think it's coming. 2:00:36 Yeah, no, it's a very good thought. 2:00:38 I hope that he's right because part of his theory is that. 2:00:42 Well, it looks great for me if he's right. 2:00:44 So I do one thing I want to emphasize because everyone it's like the elephant in the room and people don't talk about it is it's this phrase he used about the L2 doesn't work in a high fee environment. 2:00:56 Just forget about the L2. 2:00:58 Just forget about it. 2:01:00 Just like you orange pill someone and you say, OK, I'll send them. 2:01:04 I'll send them $20 worth of Bitcoin. 2:01:07 You send them $20 worth of Bitcoin. 2:01:09 You lose $5 to the fee. 2:01:11 They get $15 and like, OK, then they like to try to send it. 2:01:17 Now it's $10. 2:01:19 And they're just going to be like, what? 2:01:21 Like regular people are just like, what the heck? 2:01:25 What is it? 2:01:26 And then they're like Venmo is free. 2:01:28 And it's just like embarrassing. 2:01:31 I just say I would almost restate it as if there is not something out there that is not near Venmo levels of free. 2:01:43 And if you don't have that, then the whole thing is dead. 2:01:48 It's just not going to get the network effect. 2:01:53 All right, here we go. 2:01:56 Let's see if this works. 2:02:00 OK, we have a new person. 2:02:02 Hello. 2:02:03 Welcome. 2:02:06 Mad Philly is here. 2:02:19 Yes. 2:02:20 Hello. 2:02:25 I'm not listening to him. 2:02:27 Can't hear him right now. 2:02:29 Come up with Vlad. 2:02:31 Vlad made a video with him. 2:02:36 And he may explain better. 2:02:38 The thing is, the audio is Turkish. 2:02:42 I can't understand. 2:02:47 So, yeah. 2:02:50 Space is, you know, is cursed. 2:02:52 What can we say? 2:02:56 But I invited Vlad. 2:02:58 I will invite people. 2:03:01 It may just be, honestly, guys, you know, it may be a cursed space. 2:03:05 And we may want to just end it because. 2:03:10 But let's see if we have any other last-minute thoughts. 2:03:15 Anyone has any roll-up thoughts? 2:03:19 Yeah, let a thousand flowers bloom. 2:03:22 I think it is the case that most people do not want to make any weird decisions. 2:03:28 They want to ultimately trust the software. 2:03:30 So most people will be using a, whatever gives them the best user experience. 2:03:35 And that will be a large block sidechain. 2:03:40 It will just be, and then they'll use it in SPV. 2:03:55 And there we have all the flowers here. 2:04:00 Maybe. 2:04:01 I mean, the space works. 2:04:02 What's going on? 2:04:03 Can you hear me? 2:04:04 Hey, yes, hello. 2:04:05 Long time, long time. 2:04:07 So last time we were talking about why not to do drivechains as a space chain. 2:04:19 And I was curious if we could, like, go back to that. 2:04:25 And maybe we could wrap in the roll-ups. 2:04:29 The space chain is just a drivechain that you cannot withdraw from, basically. 2:04:35 Because I remember your passion behind drivechains is you've got this, I forget, what type of market? 2:04:43 Yeah, prediction market. 2:04:46 Yeah, so why couldn't you do it on the space chain? 2:04:50 That's a very good question. 2:04:52 The prediction market is a concept where you are betting money on outcomes. 2:04:59 And so if someone loses the bet to someone else, they're supposed to be losing, like, Bitcoin or whatever to them. 2:05:05 They lose the money, and then that person is supposed to be able to withdraw the money and have Bitcoin. 2:05:12 So the lack of withdrawals is a problem for prediction markets. 2:05:16 But couldn't you basically do – you could do it as a space chain and then basically have, like, Bitcoin custodian in that space chain? 2:05:31 You could because – well, it would be like – it's like if there's a one-way street, you go to a casino, and you can only swap money for the casino tokens, and no one can ever redeem the casino tokens. 2:05:42 I get that part. 2:05:45 And so you're saying, like, why don't you just have, like, why don't you have some guy promise to do it? 2:05:49 But why is that guy doing it? 2:05:51 That guy's just giving up real money in exchange. 2:05:53 He's just destroying it. 2:05:54 Yeah, but technically, technically, you could probably do something where you have it pinned to a certain amount of Bitcoin. 2:06:02 And then you could pull out that Bitcoin if specifically you have that Bitcoin on a multi-sig. 2:06:08 So, yeah. 2:06:12 Yeah, you're saying something kind of like there will be a different guy in the casino who the bets and the winnings and losses will be in the casino chip world, and then there'll be something like USDT where someone will back it. 2:06:27 But you see, this is just like – all this stuff is just like deleting all this stuff in Bitcoin that makes it cool. 2:06:33 There is no issue with Drivechain. 2:06:35 People's complaints about it is really just revealing, like, how poorly they understand it. 2:06:42 And it's just – all this is just a mental illness that it's going to go away very soon because the software we have is almost done. 2:06:50 It is sort of user-friendly. 2:06:54 It will be – it's possible to deploy it to Bitcoin without any change to Bitcoin Core. 2:06:58 So, it's just inevitably going to either happen here or on many altcoins, which will increase the competition. 2:07:06 So, there's no, like – it just is the best idea, and these other ideas are just not as good. 2:07:12 It has nothing to do with my ego in the slightest. 2:07:14 It's rather the reverse. 2:07:15 It's all these other people are like, hey, what about this idea or that idea? 2:07:18 Those ideas just aren't very good. 2:07:21 So, that's why I kind of, like, don't want to change it to something else. 2:07:26 That's definitely true. 2:07:32 We have Vlad here now. 2:07:34 Hey, Vlad. 2:07:35 What's up? 2:07:37 Hi, guys. 2:07:38 Thank you for inviting me to speak. 2:07:40 You basically pushed my limits when it comes to privacy settings on my phone. 2:07:45 I figured that, oh, I should enable microphone access, and I had to leave the app and do this once again. 2:07:52 I missed the first part of the conversation, the one with SupertestNet, and I feel guilty right now. 2:07:58 I have to catch up with that because I said to myself that this is basically Christmas Day for me. 2:08:04 I get to listen to that happening, these guys talking about what a zero-knowledge roll-up should be like. 2:08:12 And I'm the first podcaster who got Orkun, who introduced him to the Bitcoin audience. 2:08:19 So, if he turns out to be a liar or a scammer of sorts, then I'm morally guilty of introducing him and enabling him to promote that. 2:08:30 So, I'm super interested to see the outcome. 2:08:33 SupertestNet said that he liked him. 2:08:34 Yeah, yeah, yeah. 2:08:35 They apologized and made up in their own way. 2:08:42 Okay, that's interesting. 2:08:45 But we all learned a lot about how a roll-up means that there's no compression and everything's on L1. 2:08:51 And so, does the word mean anything? 2:08:53 No one knows, but we'll figure it out one day. 2:08:56 Yeah. 2:08:57 David is having a heart attack now. 2:08:58 It still sounds like jargon. 2:08:59 It still sounds like jargon. 2:09:01 The way that I understand it, at least in the Bitcoin context, is that you batch transactions. 2:09:08 And you put, instead of having all the transaction data, which takes a lot of block space, you create a zero-knowledge proof of that. 2:09:15 And you inscribe that as an original inscription. 2:09:19 And you're going to use that to verify that it existed. 2:09:22 So, that's the way in which I perceive it. 2:09:25 On Ethereum, it means Layer 2. 2:09:28 You know, the idea of a ZK roll-up. 2:09:31 On Bitcoin, it very much uses block space. 2:09:39 Yeah. 2:09:42 I'm still not getting it, basically. 2:09:47 We had a question about, doesn't the inscription cost money and, therefore, isn't it just inefficient? 2:09:53 I don't get that at all. 2:09:54 How is this different from Lightning? 2:09:57 What makes Lightning not a roll-up, under those circumstances and those definitions? 2:10:05 Just like I said, on Lightning, you have a multisig of two. 2:10:11 So, you have two channels. 2:10:14 And on Citraya, you don't have two parties. 2:10:20 You have everyone that can verify. 2:10:22 And if at least one person is following the rules, everything is up. 2:10:32 Just like a multisig. 2:10:34 Yeah, but where... 2:10:35 A multisig of five or three. 2:10:37 So, three persons can still have two. 2:10:42 So, it's a different form of multisig. 2:10:46 That's what you're saying. 2:10:51 Yeah, no. 2:10:54 But, yes, it's just like a multisig that everyone has to be on consensus. 2:11:03 Okay. 2:11:04 So, what makes that multisig different from a sidechain? 2:11:10 It's very similar to a sidechain. 2:11:13 But the thing that the zero-knowledge proof is inscribed on the Bitcoin blockchain. 2:11:21 The difference is that, I think. 2:11:24 And that's the thing that we said before. 2:11:27 If it's inscribed on Bitcoin, the fees will go up. 2:11:32 And that's the thing that we said before. 2:11:34 If it's inscribed on Bitcoin, the fees will go up. 2:11:38 And then, it's not the best solution. 2:11:42 But it's a better solution than describing, I think, I don't know, JPEGs. 2:11:52 So, the difference between a roll-up and a sidechain, which I think is what you're asking, 2:11:58 is that a roll-up, if you also have a zero-knowledge proof, is able to prove the validity of the transition to a certain change in balance. 2:12:09 Like, if somebody bridges on to a sidechain and all these balances change. 2:12:14 And now you say, well, David used to have 10 Bitcoin, but now he actually only has 5. 2:12:20 How do you relay that information back to the Bitcoin L1? 2:12:24 Bitcoin L1 cannot understand any information from the outside world. 2:12:29 So, you would essentially have to trust some sort of federation or a hashrate escrow like the miners to relay that information to say, David now has 5 Bitcoin. 2:12:40 But with a zero-knowledge roll-up or a ZKP, you can mathematically prove, you can provide a digital unforgeable receipt to the L1 that says, look, David now has 5 Bitcoin. 2:12:54 It doesn't matter what he did in this sidechain to be able to get to 5 Bitcoin. 2:12:58 It doesn't matter if he sent it to Craig Wright or if he put it into a DeFi contract or if he earned it or he staked it, whatever. 2:13:06 Here is just a digital unforgeable receipt that says he now has 5 Bitcoin. 2:13:12 It doesn't matter how he did that on the L2. 2:13:14 And so, from Bitcoin's perspective, it says, look, just prove to me that you followed my rules, that no more than 21 million Bitcoins were created, that there were no double spends, that you followed the rules of the consensus. 2:13:25 If you can prove that to me, then I'll allow you to update how much Bitcoin balance David now has on the L1. 2:13:32 That's the fundamental difference. 2:13:34 It's that communication, like a sidechain essentially has an Oracle problem, like the Bitcoin L1 cannot read a sidechain. 2:13:39 But with the ZKP, you can prove that communication trustlessly back to Bitcoin. 2:13:44 OK, so how... 2:13:47 David, you don't need to have Oracle because drivechain will have the same node infrastructure as Bitcoin. 2:13:56 But how does that work if you still don't have a trustless pegout? 2:14:03 What's the value of that if you don't have a trustless pegout? 2:14:06 Yeah, so the pegout, you're right, like the model that I just described, in a perfect world, we have like an OP Stark or SNARK verifier on the L1 so that the L1 nodes can receive that proof and just very simply verify, hey, this is valid. 2:14:25 Again, I don't know what the hell happened on L2, but I'm just verifying that this mathematical proof is valid. 2:14:29 Therefore, I'm allowing you to update David's balance to five Bitcoin. 2:14:34 But when BitVM got announced and released, all of a sudden people are saying, well, can we use BitVM to verify these zero knowledge proofs on the L1 without any sort of software? 2:14:48 And that's what's kind of given this renaissance to this whole like ZK roll up on Bitcoin narrative, is that we can essentially emulate the soft fork with BitVM, but with a one of N trust assumption, meaning you need one honest party, as opposed to a federation where you need the majority of the parties to kind of be honest, you only need one. 2:15:08 So is it a perfect solution where it's fully trustless, where you can trustlessly ensure that if you have a valid ZK proof, you can process your transaction on the L1? No. But is it pretty damn good and improved from something like a traditional sidechain federation? Yes, 100%. 2:15:24 Okay. And in terms of this in comparison with miners, is this better than trusting the miners? How does that interplay? Because at least from my understanding, drivechain, the whole thing of drivechain was being able to specifically do this. 2:15:50 Well, I mean, I don't feel confident in my ability to debate drivechains with Paul in the room. But in my opinion, I think it's preferred. I mean, in a very elementary way, like drivechains are essentially, you know, a hash rate escrow, you're escrowing the funds with the majority of the hash rate with the miners, and you're essentially trusting them to facilitate that bridge. I think that's probably still pretty damn safe. And I would love to have drivechains. 2:16:20 But just like, you know, you hear it straight up, you're like, Oh, wow, like, you can create a party with like, 100 people, instead of the miners managing, like, like, the escrow of funds, you could say, like, there's 100 people, maybe even 1000 people that are, are managing these funds, and you only need one out of those 1000 people to be honest, in order to process the withdrawal. Like, that's pretty compelling. And to make matters better, you potentially yourself could be one of those verifiers, you could be one of the people that is honest. 2:16:49 So it's like, it's good, you know, and yes, BitVM is clunky, and it requires a ton of, you know, pre signing and, and, you know, you may have this kind of challenge response game that lasts for like three to six months, similar to drivechain, but like, that honestly may just be like, good enough to get us there. 2:17:05 Okay, okay. 2:17:07 That's the thing, because it's the same process of pegging in and pegging out of six months of drivechain. It's, it's, well, it's work, right? Or am I wrong? Because if it works, right, it's a compelling argument for activating BIP300. 2:17:27 Yeah, I think there's a couple different things here. It's one, it's kind of argument that like Paul would make with drivechains, where you have like the atomic swaps, right, where like, for normal users, like, they're just going to like, you know, there's a marketplace for swapping from like, the sidechain or the roll up back to the L1. And like, most people will do that. And then it's only like very specialized people that that will bridge over the BitVM bridge. And if everybody's participating and collaborating, like, I'm pretty sure you don't have to go through this whole three to six month process. 2:17:56 It's not a three to six month challenge response game. It's only like, like, if somebody is trying to be a total pain in the ass, that, that you would have to like, play this game out. And even if you play that game out, like, like, eventually, the the party trying to steal would would lose and like they would, they would be replaced by somebody else, and they would lose funds that they they put at stake. 2:18:20 So in all likelihood, the three to six month thing won't play out. But of course, like we have to consider it. Because if you have this roll up, and you're expecting to be able to kind of bridge out via this BitVM bridge, and also in the challenge response game plays out, and it's like, you have three months where, where the bridge is essentially inactive. It's like, did that freeze the roll up? Like, these are kind of getting into the weeds questions. 2:18:42 But that's like the the major kind of like, impediment with this kind of BitVM roll up right now is, is okay, like people have modeled out like work and have modeled out a way that like, you could have these trustless ZK roll ups on Bitcoin. But what happens if BitVM like three to six month thing has to play out like that freeze the roll up? I probably got into the weeds there. But that's kind of where things are at. 2:19:06 Can everybody hear me now? Sorry. 2:19:10 Is that super? 2:19:13 Sorry, you broke up there? What? 2:19:14 No, okay. My question for for you was, was this or for the room? How does a BitVM work with something like frost? 2:19:24 Hmm, I don't know if I'm this one, maybe what is frost? 2:19:36 Frost basically, it is, it's basically an advanced multisig where essentially, you can have a lot more members of the multisig up to a higher level, like you could get up to like 1000. 2:19:52 So my, my understanding of BVM is, it essentially is a multisig. But instead of needing the majority of the parties to sign off, you could essentially say, hey, like, you only need one of these parties in the multisig, to be honest, in order to like facilitate the transaction. 2:20:13 So I'll try to explain BVM. You're essentially, you have a party, like a prover, that we'll call Paul, that's committing to perform some sort of off chain computation. And the way they commit to that is they pre signed a bunch of transactions, and they put a certain amount of money at stake in a pre signed transaction on Bitcoin. 2:20:38 And then there is a verifier, who is interacting off chain with this prover and saying, Look, you're gonna you're gonna run this software, you're gonna you're gonna do all this programmability for Bitcoin off chain, right? And he goes, Yes, yes, yes. And they're they're exchanging information back and forth, back and forth. 2:20:53 And assuming that game works, you can trust this prover to to facilitate all of this programmability, like a potential, you know, soft fork, like we can emulate the ZKP verifier off chain. Now, if the prover all of a sudden, like maybe they accept a zero knowledge proof that isn't actually valid, like they they are essentially defaulting on their agreement to run this program off chain. 2:21:17 The verifier who they were interacting with off chain could say, Hey, this is bullshit, man, like, you're lying right now. And they could submit a fraud proof, which is just like a very small piece of data that proves that they they did not follow the rules that they committed to following on chain. So again, you're kind of taking this this wrong that was done off chain, you're proving it on chain. And because they already committed to it on chain, you can essentially slash the prover and you can you can take away their funds. 2:21:44 And so if that does occur, the prover would be slashed, the verifier would be rewarded, and then there would be a new, a new prover that is essentially assigned. All this happens within the context of this kind of frost type multisig that you're talking about where there could be 100 parties in that multisig, and only one of them is the prover that's doing all this stuff off chain. 2:22:06 And 99 of them are these are these potential verifiers that could slash the prover. And then if the prover gets found to again, be defaulted, then you know, out of the remaining 99 verifiers, one of them becomes assigned a prover. And then the process essentially repeats. 2:22:25 Okay, that's, that's interesting. So Paul, if this works out, technically, you could spin up your own sidechain, like big VM type sidechain, and include drivechain in it. 2:22:37 Well, really, there's no difference between what he just described in drivechain, really, in my point of view. I mean, I'm sure a lot of people are like, what the heck is he talking about? See, at the end of the day, it's just one disadvantage of that one requires a soft fork. So there is a difference. 2:22:53 Well, it's not really the case that what BIP300 requires, it doesn't have to be a soft fork, it would be better if everyone would just go to the library and learn with all these words are supposed to mean, and then use them the right way. And then activate via soft fork. 2:23:13 But if 300 can be done, even the way without a soft fork also, and it will work exactly the same. It's just because, well, I tweeted about it. It's in my highlights. It's called the core untouched soft fork. And, but this whole, this whole thing is nonsense. Anyway, you know what I mean? Like, I'm just trying, I've been trying to explain this for years, which is that the whole thing about whether or not something needs a soft fork. 2:23:43 Is just an exercise in like stupidity, basically. So again, the soft fork is like, it's this thing that all you need to do is have Satoshi built it into Bitcoin, where you have these op nops that are supposed to be there for upgrades. 2:23:58 So I'm not even sure I can find a metaphor, but I'm going to search my brain here. This is like as if your if your parents left you a trust fund with an unlimited amount of money in it. So use this money if you ever need any money. 2:24:12 And then all of a sudden, at some point, someone was worried about how we were spending 13 of this dollars. And then one of the siblings or something, they made this huge deal about it in 2017. 2:24:34 And now everyone is just talking about, well, how do we, how do we do this without touching the enormous pile of infinite money? And what we should do is just admit to ourselves that we're wrong about caring about this issue, because it's stupid. 2:24:49 The reason it's stupid is because, on contra what you may have heard, a soft fork is undetectable by the old nodes who have not run it. That is why it's harmless. So the idea that a soft fork could even be political is false. And the idea that there's anything bad about a soft fork is also false. 2:25:10 false. the that a soft work requires effort is false. 2:25:13 All these things are not true. 2:25:14 You're kind of speaking to the choir here, but at the of the day, you're dealing with 2:25:19 people and the consensus of people 2:25:22 At the end of the day, think BIP300 will activate without any pull requests into 2:25:27 Bitcoin Core. will be like miners will just run like additional software. 2:25:32 It'll be Bitcoin Core 2:25:40 The thing is that the Bitcoin Core pull request process is broken. It's not the other way around. You know, it's like we have a magic horn of plenty here that produces infinite prosperity. But the king refuses to use it. 2:25:56 So instead, we will like build a really long, I don't know, pole and like a really long those grab it things and just grab the stuff out. But it doesn't say anything about why the horn of plenty is bad. 2:26:10 Yeah. know, say soft fork is requiring, soft fork is bad. 2:26:14 But the thing is the same thing, really, but let me finish my thought. 2:26:17 know I've been rambling on for a little while here, 2:26:20 basically people say, BIP300 requires... 2:26:24 The BIP300 thing helps keep the miners honest. 2:26:29 That's for the benefit of the 2:26:41 And then at the end of the day, all you have is the ability to broadcast something to L1 to slash them. And at the end of the day, you're still assuming that the miners prefer to have more transaction fees. 2:26:53 Because you assume that they are willing to include this thing, this BitVM proof thing. So the whole thing is a mess. And even Robin Linus, the inventor of BitVM, he said that he only invented it to get BIP300 in the circuitous way. 2:27:09 So I'm sure it will be used for many, like most inventions, it will be used for many things beyond what it was intended for. 2:27:15 I would challenge that. 2:27:16 And I think that's great. 2:27:17 And then he, the group that he had in Telegram was really called, you know, hack a ZKP verifier into Bitcoin. Like that's what BitVM was born out of. So I don't think the explicit design goal was drivechains. I think Robin's a fan of drivechains, but his goal was to bring zero knowledge. 2:27:30 Well, he has tweeted about this. There's an exact tweet. 2:27:33 He wants a ZKP in Bitcoin. We've talked about it. 2:27:38 Yes. 2:27:39 The unfortunate thing though is the ZKP doesn't do anything either, though, because what ZKP is just SPV mode plus a situation that doesn't exist. 2:27:48 Can you elaborate on that? 2:27:50 SPV mode is you just get all the 80 byte headers, which is 4.4 megabytes a year, which is very practical. And everyone, a million, tons of people use this architecture every day. 2:28:03 This is such a great idea. 2:28:06 And the ZKProver would be like the coin witness concept. That would be a good idea if and only if we lived in a world where you were shown, you ran, lots of people ran SPV wallets and they were constantly being tricked. 2:28:25 Like they don't know which chain is valid. I know which chain is the longest, but which chain is valid and which chain is not valid. 2:28:33 In a world where people are being tricked often, like once a week. Instead, it has literally never happened and it never will happen because of how well designed SPV is. 2:28:43 So that is the whole thing. The ZKProof solves a problem that doesn't exist because it just doesn't exist. 2:28:54 It's like solving the problem of what if the gravity turns off. 2:28:57 I thought that it helped out with doing the equivalent of like the UTREXO stuff so that it would... 2:29:04 UTREXO, you may be right about that, but UTREXO is another example of something that would work perfectly fine and everyone would be able to use a mobile phone. 2:29:12 Everyone have a full node on a mobile phone. 2:29:15 And the only reason we can't is because people are afraid of soft forking the UTREXO commitment into the Coinbase transaction in Bitcoin. 2:29:23 So this is another case where the king, he has the all-powerful soft fork thing. 2:29:30 And it's really because these sort of basically evil people have, like Grima Wormtongue people have told the king that the soft fork is very political and you can never use that. 2:29:41 That all of us have to suffer in a world where we don't have it. It's like literal sabotage. 2:29:45 Yeah, but I think that at the end of the day, if that's the true case, it's all like, yo, go and develop your own competitive client to court. 2:29:55 Yeah, absolutely. No, I think that I think I may do that because I think it's very easy to compete. 2:30:02 And I think that it will be able to what it will be. I have to stress, it will be a piece of software where it downloads and runs Bitcoin Core, Bitcoin D. 2:30:13 But it just keeps it like in a box. And it just kind of like doesn't ask it, you know, about, you know, which UTREXO are real and then which blocks are real, but it doesn't do anything else. 2:30:24 And then everything else is just like it's like the engine of a car and you just it's like a C++ compiler and you just so it won't be a competitor. 2:30:32 It will be a competitor to the software that people actually use. So it's like very rarely do people use Bitcoin Core anyway. 2:30:39 But the end user thing will be it will download Bitcoin Core and it will sort of be like, again, you know, I love to come up with these metaphors, guys. 2:30:50 I'm trying to come up with one that I think is nice. It's like Bitcoin Core will be in there, but it will be hidden away. 2:30:56 You know, it's kind of like, you know, the engine of a car or the CPU of a computer. 2:31:02 You just you seal it away and you put the alienware stuff around it. 2:31:07 It's like you put a nice, you know, put in the leather seats and no one ever sees the engine. 2:31:12 You know, no one sees the it'll be doing the work, but it will be. 2:31:16 And I think if you do this type of architecture, you can have things such as UTREXO where everyone running your software has UTREXO, but the people only run Bitcoin Core don't. 2:31:28 So I think it's the whole thing is that you see from my point of view, the whole thing is just a list of people who are outing themselves as not understanding how Bitcoin works, not wanting Bitcoin to succeed. 2:31:42 I don't think it's that emotional, bro. 2:31:47 I don't think it's that emotional, bro. 2:31:50 I think at the end of the day, we're in Bitcoin where everybody has a different opinion and a different perspective of how things are supposed to work. 2:31:57 And like I was saying, if you build your own client and you get some adoption behind it, then you get your idea. 2:32:05 But I think you also know, though, that I think you're right about that. 2:32:08 But I think you also know that it's not really like. 2:32:11 It's not like, you know, you even just because you have something that's better doesn't mean that you will be, you know, there's like go start your own country or something like that's a lot of work that people shouldn't have to do. 2:32:24 It's like morally wrong. 2:32:28 I think it's more like the nomad, capitalist, go where you're treated best type situation. 2:32:36 Yeah, I agree. 2:32:38 And if you're ambitious enough, start your own country. 2:32:41 It's nothing wrong with that. 2:32:43 But would you really say there's nothing wrong if the. 2:32:47 David wants to say something. 2:32:50 No, sorry, I was going to go back to kind of your claim that there's a redundancy between like the SPV and like a zero knowledge proof. 2:32:56 Like, can you just help me clarify my understanding? 2:32:59 Like, like an SPV proof, like you essentially need to be running a light client and then you can receive an SPV and you can prove that like, you know, a payment happened, you know, on this separate blockchain. 2:33:10 So one, it requires light clients to be running of like the separate chain, but also it's like a zero knowledge proof. 2:33:17 And I kind of mentioned this earlier, like it can compress all the computation done in like a fully expressive environment, not just payments. 2:33:24 But you could be running like a thousand smart contract interactions in any expressive programmable language, and you can compress that proof and prove the validity. 2:33:34 So I just think it's like an SPV. 2:33:36 Yeah, but SPV, no, it already does that. 2:33:38 It doesn't, what SPV does is it says, we assert that this is valid without proof. 2:33:47 And that assertion is as 100% reliability rating because of just based on indirect, because there's no reason. 2:33:58 It has nothing to do with like, again, it's like the laws of physics allow Bill Gates to take his private jet, knock on the door to the captain and say, oh, hey, I'm Bill Gates. 2:34:10 Can I like, I want to show my nephew the controls. 2:34:13 And then they're like, what? 2:34:14 And they opened the door and then Bill Gates tasers the people and handcuffs them or just kills them or whatever. 2:34:22 And then he seizes the controls of the airplane and crashes the airplane into Microsoft headquarters. 2:34:29 Now, the laws of physics allow that. 2:34:31 The ZK people are so weird and artistic and bizarre and so confused and wasting everyone's time, no offense. 2:34:40 I'm trying to be a little funny here, but I'm also trying to just give you the world. 2:34:43 This is my take on it, that they are going around the world presenting at conferences. 2:34:49 And they have PowerPoint slides that say, we have invented a new universe where the laws of physics do not allow Bill Gates to crash his own private jet into Microsoft headquarters. 2:34:58 And they're saying, this is great. 2:34:59 And they're celebrating this result. 2:35:01 And it's like that has never happened. 2:35:03 And it's not going to happen. 2:35:05 And you're doing an awful lot of work 2:35:07 to address a scenario that doesn't exist, 2:35:09 because there is no reason why miners would spend the full amount. 2:35:14 They have every interest in making sure that the blocks they mine are valid. 2:35:18 Now, it's not appropriate for no one to be making sure that it's because we have the full nodes keeping the miners honest, that they are honest. 2:35:28 But given that this whole system is running at all, it is perfectly fine for some people to free ride off of SPV. 2:35:35 That is the total intent. 2:35:37 It's an empirical question. 2:35:39 I would be wrong if we lived in a world where people were constantly being tricked. 2:35:44 And they said, oh, I used Electrum. 2:35:47 And the two guys would sit down at a bar, and they would say, oh, you know, David, you were right. 2:35:55 I didn't check the validity of each state, all the expressivity of each state transition. 2:36:02 And then he'd be like, oh, I'm sorry, man. 2:36:04 And he'd be like, how much did you lose? 2:36:06 And they'd be like, this is the time that I bought my, I sold my Harley-Davidson motorcycle. 2:36:11 And they're like, oh, no. 2:36:12 And he's like, I lost $15,000 because I used Electrum. 2:36:16 And they're like, it happens sometimes. 2:36:18 And he's like, aren't you happy, though, that at least you saved money? 2:36:21 You didn't have to run the full node, or you didn't have to run the 50. 2:36:25 I mean, this is ridiculous. 2:36:27 This is completely absurd. 2:36:28 This has never happened. 2:36:29 It never will happen. 2:36:31 It's not a real consideration. 2:36:33 So is it good for people to improve SPV mode as much as they can with all kinds of fraud proofs, ZK proofs? 2:36:41 Absolutely. 2:36:42 I, myself, have written a giant blog post about fraud proofs that uses Lightning LN channels, nonetheless. 2:36:50 I've totally, 1 million percent, support people doing that. 2:36:53 I support people doing ZK proofs, even though I am very concerned that no one will understand what the ZK prover thing is doing. 2:37:00 And so it may ultimately not matter. 2:37:02 But if the software is doing it, they don't know what a hash function is doing either. 2:37:05 So I fully support all this. 2:37:09 I just think, to me, it is really like I'm sitting at a conference among a bunch of airplane designers. 2:37:16 And they say, we have changed the airplane so that Bill Gates cannot crash it into the headquarters. 2:37:21 And you're like, well, that is a stupid thing for smart people to spend their time doing. 2:37:29 And that's just how I feel. 2:37:32 Now we have a lot of people with hands up. 2:37:33 So I don't know who. 2:37:35 Bro, you just got to get started on that client. 2:37:39 That's the thing. 2:37:41 And I'm excited because I've brought it up many times. 2:37:47 And just the whole entire thing is like, yeah, we're going to have an ecosystem where everyone's going to be interested in what they're interested in. 2:37:55 And it would be irrational to think that anything would happen differently when you're dealing in a decentralized area. 2:38:02 So someone like yourself, if you create that client and now specifically, there's tons of people out there who want to support you in the development of that client. 2:38:13 Ideally, I think that would keep Bitcoin more decentralized and would give optionality. 2:38:18 And if at the end of the day, everyone just wants to run core, which I think a lot of people will. 2:38:23 It's like the majority client right now. 2:38:25 That's awesome. 2:38:26 And for the people who want to run Paul's client, that'd be great. 2:38:32 Now you have more freedom to do what you want. 2:38:37 Yes, Madfelly has been trying to get up for a while. 2:38:41 Hello. 2:38:41 Hi, thank you. 2:38:42 Paul, can you hear me OK? 2:38:43 I just want to make sure you can hear me. 2:38:44 I can hear you. 2:38:46 Now you hear me loud and clear. 2:38:47 Awesome. 2:38:48 It's funny because I'm not a developer, but I've been, you know, I work with a lot of developers and stuff. 2:38:56 And I'm actually more of a behavioral specialist. 2:38:58 But I have my I have two little Bitcoin miners that people's like, why do you run those machines? 2:39:03 They use a ton of electricity. 2:39:04 I was like, damn it, because I like it. 2:39:06 And it's damn cool. 2:39:07 And it gives me something to do. 2:39:09 But, you know, one of the things that I've kind of, you know, just kind of discovered, of course, through my years in blockchain is that there's nothing that's gotten me more excited than really the ZK proofs for one and really one reason. 2:39:24 And this is and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, is that you can have, you know, in drivechains and sidechains, you know, you have to be you have to pay in and out to interact with that ecosystem. 2:39:35 While in ZK roll ups, you can have all of these layer twos on Bitcoin and basically you can interact with all of them. 2:39:45 You know, it's kind of like what I think a polygon call is like the aggregation layer, stuff like that. 2:39:50 And that's the type of stuff that I'm hoping the ZK proof on these Bitcoin L2s does. 2:39:55 And as a as a miner, it was like, wow, you know, if I could also, you know, do merge mining into all these layer twos where you're participating, you're getting it, you know, you're secure in the network and all this stuff. 2:40:08 And it just sounds like something that's where I see what people would want to come in and participate because I feel it's more inclusive. 2:40:15 There's one complaint people always that, you know, here's what looks like, you know, hey, Bitcoin mining is great, but, you know, I'd rather do stuff on Ethereum or Matic or cheap fees and all this other stuff because there's not a lot of stuff besides inscriptions and stamps. 2:40:27 There's not a lot of defy that you can do on Bitcoin. 2:40:30 I think this is where all of a sudden you can capture that market in terms of saying, hey, look, it doesn't matter what chain you're on. 2:40:38 We have, you know, you don't have to pay in and out. 2:40:40 You just have this thing where it's like the unified liquidity, unified this and that basically based on that, you can be on whichever other layer two and do whatever you'd like on it. 2:40:51 And that to me is it basically gives easy access to all the stuff. 2:40:54 And that's why I'm excited about it. 2:40:57 I don't think it is a real difference because there's no way that you can use the L2 unless someone has pegged coins into it. 2:41:05 I think probably, I mean, for drivechain, you can someone else can peg the coins in and then you can get on boarded to the L2 directly. 2:41:13 And in all the cases, there will be people who just make like a front end that just like covers everything. 2:41:19 And it's not going to be totally clear what it's doing under the hood, you know, at a glance. 2:41:25 But I think all those things are the same. 2:41:27 I don't think it is different that there would be. 2:41:30 But it might be different. 2:41:32 I don't know. I doubt it. 2:41:33 I think my guess is that there'd be like 20 sidechain, 10 or 11 for payments. 2:41:39 And then there'd be a couple that do like very specialized things. 2:41:44 That's kind of my guess. 2:41:45 Now, of course, that is a total guess on my part. 2:41:48 I don't know if that is the case. 2:41:50 But if there's only 20, then it's not mostly like people. 2:41:53 It's kind of like how, you know, if you go from North America, you go to Europe, you have to change the US dollar for euros. 2:42:00 So my guess is that people would be like switching chains, like it would be like that type of thing where it doesn't really happen that often. 2:42:07 And people mostly just hang out on whichever chains they like. 2:42:12 But I could totally be wrong about that. 2:42:14 But I don't think that is a very. 2:42:15 Yeah, I don't think that's a big difference between. 2:42:17 Yeah, I think with when you like, let's say, let's say you have Rootstock and I want to do a different one. 2:42:22 I hate to mention names because it feels like I'm promoting it. 2:42:24 But if I'm in one drivechain and I'm pegged in, but now I want to go to a different one. 2:42:28 I think I have to peg in and out of those different ones just because now you can swap the swap market. 2:42:35 Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. 2:42:37 But it's not as seamless as it is saying, like, hey, look, I'm on a I'm on Metamask, you know, here is my wallet at CBM and I can see all the different chains right there without having to do too much work. 2:42:50 Yeah, Metamask is a front. 2:42:52 I think that one thing where Bitcoin has dropped the ball relative to Ethereum is the front end and particularly Metamask. 2:42:59 And it's kind of a wacky situation where Ethereum actually has no it didn't have like a native front end. 2:43:04 And as a result, people competed to build one. 2:43:07 And then the Metamask got pretty good. 2:43:09 And like browser wallets are kind of good. 2:43:11 We don't really have that in Bitcoin, which is our loss. 2:43:15 But I'm actually working on something kind of like that now, although I work on a lot of different things. 2:43:21 And then I kind of abandoned them. 2:43:22 But but I think you're right that but that's that's a that's a function of Metamask, really. 2:43:30 And just we have, obviously, we have Unisat's wallets now, it's starting up. 2:43:38 Yeah, I have to interject because I don't like Metamask because Metamask is involved in a lot of scams. 2:43:47 I think we should actually build a new one, even for BitVM or anything else. 2:43:53 Don't use Metamask to build anything else. 2:43:57 Yeah, I agree with that. 2:43:58 But I was just trying to say that Metamask does a very good job of, as he was saying, Metamask, like, it was just you just open it and you just it was just an example. 2:44:06 You just like it like wraps everything like it's like it kind of is like user friendly is I think the point. 2:44:14 Anyway, we got a bunch of people who are now let's see, maybe come up and down. 2:44:20 Bitcode has a hand. 2:44:22 Yeah, I wanted to give a simple example, comparison and how people can understand it. 2:44:31 Like, maybe I was wrong that they didn't put ZK kind of knowledge proofs or whatever in Bitcoin. 2:44:41 But here is one example for drivechains. 2:44:45 And that's the BIP301, it's the merge mining. 2:44:48 What is merge mining? 2:44:50 It's the same like ZK, ZK roll up proofs. 2:44:54 It is the same. 2:44:55 I mean, like the ZK and I have knowledge in this because I was following deep research in ZK technology. 2:45:03 What is ZK is mathematical equation that assuming that the other side having something and proof without any, you know, between to have anything between us. 2:45:19 So that's, you know, like and also ZK when we see the world. 2:45:27 What means is exactly that, that the other side do not have knowledge of what I'm doing. 2:45:35 So the blind merge mining is exactly that. 2:45:39 The miners do not know what we are doing, what I'm doing on sidechain. 2:45:44 So that is one example just to. 2:45:50 I just want to clarify on those knowledge proofs like you kind of mentioned privacy, like ZKPs used to be used in the context of like creating 2:45:56 totally encrypted end-to-end transactions, like very privacy. 2:45:59 Now, when people mention them, it's in the context of like scaling. 2:46:01 So I just want to make sure the audience understands that. 2:46:04 The whole point of a zero knowledge roll ups and ZKPs, it's not to create privacy. 2:46:09 That's just like one byproduct of the many things that could potentially enable. 2:46:13 So small point of clarification there. 2:46:15 It's for scaling, not privacy necessarily. 2:46:18 But I hope this scaling comes with privacy to make something private before even making the soft fork, before making it. 2:46:29 I mean, let me, I have two questions here and that's why I stayed for the hand and waited too long because it's not about this topic, almost, you know, I would diverge. 2:46:44 I'll put on the last of the, a tweet from Jameson Wopp. 2:46:53 Because BitVM, Citraya uses descriptions, right? 2:46:59 Just like I said, and every time you make inscriptions, you have to pay the fees. 2:47:10 And this chart, this graph of Jameson Wopp, shows the size of the Bitcoin serialized UTXOs. 2:47:23 So it's double from 4 gigabytes to 10 gigabytes. 2:47:29 And I'll be honest on this, I don't understand how it works properly. 2:47:37 It's stored on the computer run, I think. 2:47:43 So if it's keeping growing this way and BitVM will make it grow because just like inscriptions, what problems can it brings? 2:47:59 And doesn't BIP300 solves that? 2:48:02 And the second question is, for you, Paul. 2:48:10 Is the miner, how can I say that? 2:48:19 When BIP300 is activated, there is a limit of 2,000 and I don't know how much more BIP300. 2:48:33 256, yeah. 2:48:36 The thing is, are the miners, for each chain that they approve, they need to run the nodes and make up the infrastructure to run the spaces of the chain that's needed, for example. 2:49:00 No, they only run the node if there is a dispute, which is also will probably never happen. 2:49:04 But even if they do need to run a node, they only need to sync the last six months. 2:49:09 So they need to do basically nothing. 2:49:11 And even if they wanted to run a node to sync the last six months, they can defer to their pool and the pools can all defer to each other. 2:49:24 And the pool, biggest pool can just defer to whoever they think is running a full node. 2:49:30 But this whole thing is irrelevant anyway, because running a full node, even for the most expensive sidechains like Solana, is only a few. 2:49:39 It's like $5,000 a year they've gotten it down to now for Solana. 2:49:43 But it doesn't even matter because you have to sync the full node only for the last six months. 2:49:49 So that only takes like a couple days. 2:49:51 So this whole thing is if there is ever a dispute, which will never happen, it won't happen precisely because it's so cheap to run the nodes and sync them for the last six months. 2:50:03 But it says if there is a dispute, then sync the node for a few days. 2:50:09 And this is going to cost like a couple hundred dollars. 2:50:11 But in return, the world I'm imagining is a world where they get 10 cents off of every transaction on Earth, which is $1.1 trillion in 2022. 2:50:19 And this is a figure that doubles every five or six years. 2:50:23 So it's $110 billion in revenue for the miners as a whole. 2:50:29 So it's like every year, but then it's $220 billion five years from now. 2:50:35 And the node costs will only get cheaper. 2:50:37 This whole thing is a red herring, I think. 2:50:39 It's just like people trying. 2:50:41 It's just more of just a sad failure to grasp like the reality of the situation and just try to find like, oh, the airplane might crash into the world headquarters. 2:50:53 It's like it's not happening. 2:50:54 It's just none of this. 2:50:55 None of these things that people think are relevant make any difference at all. 2:50:59 That's a great answer. 2:51:03 I want to add something. 2:51:05 It also is irrelevant if any transaction is inscribed or it just sent directly, because anyway, everything on Bitcoin is inscribing data. 2:51:16 Every single transaction is inscribed. 2:51:19 So it doesn't matter if it's a ordinal inscription or it's a normal transaction inscription. 2:51:26 Also, that is funny. 2:51:29 But, I mean, inscriptions are specifically in like the witness part of the block, which is like the discount. 2:51:34 There is like certain transaction data which goes into like the non-witness and doesn't receive the data. 2:51:38 So like if you're saying all the data technically goes into a block, it's like, well, that's true. 2:51:42 But within the block, there's like subset or kind of like drawers essentially where it. 2:51:47 David, I'm inscribing data on the legacy. 2:51:51 There is no witness data. 2:51:54 So. 2:51:57 I solve the problem, not myself only, but with another person. 2:52:03 We solve the problem about inscribing data and data can be inscribed. 2:52:07 I mean, in gigabytes without affecting the nodes, the blockchain size. 2:52:18 Do you mind elaborating on that? 2:52:19 Well, first, I'll ask your answer. 2:52:21 No, I can't. I can't. I can't talk about that because it's still, you know, people will still. 2:52:29 OK, it's all good. John, you can ask a question about like Jameson Lump's tweet. 2:52:32 I'll just quickly answer that. Like when people post ordinals or inscriptions that goes into a section of the block. 2:52:39 And then you use a bunch of that data to create like the UTXO set, which is like a snapshot of like everybody's Bitcoin balances. 2:52:44 The UTXO set that Jameson posted, that cannot be pruned. 2:52:48 Like people have to hold that so that everybody knows their Bitcoin balances. 2:52:51 But the inscriptions, the data that people are posting onto the chain, it goes into the blocks. 2:52:55 But then somebody said, oh, well, cool. This is in the block. I can just delete it immediately. 2:52:59 So the inscription data, which goes into the witness part of the block, which is like a drawer within the block, that data can be posted in there. 2:53:06 But then as soon as it's received by the node, they said, I don't need this bullshit. 2:53:09 Like I just throw it out. The UTXO set Jameson posted cannot be deleted. 2:53:13 That's the difference. So there's certain types of. 2:53:16 You need to you need to understand that the witness data is not important data in Bitcoin. 2:53:20 The transactional data is important. That's a very, very big factor of decision making. 2:53:32 Let me let me explain to you, because in the Bitcoin in the Bitcoin node or Bitcoin Core, if you want, there is a assume valid. 2:53:40 So the assume valid will discard all the all the data that is, I don't know, whatever they said. 2:53:51 Let's say a year from now in the past or six months in the past and et cetera, et cetera. 2:53:56 So the witness data is not the important data. 2:54:00 The transactional data is important data on the blockchain. 2:54:05 Well, I mean, so if you can check this, I think I think maybe, you know, Paul can correct me here, but you're describing like two different address types. 2:54:14 Like maybe you're using like like pre, you know, SegWit addresses where the signatures and the transaction data is all essentially batched together. 2:54:21 But the reason they added witnesses to fix transaction malleability, which kind of separates the the the signatures and the witness. 2:54:28 So you could use your address types that batch all of that together, the transaction data and the signatures. 2:54:34 But people that are using, you know, SegWit addresses, which is everybody using lightning and I think like Tapper addresses and all of that, like are going to have this separate section in the block where the signatures are placed into that. 2:54:47 And you can't just like if you have like a SegWit address, you can't just be like, oh, we don't need the witness because that's that's where the signatures go. 2:54:53 The signatures like prove that somebody can actually. 2:54:55 Why do you need the witness when it's validated a million times? 2:55:00 It's done. Well, but it's indirect. 2:55:02 Maybe six months after all the nodes have essentially verified and agreed on on the state of the chain, you're like, well, this thing's already been checked, you know, a million times. 2:55:10 But like. 2:55:13 You're kind of coming out this one narrow. 2:55:15 Why do you need to prove again after a million times? 2:55:22 On L2, you can discard it after six months because you can discard almost everything after six months, you can have UTXO commitment. 2:55:29 UTXO or UTREXO, either one or both. 2:55:34 But the that's on L2, that's the case on L1. 2:55:39 You're on the hook for everything. 2:55:41 Everything that was in the blockchain has to be served back. 2:55:44 People could ask for it at any time and you have to give it space. 2:55:48 I'm not saying that is deleted. 2:55:50 I just say that they disregard because it just it just doesn't doesn't validate anymore. 2:55:59 The signature check happens to be disproportionately in the computer is downloading the blocks and checking them all. 2:56:08 The signature is a very expensive thing for the computer to do, it takes a lot of. 2:56:13 Whatever, CPU cycles, you know, so so the idea behind assume valid is just if this thing is like more than like a year old. 2:56:24 Don't check that part, check everything else, make sure everything adds up and put the money in the right spot, but just don't look at the signatures, you know, because it's kind of like that ship has kind of sailed. 2:56:35 Like, what are you at that point? 2:56:36 It's kind of an interesting. 2:56:38 It's just but that that what's true about that, I think this is why you bring it up, the code, which is you're right. 2:56:46 That same principle. 2:56:48 Of that, if there was a problem with the signature, we have bigger problems, right? 2:56:54 That means like no one caught it until now and we have to reorg like six months like this is like a catastrophe. 2:57:00 This means something really, really bad has happened. 2:57:03 Yeah, that that exact logic is the same logic behind the the concept of that. 2:57:14 That logic is the same logic behind why it is the case that it doesn't matter. 2:57:20 Miners will never need to run a side drivechain node or whatever, because it just doesn't make any difference. 2:57:26 Yeah, yeah, it's like I agree for for data inscribing, like inscribing, you know, records, medical records, whatever it is, but for for proving something with the with the inscription, like ordinal inscription, that what they want to do for me doesn't doesn't make any sense because any transaction is exactly inscription on the blockchain. 2:57:54 Hey, Paul, what do you think about things like spider chain? 2:57:57 And I think it's like botanics or whatever, that new sidechain L2 thing coming out. 2:58:05 I think that that's that's an idea that's worth trying. 2:58:10 I don't think it's as good as drivechain, but I just think I think people should still try it if people are really into that. 2:58:15 That's good. It has this weird thing where you wouldn't the people who peg in. 2:58:22 They become the authorities on where the money goes. 2:58:26 So whoever is putting a huge amount of money early on. 2:58:30 Kind of gets to vote the destination of the money, but similar to me, they have all kinds of arguments about what it is that that will work, and I think that's great. 2:58:40 A major selling point of this is that it, quote, does not require any changes to Bitcoin. 2:58:45 Of course, you see, it is yet another victim of the disease of caring about this fake issue. 2:58:51 And unfortunately, I think that lots and lots of smart people are being driven down the path of, you know, how do we how do we how do we get more money without using the infinite bank account? 2:59:07 And it's like the problem is that people care about that issue. 2:59:12 What we should do instead is mount a huge social campaign, kind of like what. 2:59:19 Udi is doing and just say, activate the let's pick stuff that we can activate and just do some work and kill off. 2:59:28 I think I think you need to go back to the client ideas, the clients. 2:59:34 I think you're absolutely right. 2:59:35 No, you're right. 2:59:36 I mean, I had no idea that the you're 100 percent right. 2:59:40 And that is what I'm going to do. 2:59:40 I don't I don't know that we know is not going to change. 2:59:45 And realistically, I like it like this. 2:59:48 I support your idea. 2:59:49 And I think it's it's interesting because I like innovation and creativity. 2:59:54 But also, I get the whole dynamic. 2:59:56 If everyone and anyone could just change Bitcoin, it wouldn't be bad. 3:00:02 But you see, this is the mistake, though, is that that's why that's not what a soft fork is. 3:00:07 I saw a fork is how to change. 3:00:08 I understand what you're saying, but listen, listen, listen to the same theory. 3:00:14 Technically, you can make the block the block size smaller and that would be a soft fork. 3:00:20 We could take it like I hear what you're saying, but it does make a change. 3:00:26 I believe that you do understand. 3:00:28 I think most people don't understand what I'm saying, but I believe that you do understand what I'm saying, which is that. 3:00:34 It's like what the type of change that this is, is something that was already like in the normal fluctuations of the protocol or whatever, so it was like, it's not really a change, but but nonetheless, I'll tell you, the truth is, what is the change is merging a pull request into Bitcoin Core GitHub repository. 3:00:54 And in that sense, it is a change. 3:00:56 And that is apparently the thing that is the insurmountable barrier. 3:01:00 And that is the barrier that is jumped by. 3:01:04 And again, pull requests are merged all the time that I think are terrible and make the code worse and make the code much harder to audit and are very bad for security. 3:01:13 And some of them have even introduced inflation bugs and other kinds of crazy things that have happened in the past. 3:01:19 And I think that, you know, even refactoring the code is, in my view, kind of suspicious, because it's the kind of thing where not a lot of people review it. 3:01:29 And so it is changing. 3:01:35 The problem is Bitcoin Core. 3:01:36 The repository is changing a lot. 3:01:40 Unfortunately for you and I agree that it really shouldn't change. 3:01:44 And unfortunately, it is changing. 3:01:48 Because they released a new version that just does the same thing, but that's what a soft fork is. 3:01:52 So they're going every time they did something else. 3:01:59 So the old older versions, like, you know, whatever, I think like 16 was like the peak. 3:02:07 And now it sucks. 3:02:08 I think it's like really hard to like for people to find things. 3:02:13 It used to be just validation.cpp. 3:02:15 And now it's like 50 files or something, including like things that used to be just like parameters that were just declared once, which is like idiot software design one on one. 3:02:25 Now those things like spread out and like put in all these different places. 3:02:30 So I think even main.cpp being removed, that is a weird choice, like sort of off-putting, I think. 3:02:38 I think this is dangerous. 3:02:39 In fact, we need to decentralize the GitHub repository and I don't know, bringing more people. 3:02:46 Even me, I'm not a developer or a programmer, but we need to bring more people and talk about this and bring more people to open their software everywhere. 3:02:57 The thing is with the client, with a new client, it's going to diversify the perspectives for people who are in one camp. 3:03:06 They can specifically get behind this new client. 3:03:10 And then on the other side of things, the people who are like just, you know, maximally just into core, they can just stick with core and it'd be perfect. 3:03:18 Everybody wins. 3:03:23 Yeah, I mean, I agree with you. 3:03:25 I'm just trying to what I'm trying to tell you, Mr. 3:03:28 How do you how's your name pronounced? 3:03:30 It's Oflo. 3:03:33 Oflo, great. 3:03:35 Cool. 3:03:38 What I'm trying to tell you is like we kind of get the worst of both worlds as it is, which is that it is changing. 3:03:45 You and I kind of don't want it to change, but we kind of want I want like some small, transparent, minimal required changes. 3:03:54 And then other than that, no changes. 3:03:56 So, but it is changing. 3:03:58 But think about it like this. 3:04:00 All right. I think you're in the camp of being pro simplicity. 3:04:03 Right. More or less. 3:04:05 Masomenos. 3:04:06 Yeah. So I actually I like the idea for a while and I was thinking about it for a while. 3:04:12 And then I talked with Shinobi and he gave another perspective and I was like, huh, you have your point. 3:04:18 Basically, he was anti simplicity because simplicity basically opens up the door for everything, which was why I liked it. 3:04:26 But realizing that, OK, there's people who don't like simplicity. 3:04:31 Why not? 3:04:32 No, I actually don't like the Blockstream idea of simplicity. 3:04:35 I'm actually not a huge fan. 3:04:37 And I just thought you were talking about in general simplicity. 3:04:41 Yeah, the simplicity language and the it's a software. 3:04:44 Yeah, I think it's too weird. 3:04:46 But I think but this is what I'm trying to say is that it already changes too much and too little. 3:04:52 The actual GitHub code changes too much. 3:04:55 And the the actually the changes that would actually prevent you to change or do anything useful. 3:05:01 I said I talked about this with my friends here on Twitter and some some of them said no for for have a soft fork. 3:05:12 They have to upload to the soft core for the Bitcoin for GitHub. 3:05:18 No, you can't. 3:05:19 True. Right. 3:05:22 Yeah, the hard fork is the mandatory software change. 3:05:26 The soft fork is the ignorable one. 3:05:28 That's the whole point is that every there is no difference between a. 3:05:34 A soft for like because plenty of pull requests, you could have a pull request into Bitcoin that is not a soft fork, but which does something horrible, like just what if it just causes the node to just crash all the time? 3:05:46 And then nothing works, so then, but it's not a soft fork or you upload a change that the broadcast when you run the client, it tweets, it goes to connects to Twitter and it tweets out your private keys that is not a soft fork, but that would be bad. 3:06:05 So the whole obsession with the soft fork, that is the problem. 3:06:10 So this is part of this, because you asked about spider chain and all that, and it's sold as, oh, it doesn't require a soft fork. 3:06:17 This whole issue, that is the problem. 3:06:20 That is the problem. 3:06:22 The fact that people care about that is the problem. 3:06:25 It's like, what is wrong with people? 3:06:27 Yeah, but also also at the same time for like if someone wanted to make the block size of Bitcoin smaller with a soft fork, I would be against that. 3:06:36 So I get the dynamic of some people not being for your idea, but then at the same time, the people who are for your idea, I get why they're behind it, because your idea essentially allows everyone to have a sidechain and your trust in the miners. 3:06:52 It's it's a trade off, but the miner enforced a miner in the miners. 3:06:57 If the miners enforce the soft fork block size increase, that is no different than what we currently have, because what they're doing that in that case is they pay the opportunity cost of all the fees that they would collect. 3:07:09 And they shrink the block size to that thing. 3:07:11 Now, they can already do that. 3:07:13 That is that is the exact situation we live in today. 3:07:17 So the miners, when the like, for example, when UDI or whatever, they paid Luxor like four thousand dollars out of band or whatever they did with like a check or something. 3:07:28 And then in exchange, they did that big four megabyte inscription of the wizard that was shrinking the block size to zero for that block. 3:07:38 So the fact that the miners can move the block size between one megabyte and zero, that has always been the case. 3:07:46 So that's that's actually a pretty good example of something that is not a protocol change. 3:07:51 A miner enforced soft fork decreasing the block size. 3:07:55 We already have we already have infinite number of those soft forks active today. 3:08:00 Like the miners can shrink the block size at any time. 3:08:03 And if they do, they pay the opportunity cost of the fees. 3:08:06 That is no different at all than if it was shrunk by anyone else. 3:08:10 The miners can then undo the soft fork by just moving the block size back up. 3:08:13 But then it's just like it depends on your definition of like the soft fork of shrinking the block size next Tuesday only or shrinking the block size for all of the year 2025 or forever or whatever. 3:08:25 So even that is not there's no fundamental. 3:08:29 Thing to object to, well, because there is a consensus behind the soft fork, so if there is, I think the soft fork does not require consensus, that's the difference, the hard fork requires everyone to update, so it requires consensus of humans, the soft fork has the nodes, the software nodes are in consensus in which they all agree on the blockchain state. 3:08:55 Even though they don't all run the same rules. 3:08:58 So the word consensus is used maybe misleadingly in two almost opposite ways. 3:09:04 One way is the human way of every human agreeing that is the way that the soft fork is not consensus, the hard fork is requires everyone to upgrade if you do not run the Bitcoin Cash node. 3:09:17 If you run the Bitcoin Cash node, you will never see your BCH, and so you're not on the network unless you run, everyone, every single person on that network, they all agreed unanimously to run the Bitcoin Cash software, so that's the case, that's the sense, the human sense of consensus, the second set of the opposite sense where everyone's node is connected to the same longest blockchain network, and that's the one where everyone is doing slightly different things. 3:09:47 So how would it work with BIP300 as like a separate client, because at least just the way that I'm imagining it, if it's a separate client, and it includes BIP300 in it, more or less, the rest of the Bitcoin nodes that are not in consensus with that, they're not going to see that or notice that, they're just going to be on the core standard. 3:10:13 And then at the same time, for everyone who wants to get access to BIP300, they're going to have to run that updated node. 3:10:24 Yes, the people who want to run BIP300 and hold the miners accountable for following the BIP300 rules, they have to run the new client. And as with any soft fork, the 51% hash rate has to be running it. That's always been true. 3:10:39 Yeah, I think it's not true, but I don't know why they're doing that, because there's zero evidence for that. 3:10:44 I think you've got your work cut out for you, and that is basically building your own client. And I would just ask that you don't bash core in the process of building your own client. It's just not good marketing, because they have to be in sync with each other, or else it's a hard fork. 3:11:01 I was going to say, it's sort of a plug-in, in a way. You know what I mean? Is this making sense? 3:11:09 So you wouldn't code it from scratch in another language or something like that? You would just use core? 3:11:16 We would, but let me try to explain it like this. What we would do is, we would build something like, it would download and run Bitcoin Core. 3:11:33 But it would also run something else next to it. So it's kind of like, if you ran... what's the situation when people run different pieces of software at the same time on their computer, and they interact? This doesn't really happen that much anymore. 3:11:49 Maybe like a N64 emulator or something. I don't know. 3:11:56 I would say that... okay, I would say it's something like this. Okay, here's a good metaphor. I got one for you. 3:12:06 I'm saying, you have this car, and the car, for whatever reason, everyone has to use the same type of gasoline and the same engine. 3:12:18 But I'm like, this car sucks. It needs to have leather seats. It needs to have a radio. It needs to have a steering wheel. It needs to have mirrors. It needs to have air conditioning. 3:12:30 So what I'm going to do is, I'm just going to take the car, Bitcoin Core, and I'm going to put a bunch of stuff over it. 3:12:38 I'm going to put BIP300 seats over the car. 3:12:43 And under the hood, it will be Bitcoin Core, but I will have wrapped it up. 3:12:48 You're taking the engine out of the old car and basically... 3:12:52 I'm leaving it all in there. Everything there is still going to be there. 3:12:57 Maybe here's a different metaphor for you. I don't know. This is wacky metaphors with Paul's situation. 3:13:01 But sometimes people remodel their bathroom, and what they do is they just do one or two things, and they just put the new stuff right over the old stuff. 3:13:13 You have a really, really old chipped tiles, really, really old bathtub, and they sand a couple things out with a little thing, screwdriver. 3:13:26 They pull up the drain and stuff, and then they just put the stuff, the walls and everything, just right over the old bathroom. 3:13:34 So all the plumbing is the same, but now you have a jacuzzi, and you have a plasma screen TV in there. Whatever. I'm just making things up. 3:13:47 It will be Bitcoin Core under the hood, but it will be plus other things. It'll be an unmodified Bitcoin Core plus other software. 3:13:57 But the actual effect would be to marginalize Bitcoin Core and turn it into just a gear that spins, and something that mostly people ignore. 3:14:07 The front end will only display what the software wants it to display. 3:14:12 Yeah, yeah, yeah. I get it. The analogy is funny because I've remodeled a bathroom before, so I actually know all about it. 3:14:22 Yeah, I like the client idea. If you could do that, that would be awesome, because at the end of the day, it will stop all this beef. 3:14:32 This is from someone who does marketing, does sales. I know I'm on the tech side too, but specifically marketing and sales. 3:14:40 We've got to stop bashing each other in this ecosystem. You're always saying the negative stuff about lightning and everything like that. 3:14:48 I think it's better if you just focus on selling your idea and ignore everything else. 3:14:58 If you do it from the side of a client, you'll get more adoption. More people will get behind you and will support you. 3:15:08 And yeah, on record, all this is recorded for history. 3:15:19 The thing is, the problem is the scalability is that lightning doesn't scale. 3:15:25 But the people that criticize Polk don't use lightning. 3:15:30 They just store their Bitcoin. 3:15:34 When you're talking to someone who uses lightning, I have a decent understanding above the average of lightning. 3:15:43 And I look at everything as just different solutions and different solutions with different tradeoffs. 3:15:48 So it's like when we're beefing with each other in the Bitcoin ecosystem around little tiny things like, oh, lightning has this problem. 3:15:58 Liquid has this problem. RSK has this problem. 3:16:01 Instead, if we approach it from more of like a positive stance where it's like there's different tradeoffs at the end of the day and whatever these tradeoffs are, we'll be honest about them. 3:16:10 But we can't bash each other, especially when there's 10,000 other projects out there literally vying for the monetary value of Bitcoin. 3:16:21 So lightning is awesome. It has its own problems, but it also does some great things. 3:16:28 Like if you want to move funds and have instantaneous settlement with the assurances of Bitcoin, the asset, you get that with lightning. 3:16:37 And yes, I understand that you do. You depend on the miners and everything like that. But that's OK. 3:16:43 Also, I get your stance with BitVM that it's not perfect. It does similar to what you're looking to do with BIP300. 3:16:53 I get it. Everything has its tradeoffs, but at the end of the day, it's just about accepting them, building something and getting it to market and allowing people to utilize it. 3:17:04 At least with my goal, that's getting a billion people into Bitcoin. It just doesn't look good because people get confused and people already are confused. 3:17:13 They don't understand any of this stuff. So now when they're hearing, oh, lightning's not good, it's like, huh? 3:17:19 And then it's better that you build out this client, you get BIP300 active through your client and you start building up your ecosystem around that. 3:17:29 And then there's no beef there. You don't have people coming for your head from the lightning camp because what you're doing actually could benefit lightning. 3:17:37 So one of the things I like is I like how you can utilize lightning with liquid and the way that you're able to basically balance your channels utilizing liquid for a cheaper fee. 3:17:48 I know that you could build up a sidechain that's dedicated just to lightning. So, yeah, I see the benefits and everything like that. 3:17:57 I just don't think us having inner beef with each other really does us any good because it's not going to make us any more money. 3:18:04 And it's actually going to turn people off from understanding anything about the tech. 3:18:10 Well, I hear what you're saying, and I think there's a lot of truth to that. 3:18:13 But I also think that if we're not self-critical, then eventually we will form a weird cult and we will be like Theranos. 3:18:21 And then it will just point to an epic disaster down the road. And so we have to be self-critical. 3:18:27 And I just think that it's the lightning people who won't. They all know all this stuff is true. 3:18:36 And if people had spoken out against it earlier, it wouldn't have grown into this big thing, unfortunately. 3:18:43 Yeah, but if anyone read the Lightning Network white paper, then they would know that specifically it's not perfect, but it gets the job done for at least, I guess, 100 million people. 3:18:58 So we know 100 million people at least now, which we don't really have 100 million real Bitcoiners, but we know that we can onboard 100 million. 3:19:08 And if we can onboard them utilizing Lightning and then work out your solution in that midpoint, then specifically it's better for the ecosystem overall. 3:19:19 Because if we have 100 million self-sovereign Bitcoin users out of the entire globe of Bitcoin users, that's awesome. 3:19:29 And those same people, they would likely be open to utilizing your solution in the future. 3:19:35 It's just for me, I approach things from a human marketing stance, which most people don't understand marketing and realizing that is human relation is communication. 3:19:45 And if we're bashing each other's solutions, I get being honest and transparent, but that's like developers are probably some of the most honest and transparent people generally when it comes to like their solutions. 3:19:59 Let me ask you something. 3:20:01 Okay. 3:20:02 I agree with you with most of what you're saying, you know, come together or whatever. 3:20:07 But I have a problem when like I see the transparency, honesty, the knowledge, the experience when I read for drivechains and everything what Paul wrote and, you know, many, many years in the past. 3:20:24 So I have problem with the lightning saying, oh, this is the greatest innovation scaling L2, blah, blah, blah. 3:20:32 Do you know what is Bitcoin J? 3:20:35 Bitcoin J. 3:20:37 No, let me let me explain. 3:20:40 Bitcoin J is the tooling for creating Bitcoin channel. 3:20:45 So the lightning is nothing more than Bitcoin J channel or Bitcoin JS. 3:20:53 That's it. 3:20:54 So why they're marketing and I have problem with marketing in crypto and especially Bitcoin, because this is not place for marketing. 3:21:02 You know, if any business want to create a business with Bitcoin, yes, go in the real world. 3:21:08 Don't sell marketing on the people that are inside because it doesn't work. 3:21:13 People always lose money. 3:21:15 You know how many people I know personally, people that that's the money on lightning because the. 3:21:32 Yeah, I think we just lost him. 3:21:36 Oh, no. He's still up here. 3:21:38 Speaker, it says. 3:21:41 We can't hear you up. OK, he's now connecting. 3:21:45 He'll probably be back. Maybe, maybe not. 3:21:48 Yeah, well, we'll give him a little bit of time to come back. 3:21:51 I think the space is all right. He's a listener. 3:21:53 Now, I think it's if you can. 3:22:00 Yeah, well, we wait for him. I'm just going to like touch on one point. 3:22:05 Lightning is a protocol. 3:22:07 Just like I'm considering 300, a protocol. 3:22:11 Would you consider the protocol, Paul? 3:22:16 I would say that 300. So like it was SegWit. 3:22:20 That was a bit one forty one that like kind of basically enabled lightning, you know, speaking loosely. 3:22:27 And so 300 enables what you might call drivechain or side to L2 chains or sidechains. 3:22:36 So. So you see, that's a slight difference to see what I'm saying. 3:22:39 Like lightning was enabled by one forty one drivechains are enabled by 300 type of a thing. 3:22:44 Right. So, yeah, I'm kind of like lumping in drivechains with 300. 3:22:48 But yeah, totally. Totally. See where you're coming from on that resort. 3:22:53 Oh, all I'm saying is protocols are built by people. 3:22:56 And yet people, the people behind it may have an opinion about something. 3:23:01 But at the end of the day, the protocol doesn't have opinions. 3:23:05 It's just a protocol. So technically, tomorrow, I don't look at you as a scammer, Paul. 3:23:12 But tomorrow, somebody could use 300 and run a scam. 3:23:17 It doesn't mean that you're responsible for for that if a drivechain is used for a scam. 3:23:23 So I just I wanted to be very clear that the protocols are designed by people, but they're they don't have an opinion. 3:23:31 They're just there to be used. So instead of us bashing in the protocols and bashing the people behind the protocols, it's very specific. 3:23:41 We look at them and say, OK, how can we use this protocol for the mass adoption of Bitcoin and focus on that? 3:23:49 And that's the part where for me, it's like, OK, that's the interesting conversation when we're debating and we're saying, OK, this is the problem with lightning. 3:23:57 OK, I'm cool with that. Now I'm like, OK, what's the solution? 3:24:01 Let's get to the solutions with all of these problems, because if we're just going to talk about problems, then we're not going to get the adoption. 3:24:08 And people are going to be looking from the outside and saying, yeah, Bitcoiners, they have a whole bunch of problems, which, yeah, they do. 3:24:15 But realistically, that's not what we're selling people on. We're not selling people on on the problems that Bitcoiners have. 3:24:22 We're selling people on censorship resistant money that specifically can hopefully with these solutions that everyone is working on can scale. 3:24:33 If not, we have a solution that can get us to 100 million Bitcoiners self-sovereign. 3:24:39 And I wouldn't bash that if there's just 100 million self-sovereign Bitcoiners, because majority of the world today is not using self-sovereign solutions. 3:24:48 So if we have 100 million people using lightning and it becomes limited and stuck at that, it's not the most ideal thing in the world, but it's better than not having it. 3:25:01 I disagree. It's for me, lightning is not self-sovereign. 3:25:06 The only only thing that you only you control as a person and you have your coins outside of offline, not off chain, offline. 3:25:20 That's for me, you know, and the only the only way to do it is running a note, even when when drivechain will come is the same system. 3:25:29 Running a note is a P2P is decentralized, you know, and that's the best security because nobody can help you. 3:25:37 Nobody can take your coins, but you can run a note in lightning. 3:25:41 Like, I don't get what you're saying. Like, it's fundamentally wrong. 3:25:44 Yes, I know. I know. You can run a note. 3:25:47 But for you to have self-hostaging, you have to run a note online. And for the drivechains, you don't. That's the difference. 3:25:56 Drivechain node is more similar to a regular the lightning node. 3:26:06 It uses the same word, no, but really refers to a different thing. 3:26:12 I don't know if they thought naming it that would make it easier for people to understand or maybe. 3:26:18 Or maybe it was to blend in or and take advantage of the goodwill built up by the previous terminology. 3:26:25 I don't know. But I mean, I could tell all kinds of funny stories about these lightning nodes, too. 3:26:32 Also, like people like lots and lots of people don't know that in order to run the lightning node, you need a Bitcoin Core full node. 3:26:39 So I thought that was obvious. 3:26:44 And it's people like Tone Vase or something like got asked about that on camera. 3:26:49 And then he was like, what, like are on stage or something. 3:26:52 And I thought that I thought that was obvious, though, Paul. 3:26:55 I thought that was obvious that you had to like you need you need Bitcoin. 3:27:00 It's also a different type of thing. Like a node is enlightening. 3:27:04 The node is only affects you and another person, whereas in the sidechain node is more like a Bitcoin node where everyone gets the same sidechain blockchain. 3:27:11 Exactly. And then in the scenario where. 3:27:19 No, no, no, no. 3:27:22 It's not a global thing. That's that's all. 3:27:25 But you said that you said that you said that specifically lightning. 3:27:35 Technically, you were holding a global state between you and your channel participant. 3:27:40 But it's just it's just between you and your channel participants. 3:27:43 So I don't understand why that's not a node. 3:27:46 Well, I think the I think the idea with the node being peer to peer is like the phrase peer to peer doesn't mean a lot when it's only referring to two people. 3:27:57 Yeah. And the because it's like there's only two of you. 3:28:01 There's only two of you, so. That's why you have you have routing specifically, I can have a node with you. 3:28:12 I mean, not a node, a channel with you. You have a channel with someone else. 3:28:16 And basically we can route through our channels. 3:28:21 You can do anyway that with Bitcoin channel with the normal Bitcoin channel and it's free. 3:28:26 You don't need to have requirements to open a channel. 3:28:29 And by the way, on on light on lightning. Yeah. 3:28:33 Specifically for this building, for the scalability of lightning. 3:28:39 Yeah, you do. You do need that. You specifically do need to be able to move from from sending, for example, myself. 3:28:47 If I want to send to Paul, but I don't have a channel with Paul. 3:28:50 But let's say that David has a channel with Paul. 3:28:53 Me being able to send money through David to get to Paul, like you, you do need that. 3:29:02 Yeah, you need. But you can do anyways with Bitcoin channel. 3:29:06 You don't need lightning. Yeah, but specifically is cheaper. 3:29:11 No, it's not cheaper. Like, do you understand what is Bitcoin channel? 3:29:14 Bitcoin channel is when you're on your note, you extending, you're creating off chain server. 3:29:21 So that off chain server is a channel between yourself. 3:29:27 Or you can you cannot users, you know, or whatever, or you can receive just just payments in the channel. 3:29:35 Why that is invented. So in the future, when the transactions come expensive, so the business can can operate. 3:29:43 Because if you have a shop and you you receive Bitcoin, you know, or you need to send or transact whatever, 3:29:49 you will not go on on main chain all the time in a high fee environment. 3:29:55 So you open a channel and you receive that one. 3:29:59 When you finish whatever you're doing, you're closing the channel, the the and you're paying one transaction fee. 3:30:06 That's it. You know, in lightning, the idea is that in lightning, at least just from my understanding, my context of lightning, 3:30:14 at least if it for for mass adoption of it, realistically, you don't want channel closes. 3:30:20 And realistically, if we're looking at the high fee, the high fee range that people are dealing in these days, 3:30:28 basically at the end of the day, we're all going to end up. 3:30:33 Why? Why? Why? Why? I don't understand why. 3:30:38 I don't need to. Why is not good to close the channel? 3:30:42 If I have a working day and I'm closing my working day, I close the channel and I open in the morning. 3:30:50 You don't need to do that. At least you. 3:30:54 OK, first and foremost, we have different perspectives, so I'm just going to respect your perspective. 3:30:59 And at the same time, I'm going to say mine. Yeah, Bitcoin main chain. 3:31:06 Bitcoin main chain specifically has transaction fees. 3:31:10 Those transaction fees in a high fee rate is like it's too much for a majority of people. 3:31:16 So majority of people are not going to be transacting on Bitcoin main chain because they're going to be priced out of main chain. 3:31:24 So L2s and sidechain are specifically sidechains are specifically supposed to subsidize that and allow people to operate with Bitcoin on additional layers at a cheaper fee. 3:31:38 So we're opening up a channel and lightning basically. 3:31:41 Yeah, you hold on. I'm almost done. 3:31:45 You need to say that you need to say it's a less security, decentralized security, less decentralized security. 3:31:52 Well, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. Because drivechains today do not exist. 3:32:01 We don't have drivechains and on me. 3:32:04 So I just want you to try the test net of drivechain. 3:32:09 I've not I've not tried it. Please do it. 3:32:13 Please do it. I'll definitely I'll definitely if anyone wants to, you know, walk me through that process and everything. 3:32:20 Just go to change the info releases. Download the. 3:32:25 What was the not the test? But I've met. It's a five minutes. 3:32:30 Just download and run. That's it. Definitely. Definitely. Definitely. I'm just saying it's not. 3:32:37 It's not on mainnet today. So we've got to be honest with ourselves. If it was on mainnet. 3:32:43 No, it doesn't matter because if it was on mainnet. Even lightning is not on mainnet. 3:32:49 No, lightning is on mainnet. You can transact. You can transact lightning. 3:32:57 Real Bitcoin. You can transact today. Real Bitcoin on lightning. And I'm not saying that to bash drivechains. 3:33:04 I'm just saying that's a fact. I can't use real Bitcoin to transact. 3:33:09 I can transact any second of the day when I open my Bitcoin channel is a real Bitcoin. 3:33:18 I hear what you're saying. I don't even know what this conversation is about anymore. 3:33:31 But I agree that it's true that. Drivechains don't exist on BTC right now. 3:33:42 Whereas lightning does. But I don't know. I think we've gotten pretty far away from ZK rollups and Super Testnet. 3:33:47 So I don't know if. We should. We can certainly continue this space if you want, but. 3:33:57 Maybe we should wrap it up, I think. You've got my support with the new client. 3:34:05 Make your last points, Paul. Say what you think about it and what's the perspective between BitVM and ZK rollups. 3:34:17 Again, I think the whole thing about not needing a soft fork, that is just a mistake. 3:34:22 There's no other way of putting it, unfortunately. And as much as I would like to, I would prefer I'd be more popular if I could put it a different way. 3:34:29 But it's just not the it's just not reality. It's just that it's the whole thing is irrational. 3:34:33 There is no difference between a pull request to Bitcoin Core and some other soft, a soft fork pull request to Bitcoin Core and some other pull requests. 3:34:41 There's no difference. If that was the fact, Paul, specifically, you would already have BIP300 in Bitcoin Core today. 3:34:52 It's the opposite of that. If the opposite were the truth, then people just wouldn't care about merging soft forks and BIP300 and 119 and all these other things would already be in Bitcoin Core today. 3:35:02 The only reason they're not in today is because for some reason, people care a lot about whether or not something is a soft fork. 3:35:10 And so they won't they won't merge it into Bitcoin Core. 3:35:14 People care if it's a soft fork or if it's a hard fork. 3:35:16 It's either way. People care. 3:35:19 People care about Bitcoin and their money. 3:35:21 And I think that my suggestion is that is the whole thing is irrational. 3:35:26 There's no difference between caring about that type of thing and some other thing. 3:35:30 So but yeah, we're making this client. 3:35:33 We have a new version of the testnet, new version of the launcher that should be coming out. 3:35:38 Probably I'll finish it like right before Super Bowl on Sunday. 3:35:43 So on Monday, everyone can maybe download it. 3:35:46 Check it out. Is this going to be a mainnet client or a testnet client? 3:35:51 No, this testnet would play fake Bitcoin, but you'll be able to see everything that it would do if it was on Bitcoin. 3:36:02 The client that installs all the jacuzzi over the old bathtub plumbing that I don't know when that'll be done, 3:36:13 but I don't think it will take that much longer. 3:36:15 It will probably be done by, I don't know, February 15th, maybe. 3:36:20 I don't know. Maybe next. 3:36:22 I don't know. I should really say like end of February or something. 3:36:25 So then what that will be is. 3:36:27 I really want to see that because the time frames don't sound realistic. 3:36:31 But why would you say that? 3:36:34 Because at least from my humble understanding of building clients that I've never built before, it takes a little bit of time to do that. 3:36:43 Like everyone dreams of having a second client. 3:36:45 And I know Bitcoin has multiple clients, but specifically everyone dreams of having a client and then for it to be successful. 3:36:53 So yeah, I don't think anyone has tried to build anything like what I just described, where I mean, they have stuff like Bitcoin Knots, which is like rewrite everything from scratch. 3:37:04 But that's not what this is. 3:37:05 As I just explained, this is just something that we put over the whole thing. 3:37:09 So it will still the only thing it will do is check the BIP300 rules and then it will invalidate the block if any of those rules are broken. 3:37:15 So I'm looking forward to that. 3:37:18 Do you have any miners who are going to run it? 3:37:23 Well, I don't know if they'll run that. 3:37:24 I have a lot of miners who are supportive. 3:37:26 I mean, I would hope that they would. 3:37:28 I don't know that. 3:37:29 Miners are financially incentive to run the software. 3:37:35 That's the point of Bitcoin, the incentives, I think. 3:37:40 I think they won't, you know, they obviously won't run it like as soon as it comes out. 3:37:45 This is part of having the testnet and even having the spaces and stuff is just like they have to understand like what. 3:37:54 Excuse me, they have to understand like what is going on. 3:37:57 I think the miners are very uninformed overall. 3:38:02 Yeah, actually, I would agree. 3:38:05 So I think that they don't know what they're doing and they don't know what's in their own best interest. 3:38:12 And I think it may even be the case that. 3:38:17 That is a big problem with Bitcoin, I don't know, I think that if they don't, if. 3:38:25 But you see, the thing is, right now, there's nothing for miners to run at all. 3:38:29 So there's no reason for them to even look into it. 3:38:31 Yeah, even though, even as I've just said, they could make one hundred, one hundred and ten billion dollars in a year, every year, doubling every five, six years. 3:38:41 They don't they don't really it's like they're going to switch from Bitcoin Core to something else. 3:38:46 But they would switch from Bitcoin Core to this because this is just something that drives Bitcoin Core. 3:38:50 You know what I mean? This is not a rewrite of the client. 3:38:52 This is just something installed over. 3:38:55 Over the you know what I mean, it's it's not redoing the it's just putting something new bathroom over the old bathroom. 3:39:02 It is not like redoing all the pipes in the ground. 3:39:05 I think that if you collaborate with, for example, let's say Ruben, a few other people like, you know, get the I forget what's what's this project called? 3:39:19 Um, the the Z sync or whatever, I forget his sorry, bro. 3:39:24 I'm killing you in the project. 3:39:25 My mom in line says zero zero. 3:39:29 Exactly. If you work with collaborate with him on the zero sink, he wants to get a ZKP into Bitcoin. 3:39:36 Like if you if you collaborate with most. 3:39:39 Yeah, but I've already explained why that I've already explained why that doesn't do anything. 3:39:42 Yeah. But what I'm saying is if you're going to do a soft fork or not a soft fork. 3:39:46 I'm not saying I'm not saying not a soft force. 3:39:49 You're going to do a new client. 3:39:51 Okay. 3:39:52 That new client is going to include things which are the equivalent of a soft fork for Bitcoin. 3:40:00 So if you want to, you know, play 3D chess and partner with people who specifically want certain things in Bitcoin, then specifically you do all of it with everyone. 3:40:12 You get the stuff that you want into this new client. 3:40:15 Now you've got a whole bunch of people who are going to be behind this client. 3:40:19 Now you get all these communities behind that client. 3:40:22 And now, you know, I think the client will not only have the 300, but probably I would probably do like a Utrecht. 3:40:27 So I'll do like. 3:40:31 So you basically get every what everybody wants, as long as you know, it's practical into this new client. 3:40:39 And now you've got you bootstrapped your entire ecosystem of people who would be interested in running the client and support you on this. 3:40:47 And yeah, it would be. 3:40:48 Yeah, lots of this is what I want to do. 3:40:50 It's just a lot like the launcher, like Bitcoin has seen to have the launcher. 3:40:54 See what this idea does is horizontally kind of what the launcher would do vertically. 3:40:59 So we just have like a bunch of plug ins. 3:41:01 You have a Bitcoin Core and then you have like a bunch of stuff to the side. 3:41:04 Like, do you want to add the 300 part? 3:41:07 Do you want to add the Utrecht part? 3:41:10 So and if this is successful, then Bitcoin Core will be totally irrelevant. 3:41:17 And anyone who does pull requests there or even any new versions that come out will have basically no effect on anything. 3:41:24 And it will only be stuff in the optional plug ins that are all modular and non-interactive. 3:41:35 That would be the key. 3:41:37 Those will be what matters. 3:41:38 And that but I plan on doing that anyway. 3:41:40 But I don't I don't know why. 3:41:41 Why would I partner with with Robin before I have it finished? 3:41:45 I'd rather just finish it first. 3:41:47 And it will not be that hard because all it does is the BIP300 rules and then throws invalidate block. 3:41:52 So, I mean, everything everything is obviously harder than you think. 3:41:55 But yeah, I think I think I think it's probably the I don't want to say ego, but that's probably the best word. 3:42:04 I think if smart people get together and do smart things together, you get smart results. 3:42:11 If one smart person just does a smart thing by himself, yeah, he could get a smart result by himself. 3:42:16 But breaking things down, if you have people behind you, because the biggest thing is this. 3:42:23 If you don't have the people behind you, I don't care what you develop. 3:42:26 At the end of the day, you could develop the world's next best thing that could, you know, make BIP-110,000 times faster, more secure. 3:42:37 If you don't get people behind you, it doesn't matter. 3:42:39 So at the end of the day, working with others, collaborating with others. 3:42:45 A lot of times other people are like bad for adoption. 3:42:50 Like, it's not good. 3:42:51 We have to have quality control. 3:42:53 We don't want like we don't want the zero sync, because zero sync is a ton of work for doing nothing. 3:43:00 It doesn't do anything. 3:43:01 Did you even listen to what I said? 3:43:03 I there's no scenario where people download SPV chain and it ends up being wrong. 3:43:12 It's never happened. 3:43:13 So this is just going to be taking up space, because someone really smart worked on it. 3:43:19 We should this is just communism. 3:43:21 And it's not communism at the end of the day, and that's going to be what will kill the project. 3:43:25 It's not communism. 3:43:26 It's good capitalism, good capitalism. 3:43:29 No, it's caring about the worker. 3:43:31 No, it's not. 3:43:33 It's not caring about the worker because you're the worker. 3:43:38 Like, I think all every everyone who's coming up with the ideas and applying the ideas, they're the worker. 3:43:43 So at the end of the day, like you could say fuck the worker, but you're basically saying fuck yourself because you're the one who's putting all this work and everything like that. 3:43:51 And what I certainly come after, I certainly come after the customer. 3:43:55 Yeah, the customer is definitely first. 3:43:58 I'm just saying at the end of the day, everyone has different customers. 3:44:01 The zero sync people have some customers, the liquid people have some customers, the RSK guys got some customers, the lightning people have some customers, the drivechain people have some customers. 3:44:12 If we all come together specifically, and this may sound very hippie dippy, but it's very practical. 3:44:20 If we come together, we get more adoption, we get we get things done faster. 3:44:25 If we're all beefing with each other and we have to look over each other's backs and everything like that, then we're not getting what we want. 3:44:31 And this is why I'm saying at the end of the day, I saw your your thing that you were on your own one of these programs and you had to like grade like all the other projects and everything like that. 3:44:44 And realistically, for me, like if I'm in that same position, I'm not going to bash all the other projects. 3:44:52 I'm about to use every last bit of that time to get my project out to the world and I'm about to make it the best. 3:44:59 And that's just like good business. 3:45:01 Good business is you focus on specific what you do the best, you put out to the world, you collaborate with others to get it out further into the world. 3:45:10 But bashing each other, it's just like from the outside looking in, it looks like, you know, those unorganized Bitcoiners that don't know what they're doing. 3:45:19 And yeah, sure. 3:45:21 I mean, let me ask you this, though. 3:45:22 Is there anything you wouldn't bash? 3:45:23 Like what if a Jamie Dimon came in and he said, we need to make it on KYC? 3:45:28 But that's Bitcoin. 3:45:29 But Michael Saylor is already a very, you know, staunch advocate of KYC and those things. 3:45:35 He's not anti and he's not. 3:45:37 So would you bash would you bash Michael Saylor under any circumstance? 3:45:41 Specifically, I don't think I don't think it's good business bashing anyone. 3:45:46 I just think it's specifically being straightforward. 3:45:49 So there's no one. 3:45:50 I mean, there's no one you wouldn't bash, right? 3:45:53 Come on. If we're going to like, if we have to bash someone. 3:45:56 I mean, yeah, of course. 3:45:59 You bash Prager, right? 3:46:00 You bash everyone. 3:46:00 We bash Adolf Hitler. 3:46:02 That's yeah. 3:46:04 But realistically, realistically, probably Michael Saylor would probably be the biggest advocate of drivechains if he understood it from your sense, because he's not anti ordinals. 3:46:16 He's actually, at least from what I've observed, he's actually like pro tokenization and all these type of things. 3:46:24 So Michael Saylor understand Bitcoin. 3:46:28 I mean, come on. 3:46:29 He came in 2020. 3:46:30 He's a newbie guy. 3:46:32 He in 2013, he was saying Bitcoin is a scam. 3:46:35 When I was buying that newbie stack, that newbie stack is definitely positioning him in the right position. 3:46:42 So much money. 3:46:44 Do not we're lucky. 3:46:46 We're lucky. Bitcoin is not proof of stake. 3:46:49 That's all I got to say. 3:46:50 Yeah. First of all, money do not create good technology. 3:46:53 And secondly, you cannot make business with technology. 3:46:57 You make business on top of the technology. 3:46:59 You use technology to create businesses. 3:47:02 OK. What do you guys think about the QAC miners and Foundry and Antpool with more than 51% hash rate? 3:47:16 Are you worried about 51% hash rate coalition specifically or are them two specifically because of because Foundry is just KYC and Antpool has like a lot of like 3:47:29 firmware lock in, like vertical integration. 3:47:33 Those are the normal things that people worry about. 3:47:34 Which thing in particular are you worried about? 3:47:39 I'm worried about because, for example, United States just came with a new information that they have to ask about all the miners what they're doing and how much 3:47:51 machines they have, how much hash rate, how much power. 3:47:55 So if they are KYC and everyone that's connected to the pool of Foundry is KYC, all the coins are KYC from the beginning and it's bad for Bitcoin because traceability of the 3:48:08 government regulations. 3:48:10 And I think people should run a bit taxis or something like centralized mining more is even good for your project because people say that mine is centralized. 3:48:23 I think on this point is centralized of KYC and the prosecution of the government. 3:48:30 The thing is, I don't think it's United States will not comply in China together to make Antpool and Foundry, they together try to attack Bitcoin. 3:48:47 Now, it may happen, probably will happen. 3:48:51 But the thing is, China and the United States, Antpool is in China, Foundry is in the United States. 3:48:58 So my problem is that I hear all the people speaking. 3:49:04 Yes, can't you hear John B-15? 3:49:07 He's been speaking this whole time. 3:49:10 Anyway, let me try to answer this about the KYC. 3:49:12 So why this Foundry KYC? 3:49:15 Do you know? The answer is because they have commingling of funds. 3:49:19 So when you individual miner like Marathon, they want to go, everyone wants to go public because you can get more money that way. 3:49:31 You go public and it's like launching an ICO, you just get tons of cash and then you're the king and you choose how this cash is spent. 3:49:39 And if there's a corporate retreat to like Bora Bora or something, then that's just how it is. 3:49:45 So what they do is they have this system with people want to go public. 3:49:53 The US system is, you know, it has a lot of carrots and sticks to keep everyone compliant. 3:49:59 So one of the sticks is prison, but one and fines and one of the carrots is the capital markets. 3:50:06 So they want to lure everyone, everyone wants to go public. 3:50:09 If the miners go public, they have to produce all these reports, these SOC reports. 3:50:13 You know, something in control, I don't know, system of control, something like that, blah, blah, blah, whatever. 3:50:19 And so they they need to know like where all the money is and how how do they know that they're not being like screwed and that someone's money isn't, you know, grandma, grandma who went on CNBC and she saw Jim Cramer recommend this company that they're not stealing the money. 3:50:39 They're not like embezzling the money. 3:50:42 So like someone like Marathon, they want to go public or like one of the people who mines at Foundry, they want to go public. 3:50:50 They need Foundry to be have all this auditable stuff. 3:50:56 And the auditors won't touch it unless everyone is they need to know like how to find everyone and kind of call them on the phone. 3:51:01 Who are all these people? 3:51:02 Because it's otherwise it's shady. 3:51:04 It looks it doesn't look good because you say, oh, we have 10 million dollars here with Joe Schmo. 3:51:14 So this all this is happening because. 3:51:20 The end miner has a very. 3:51:23 It's because we have the problem of the pools are not easy to. 3:51:29 The pools do not have a very the pools have kind of a long term relationship with the hashes, which is bad. 3:51:35 We want everyone to have a short term relationship with lots of turnover. 3:51:39 But the pools, you know, you mine at a pool and then they don't pay you out every block as Luke Dashjr. wanted to have happen. 3:51:47 That would have been the desirable thing, but it didn't happen. 3:51:51 They failed to achieve it technologically. 3:51:54 They failed to achieve it technologically. 3:51:57 Now, ironically, a BIP300 would solve this problem because you could pay people out on thunder paper share and you just pay people out every 10 minutes and settle up. 3:52:06 And this would solve this problem. 3:52:07 All these problems would be solved instantly because every mining pool would have to do this and it would just you'd be you'd settle up every 10 minutes and then there'd be no commingling of funds. 3:52:17 There would be no need to like if you wanted to go public as a miner. 3:52:22 You would just. 3:52:24 That your relationship with the pool would be like your relationship with, you know, the Uber Eats guy who comes every day or something where it's like you just pay them, they give you the product deal is over, you know, you wouldn't have like a bunch of money like warehouse there. 3:52:40 Now, but as I said, the fundamental problem is slightly different than that, which is that the miners themselves want to go public, obviously, when they go public, then they're KYC at the wazoo, of course, and you can just get more money being going public and being KYC than you can without. 3:52:58 And so that's just the reality of mining is that whatever whatever gets you the most money you kind of have to do. 3:53:03 Now, the issue is eventually it will be like some scales, you know, they'll have to weigh the way the two issues and what am I talking about? 3:53:15 They have to weigh how nice is it to be KYC and go public like your marathon? 3:53:22 That's one weight and you weigh that against how annoying is it to comply with all of these insane, you know, congressmen, journalists, whatever, asking you to register and asking you like how much CO2 you emit, blah, blah, blah. 3:53:38 So they'll weigh that and then, you know, we'll just the chips will fall where they may as the saying goes, you know, they'll just see like some people will decide this and some people will decide that. 3:53:50 Does that make some sense? Is this making any sense? 3:53:54 So, like, if they KYC and they say you have to do all this stuff that loses you a ton of money, then I think all those miners will just declare bankruptcy. 3:54:04 They'll move or they'll just, you know, they won't really physically move to a different jurisdiction. 3:54:11 So I think that that problem will fix itself, even though it is a problem. 3:54:15 And BIP300 would ironically just would solve like 80% of the problem, but not all of it. 3:54:23 But I would like to also say that the one interesting thing is that. 3:54:30 You the government will always be able to do something like this, they'll always be able to say, listen, we'll pay you. 3:54:36 Anyone who minds will pay you a million dollars a year if you just register with us, you know, and then that would be very enticing. 3:54:44 So then then they can get everyone to register and then swoop in and try. 3:54:50 But, you know, that only works for as long as you're willing to as well as long as the benefits outweigh the costs. 3:55:00 Yeah, that's the thing, that's the centralization of the pools is a problem. 3:55:08 What do you think about BitTaxi is the new mining open source hardware project? 3:55:18 I'm not familiar with it. What is it called again? Maybe I am familiar with it and I didn't recognize what you said. 3:55:25 I'll put on the nest up there, but it's BitTaxi. I don't know if I'm pronouncing it correctly. 3:55:35 But it's just like. Raspberry Pi for mining, but it's mining great, so I don't know. 3:55:45 Yeah, I think mining will take place on many different scales, including some that are small, some that are very large. 3:55:53 I think it's not a great idea to fixate too much on how mining should look. You know what I mean? 3:56:05 It's like everyone just let the mining just happen wherever it wants. It's not going to be a big deal. 3:56:14 I guess it does affect who will join which pool because there's a lot to be said about the certain types of weird mining pool attacks that are very obscure and block withholding and whatnot. 3:56:27 But other than that, I don't know. I mean, I think that's great. I think that's, I don't know. 3:56:37 A lot of people want to do some kind of ideological mining. I don't think that's particularly helpful or harmful. 3:56:48 Ideological bottled water or something. 3:56:52 How does a drivechain interact with selfish mining? How does it get impacted by selfish mining? 3:56:58 Well, I don't think selfish mining, the people who wrote the paper, they didn't really apply their own logic. 3:57:05 I mean, it was a very interesting paper, and it says basically if you have like 35% and you mine a certain way, then you have an edge. 3:57:15 But the problem is, if someone else has 40% of the hash rate and they mine the same way, then they have an edge that's even bigger than yours. 3:57:24 And then if someone else has 45% and they mine via selfish mining, they have the biggest edge. 3:57:31 And then eventually, if you have 51% of the hash rate, then you have the biggest edge. 3:57:35 But even the logic doesn't end there. It keeps going on and on. 3:57:40 So if you're in the 49% that's cut out, but you cut in another 6% from the 51% group that's ruling everything and you give everything, almost everything to them, then you have the biggest edge. 3:57:53 So if you're in the 49% that's cut out, but you cut in another 6% from the 51% group that's ruling everything and you give everything, almost everything to them and keep only a couple pennies for yourself. 3:58:08 Now you're on top. That's the best of all. 3:58:11 And then they have an incentive to carve 11% out of you. 3:58:17 Then you carve 15% back. 3:58:20 And then eventually you have two 50% coalitions that are equally matched, but highly unstable. 3:58:27 And then finally, at the very end, everyone decides to just drop selfish mining because it has this huge cost and then it doesn't do anything. 3:58:37 Selfish mining really exists. 3:58:40 Although I definitely think the pools play various little games and snipe at each other from time to time, but it doesn't really bubble up to anything real. 3:58:49 And as for the interaction between selfish mining and Drivechain, I think there really is none. 3:58:54 Hey, I see Robin in the crowd. 3:58:57 Robin, I convinced Paul to create his own client and you guys need to link up and collab. 3:59:05 You can get that ZKP in if you can convince him. 3:59:12 Well, of course, part of the point is that it will just have all these little modules that people can just put in as they like. 3:59:26 The idea is that it should be up to the end user which things they want to download in. 3:59:32 All right, here he is. 3:59:34 I think if you speak, you're like 20 seconds ahead of the people listening. 3:59:44 But now here he is as a speaker. 3:59:46 Hey, Robin, what's going on, man? 3:59:48 Can you hear me? 3:59:50 Yep, yep. 3:59:51 Hello. 3:59:56 You were talked about in this conversation quite a bit. 4:00:00 And more or less, I want Paul to touch on what he was saying in terms of a ZKP being unnecessary and not needed. 4:00:12 Can you touch on that again, Paul, just because he's here right now? 4:00:16 Oh, sure. 4:00:17 I said basically that he was talking about zero sync. 4:00:21 And I was saying that, well, zero sync, it's very cool that it improves SPV mode. 4:00:27 But we don't live in a world where people are syncing SPV clients where you turn on Electrum and you're constantly frustrated because you don't know if the... 4:00:40 You constantly see all these different chain tips and you know which one is the longest, but you don't know which of them are invalid or not. 4:00:47 Because there has really never been any invalid blocks in SPV chain of any significant length. 4:00:56 And it only happened once in 2015 when there was a lot of unintentional bugs. 4:01:01 And it was a disaster for everyone involved and the miners who built an invalid block. 4:01:06 Lost a huge amount of money and probably built in all this redundancy so that it would never happen again, which it has not. 4:01:12 So I was basically saying something like that. 4:01:14 Like that the ZK, using ZK to prove validity of the chain is unnecessary because the SPV already does that. 4:01:27 But it doesn't literally do that. 4:01:29 But it only does it indirectly. 4:01:32 But I was also saying that the ZKP also kind of does it only indirectly. 4:01:38 So the thing is not... I'm saying it's not like a big problem that is affecting people all the time. 4:01:45 It has, in fact, never affected anyone. 4:01:48 The question of syncing SPV wallet and being like, maybe this has an invalid block in it or something. 4:01:58 Because that has never happened. 4:02:03 Yeah, maybe the advantages are a bit more subtle. 4:02:09 Like, of course, if you're only verifying the SPV routes, then it's not much better when you're doing with a ZKP. 4:02:16 But I think it's good when you're verifying all the consensus routes with a ZKP. 4:02:21 Because that strengthens the network. 4:02:24 I think the strength of the network comes from as many people as possible verifying all of the consensus routes. 4:02:31 And I think it would be great if we could just cheaply scale the number of people who are fully validating the entire chain. 4:02:40 And yeah, ZKPs have the potential that essentially everybody could do it on their phones. 4:02:46 And I find that quite exciting. 4:02:49 But I agree that it's more like a subtle thing that is not that clearly of a huge advantage for the individual end user. 4:02:59 And yeah, I would agree with Paul's critique in that sense. 4:03:04 The SPV mode is already... It's not literally validating every blockchain rule. 4:03:11 But there's an implicit suggestion that if a block is being mined on by miners, 4:03:22 there is an enormous amount of indirect evidence that everyone else has accepted it. 4:03:29 So you just kind of think to yourself, well, it's true that maybe everyone is wrong. 4:03:35 It's kind of like a one out of N type of a thing. 4:03:38 No one has raised the alarm ever on this. 4:03:41 Can you imagine going back thousands of blocks and then someone saying, wait a minute, this block is invalid. 4:03:48 This transaction here has whatever, this is a four and it should have been a three. 4:03:52 And everyone being like, this signature is invalid or something. 4:03:57 And then we just reorg months of blockchain history. 4:04:05 So what I did say is that it would be good to improve... 4:04:12 It's definitely an improvement for the world if the liked clients are souped up and they validate more stuff. 4:04:21 But it's not like a thing that is happening all the time where people are... 4:04:26 They sync Electrum and they're like, okay, I know which chain is the longest, 4:04:29 but I have to worry about accidentally having an invalid block because there's never been any block, 4:04:38 I think, synced by a liked client. 4:04:40 That's also because the incentives are aligned not to mine the block. 4:04:43 Because there are so many people who are validating it. 4:04:46 I completely agree. 4:04:48 So validating has definitely a value. 4:04:51 But it's kind of weird because if people are validating, then the incentives are aligned that nobody cheats. 4:04:56 But if people are not validating, then there's an incentive to mine invalid blocks. 4:05:02 Yes, that's right. 4:05:04 I mean, I agree. 4:05:07 So it's very subtle, but it is definitely fundamental, I think. 4:05:13 Well, you could make an interesting argument about scale. 4:05:18 Let's say you have 8 billion people and almost no one can run a full node. 4:05:25 You and I would agree that that's terrible. 4:05:27 And I think it's also unrealistic. 4:05:29 But that's a bad scenario. 4:05:31 But even still, it's something that I think scales very well. 4:05:39 Because let's say you have 8 billion people, only 800 people can run a full node. 4:05:48 But if they lie, they will be screwing over the other 7.999 billion people. 4:05:55 Well, now it's such an egregious crime. 4:05:58 And so many of those people have an incentive to sound the alarm if something happens, as do all the other 799 who actually can. 4:06:06 So it's kind of a weird situation where even if it's the case that as the network grows in terms of adoption, 4:06:13 the likelihood that the error goes undetected can still remain very, very high. 4:06:21 Even if the validation cost is going up a lot and even the validation proportion is plummeting. 4:06:28 Still, the idea just that, because it's just like you wake up in the morning and it's like, do we detect? 4:06:34 Are there any errors in the world and do we detect them? 4:06:37 We want more SPV users and more people who can run a full node. 4:06:42 All those things make the error detection easier. 4:06:46 But even the presence of many, many, many SPV users, that actually, I think, still is making it easier, not harder, to detect the errors. 4:06:57 Although it also means you can fool more people if you muggle an error across. 4:07:02 And also, there's that question, who enforces consensus rules, right? 4:07:07 And the more validating users we have, the more people are enforcing consensus rules. 4:07:14 Right. 4:07:16 Yeah, we always wanted it to be clear that everybody would just have SPV clients. 4:07:20 Nobody would enforce consensus rules, really, except for. 4:07:23 Right. We completely agree that that would be terrible. 4:07:27 That's not good. 4:07:28 We always want it to be easier for people to validate and enforce the rules. 4:07:34 Often, when I talk to crazy large blocker people, they're always saying stuff like, everyone can use SPV. 4:07:43 And I'm like, I get it from both sides. 4:07:46 I'm like, no, that doesn't work at all because you can't. 4:07:51 Like I say, if you want to make a photocopy of the Bible, someone out there actually has to have the first Bible. 4:08:00 They have to have one somewhere. 4:08:02 Can't photocopy nothing. 4:08:04 And everything in the block. 4:08:06 This is also where the blocks kind of have to be small because everything in the blockchain must be served on command, like client server style. 4:08:14 I don't know why the space is always doing this. 4:08:22 Glitchy spaces today for some people. 4:08:27 I don't know why. 4:08:32 Actually, I was here to listen to the debate of Supertestnet. 4:08:36 When is it? 4:08:38 It already happened. 4:08:40 You can watch the first one. 4:08:41 The first one was also very glitchy, but it was recorded. 4:08:49 And then this one is also recorded. 4:08:52 I think I'll probably end this one now. 4:08:54 I was thinking to end it. 4:08:56 We started at 12 this time, so this is the fourth hour now. 4:08:59 I have to leave anyways. 4:09:01 Hey, Robin. 4:09:03 Excellent. 4:09:05 If you go to the LayerTwo Labs Twitter, you should be able to play the recording of the first part and then this part. 4:09:11 It was really glitchy. 4:09:13 He couldn't even come up for some reason. 4:09:16 If you play that one, that's pretty good. 4:09:18 Robin, quick question. 4:09:20 Would you work on an alternative client to Bitcoin Core? 4:09:26 Because that was what Paul and I were talking about. 4:09:29 That's not exactly what I said. 4:09:35 It's not really an alternative. 4:09:37 It's an alternative thing that people would run. 4:09:38 It's kind of like... 4:09:40 Oh, no. 4:09:42 I think we have seen often how hard it is to really build an alternative client and how hard it is to implement the consensus rules bug by bug. 4:09:55 Right. 4:09:57 That's what I'm not going to do. 4:09:59 But that's okay. 4:10:01 Oflo has interpreted it that way. 4:10:03 But we're not redoing anything in Bitcoin Core. 4:10:06 We're only adding things. 4:10:08 But that's okay. 4:10:10 It's kind of a very new concept. 4:10:12 I think in an ideal world, we would just have... 4:10:15 The core devs, they are working on Bitcoin Kernel, which is essentially stripping out the consensus rules out of Bitcoin. 4:10:23 So that they split up. 4:10:26 I think currently there's the wallet in there and the GUI and all kinds of things that are not consensus relevant. 4:10:32 And yeah, they are working on extracting just the consensus library, essentially. 4:10:38 And yeah, that will take a while. 4:10:41 For a long time. 4:10:43 But once they have done that, we could use some of these more modern proof systems like RISC-0, for example, which allows you to compile existing codes to RISC-5 and then just run it through their proof system. 4:10:57 Because their proof system is essentially like a RISC-5 VM. 4:11:01 And yeah, that would be ideal, I think, in terms of software engineering, because then we would not have to re-implement the Bitcoin consensus rules and the Bitcoin bugs. 4:11:11 And that would be vastly better. 4:11:14 And yeah, that's definitely the long-term goal, but it's not possible currently. 4:11:21 For many reasons. 4:11:24 Okay, cool. Well, hey, thanks for popping in. 4:11:28 Yeah, sure. Thanks for having me. 4:11:30 Of course, yeah. See you later. 4:11:37 Okay, guys, I think personally, it's time for me to move on to other important things I have to do today. 4:11:44 But this has been fun, thanks to SupertestNet and that other guy's name, the CRI, that I already forgot it, unfortunately. 4:11:54 What was his name? 4:11:56 But he was great, though. I'm very bad with names. That's on me. 4:12:01 But he was great. 4:12:05 And bullish on Istanbul developers, they seem to be a cut above the rest. 4:12:16 And Oflo, it's not an alternative client, really, per se, because I'm not updating. 4:12:25 I'm taking Bitcoin Core as it is. I'm just adding something to it. 4:12:30 Yeah, I got that much. But do we have a word for that? Do we have a name for that? 4:12:37 Well, I guess we need a different name for it. Hey, you're the marketing person. You name it something. 4:12:48 I'll come up with something. 4:12:50 Okay, great. 4:12:52 Okay, everyone. Hey, thanks. I had a lot of fun, as usual. So thanks a lot. See you guys later. Bye, everyone. 4:13:01 Ciao, ciao. 4:13:03 See you.
