0:02 Hey everybody, welcome to the space. 0:08 Come on up if you'd like to chat. 0:14 Happy Friday. 0:22 Hey Moon Settler, how's it going? 0:31 What's up Moon Settler? Happy Friday. 1:02 Moon Settler, are you there? 1:14 Hello, can you hear me? 1:16 Yes, I can hear you. 1:18 Happy Friday. 1:20 Happy Friday. 1:22 What's up? 1:24 I just had a little bit of headset trouble. 1:26 Every time I get speaker, the headset disconnects from the phone. 1:31 Yeah. 1:35 Well, welcome to the stage. 1:39 Feel free to just chat. 1:41 Say whatever's on your mind. 1:43 Drivechain related or otherwise. 1:48 What do you think about the PR? 1:50 You saw what Luke did on GitHub. 1:55 Hi everybody. 1:57 Hi Moon Settler. 1:59 Hi Henry. 2:05 I actually have a question for Moon Settler. 2:07 I see that you take the opinion that if there was drivechains, then the base layer transaction fees would be lower. 2:15 Would you care to elaborate that or maybe I understood it wrong? 2:25 One second. 2:27 I have to take care of something and then I will answer. 2:30 One second. 2:32 Sure, sure. 2:34 I just found an interesting opinion that I saw you making. 2:41 Yeah, so we don't actually really know. 2:46 Because this thing depends on a lot of things. 2:50 How desirable actually will be the main chain box space? 2:55 What will be the one for it? 2:57 And in compulsion, how desirable could be drivechain box space? 3:01 A lot of assumptions can go into that. 3:04 And people can arrive to different conclusions from different base assumptions. 3:11 Just on that, what they imagine people would want and value. 3:19 Right, right. 3:23 How about this question? 3:26 Do you think that there is a non-zero chance where if drivechains was not implemented or anything like it, 3:33 do you think that it would be possible that there might actually be enough demand for block space as Bitcoin currently works? 3:42 Where the fees would be enough for security? 3:46 What do you think, Moon Settler? 3:50 Yeah, I'm actually in the camp that thinks that most people on this planet will be priced out from using Elvan 3:58 and the fees will be high eventually. 4:00 If there is actually really demand for Bitcoin and the utility of Bitcoin and the utility of self-custody, 4:07 then I pretty much expect that almost everyone will be forced into custody of solutions and it will be a rich man's hobby. 4:15 And that fees can actually be high enough to secure the network for a while. 4:24 But on the other hand, it all depends. 4:27 Because if you keep increasing the viable size of transactions that make economic sense on Bitcoin, 4:36 then in relation, the fees mean less and less. 4:42 So that's a big problem that I see with the entire small block concept that Bitcoin went towards. 4:49 I kind of think that Satoshi, when he invented Bitcoin and thought of the monetary policy, 4:56 when he had an ever increasing number of transactions, exponentially increasing number of transactions 5:02 and exponentially decreasing volume of transactions in mind when he set this whole thing up. 5:09 And he himself diverted from that much later. 5:13 But then the system parameters were already set in stone and he couldn't change the emission schedule. 5:21 And I think while small blocks make engineering sense absolutely from network engineering perspective and stuff, 5:31 I think small blocks and layouts can make sense. 5:35 In this regard, in the security aspect, they totally don't make sense. 5:41 I have another view to look at it. 5:43 I don't know. 5:44 I'm wondering if you can see it like this. 5:46 So if we are on a track to more custodial solutions for scaling, kind of like what Hal Finney talked about of Bitcoin banks, 5:54 and it could be different layers like Lightning or ARK or similar things or maybe even other things that we don't know that might be introduced in the future, 6:04 then the price of on-chain transactions could potentially go up. 6:10 If an on-chain transaction is going to be an economic dense transaction and it's representing a lot more that's going on another chain or on another layer, 6:20 then it would make sense for people that are transacting on the base layer to pay high amounts. 6:26 But with the block space being limited, then there's going to be a fee market for it and potentially it would be very high fees. 6:34 But when you limit the block space even more with smaller blocks, wouldn't it make sense for actually the fees to continue to go up with smaller blocks? 6:43 I think that's where I don't really fully understand why you think smaller blocks might make lower fees. 6:51 I think there is a huge problem with this whole thing. 6:54 There is a huge timing issue. 6:55 These things would need time to develop. 6:58 So, you know, these cooperative solutions and whatever that we can try to dream up to solve this problem, this takes time to develop and adopt. 7:09 And the demand for block space comes in these huge spikes during bull markets. 7:17 And if we expect, because of whatever political or economic reasons, we expect a larger batch of newcomers trying to come into Bitcoin, 7:27 then I expect these newcomers will simply capitulate at the first time of high fees and it's not going to be sustained. 7:37 They are going to go either into custody or into altcoins or whatever else. 7:45 And so this is a complex topic. 7:47 Like I said, you have to assume certain things to even arrive to any conclusion. 7:52 And I kind of assume that probably this fixed block size limit will not yield a stable, a metastable market at all. 8:04 It will be very fluctuating and high fees and too low fees are going to interchangeably, following each other. 8:16 These periods are going to follow each other. 8:19 And that's pretty bad for the miners too and pretty bad for the users because when they actually want to transit, 8:26 they are going to have high fees and then they will not have proper security eventually when the subsidy runs out in the low fee period. 8:36 So the whole thing seems like a really bad system to me. 8:43 But don't you think a smaller block size might help a little bit? 8:47 Because now it's more... 8:49 No, I think if you do that now, then everyone will just capitulate. 8:54 That's what I think. 8:55 Literally you can. 8:56 You have to solve the problem first. 8:58 You have to solve the problem of scaling first. 9:00 And when that is adopted, and when you see that the block space is largely filled with stuff like, you know, JPEGs, 9:08 then you can try to constrict the block size. 9:11 But maybe at that point the technology will progress so much that it doesn't even make sense to reduce the block size. 9:20 And again, if we expect, like right now Bitcoin block space can accommodate like 10-20 million active users in my estimation. 9:29 100 million tops with very heavy centralizing, centrally coordinated optimizations. 9:35 100 million active users are not unimaginable, but probably the 20 million is a better... 9:41 That's a large city, so that's not the world. 9:44 That's nothing. 9:45 And we don't actually have any control over when people will have a need, when people will have a demand for Bitcoin. 9:52 And the properties of Bitcoin that we cherish so much, right? 9:56 So this whole thing about this intermediating authorization. 10:01 So the way you're looking at it, because the block fee is too volatile, right? 10:07 During bull markets it can be extremely high, and during bear markets it can be extremely low. 10:12 That because of the volatility, it can cause security to be very, very low during low fee markets. 10:19 But if the block size is smaller, wouldn't it incentivize people to build out these other layers, even if they're custodial layers? 10:29 Yeah, but that's not a good idea. 10:32 So if you start scaling custodially, you know, Hoa's vision, let's call it. 10:38 It's not possible for the base layer anyways to scale, right? 10:43 It doesn't matter if it's a one megabyte limit, or a four megabyte limit, or a ten megabyte limit. 10:47 Either way, it can't scale. 10:49 But there is a difference. 10:50 There's a huge difference between custodial scaling and other types of scaling, in my view. 11:01 Because we see where the world is going. 11:05 They are going to tighter and tighter financial and digital control. 11:10 And it's just not plausible that they will let people free, and not enforce the exact same key CML, financial regulation bullshit, or even worse, on these custodians. 11:25 That's just not plausible. 11:27 So we are going to end up with the same system, again, as we have with banks, where you have no privacy and you have no sovereignty. 11:34 And then what the fuck is Bitcoin doing, right? 11:36 You're thinking if you're prematurely lowering the block size, you're pricing out people way too early to even give it a chance to learn about it, to use the base layer, basically. 11:44 And you would rather people learn how the base layer works, even if in the future they won't be able to use it. 11:50 Yeah, so we need time. 11:55 We need time to migrate to newer solutions and develop them and test them and try them out and even scrap them if they are not good enough, right? 12:03 We need this process of invention and trial by fire and adoption or adoption of something else. 12:13 We need these things. 12:15 And we kind of need to keep up with the new adopters to keep them from defecting, again, from Bitcoin, the asset overall, or just from self-custody. 12:29 And I think it's a very, very bad idea to prematurely lower the block size. 12:38 Because that would mean that the current users, who are actually right now happy with self-custody and using Bitcoin, are going to start to be priced out. 12:49 And... 12:54 Sorry about that. 12:55 And that actually is making things worse for the users. 13:00 That's not a great idea in my book. 13:04 And I don't really see how this system can be stable again. 13:11 But I find some plausibility of, you know, collecting fees from sidechains and other layer tools like ORC, you know, and trying to funnel that to the miners to solve this issue. 13:33 But if I'm being completely honest, I don't actually think that it is possible to really secure Bitcoin just from transaction fees. 13:47 The model doesn't really work out in my head. 13:50 So if you are adding, you know, cheaper block space that is less replicated and less desired and less valuable, that is not going to impact very much. 14:04 And like I said, the defection rate is going to be very high, in my estimation, if you are trying to squeeze more fees. 14:13 Do you think it's going to hurt adoption of the asset in general? 14:16 Because people have alternatives where, you know, if they can't use the base layer of Bitcoin, then they would just use a different layer or even a different asset, potentially. 14:26 Yes. So the problem is there is not really an option to be self-sovereign in Bitcoin without ever touching the base layer. 14:36 Right. But don't you think it's still an inevitability where even if like, let's say, you know, the block size was whatever, four megabytes, it doesn't matter. 14:43 It's whatever the arbitrary limit is. It's inevitable that people are going to be priced out. 14:49 Where I always saw it as like the base layer settlement of, you know, either like large institutions or nation states or banks. 14:56 You know, they're going to be the ones using the base layer because everybody else can be priced out anyways. 15:01 But your argument is if you if you try to do that earlier, then it doesn't give a chance for Bitcoin to adopt. 15:08 No, no. My argument, if you go down that path, then you are not going to have better results than what we have with the financial system we have right now. 15:19 Yeah, I can see that. But I think that at least there's some kind of I think I think that there is still a benefit because the auditability is there. 15:30 And the ability to, what's it called, go back to the base layer, even if it's too expensive. 15:36 Like, you know, for example, if I was selling something for a few hundred, a few million dollars, I might be able to afford the base layer transaction for that. 15:46 So just having that availability, I think, is still beneficial versus, you know. 15:52 I don't think I don't think that is don't think that is any more beneficial or plausible than what we have with gold. 15:59 Like, I really don't think that. 16:01 And I don't. 16:03 With gold, it takes too long to get it. It takes it's too expensive to transfer it. 16:07 Like if you want to transfer, you know, hundreds of pounds of gold across across the world, that's too much. 16:12 And then the verifiability there is also very expensive. 16:15 And because of that. 16:16 But no, no normal person is going to have the problem of transferring hundreds of pounds of gold across the world. 16:23 So they're forced to use the base layer. 16:25 But where in Bitcoin, they might be incentivized to use the other layer, but they're not forced because they can still use the base layer. 16:31 It's just more expensive. 16:34 But I'm trying to say that. 16:36 Basically, like 99% of the world's population is not not going to have that problem. 16:43 Like they put a single gold coin in their pocket and that's pretty much the life saving for normal people. 16:49 That's the case. And then you have rich people, right. 16:52 And rich people with rich people problems and they might actually be held up on the airports and they might actually be, you know, 17:00 Covid is searched for gold. 17:02 They are trying to do something if they are working funny or something. 17:07 But and these people are going to love Bitcoin probably if they can even use it, because there is a big question. 17:16 So if you go down this, this is absolutely permissioned part. 17:20 And, you know, SMTP started out as a completely open protocol. 17:24 Everyone was free to run the servers and whatnot. 17:27 And right now the state is that you basically can't send an email to anyone on this planet. 17:34 If you are not sending it from like the six email providers that actually, you know, or their minions or let's call it serves. 17:50 So basically, it's very easy to capture open protocols, especially if almost all the supplies held in custody. 17:58 It's very easy to go into a paper Bitcoin direction. 18:02 You can't actually audit the liabilities on top of the on top of the assets. 18:08 So you can't actually prove if someone is providing your signature on a challenge text that you are asked for it. 18:14 You can't actually prove that it was them that signed and they did not just forward your request and made someone else sign it. 18:20 You can't actually know if legally they are beholden to someone else first with that Bitcoin. 18:26 You don't know any of this. 18:28 So I don't see why we would have better results with that part, with that half in his vision. 18:34 But then what we had with gold, I see the same problem. 18:39 You know, if Bitcoin is expensive to hold and transact, then it's the same as gold. 18:43 It is going to share the fate of gold just much quicker, probably because it's, you know, it's digital and people already know what to do. 18:50 So I see that as a path that leads to capture and Bitcoin stops working as freedom money and stops serving any function. 18:57 And also it's a scarcity properties. 19:01 I'm not going to step in a custodial scaling solution. 19:04 I really, really believe that we are going to have a huge super dilution in the scenario where the liquidity is where people have access to Bitcoin, which will not be the main chain. 19:15 And I see block size decrease as something that just reinforces this, that just makes it more likely and more stronger. 19:22 And right. So I really don't like talking about that stuff. 19:28 I got into an argument with Stuart McKenzie and I told him that in the event, if we had, you know, sidechains that are comparably secure, not the same, but comparably secure, 19:43 let's say you have like 10 or 100 block finality assumptions, it doesn't really matter. 19:52 So 10 or 100 block finality assumptions instead of one, two blocks, that's fine. 19:57 It doesn't have to be exactly the same security as Bitcoin. If you have like short term volatility exposure, but it's not serious, like it's not like you will lose everything, get rough with it or whatever, but you do have some exposure, that's fine. 20:13 That could still be livable to people, but it has to be comparable to Bitcoin mainchain. And then it probably makes a lot of sense to decrease the Bitcoin mainchain block size. 20:24 If you have that option, if you have block size, block space that can be utilized by the people, you have an abundance of block space that is comparably secure to Bitcoin mainchain, then absolutely. 20:37 I think then we should seriously consider reducing the block size, but aside from that, it will literally just cause problems and make everything worse, in my opinion. 20:48 Yeah, thanks for clarifying with the questions I asked. I think I have a better understanding of your view. 20:54 If I was just to like simplify it, it's basically the issues that you see would be expedited if you decrease it. 21:04 Yeah, absolutely. I think if you decrease the block size prematurely before the conditions for that actually are met, then you are going to actually make things worse and the worst outcome will be more pronounced. 21:19 I wanted to say one more thing, and this is probably absolutely not going to be popular with Connex, but I kind of think that there is a chance that we are only going to be able to have a significant enough security budget that allows us to secure these increasingly valuable on-chain transactions 21:47 if the miners can collect revenue beyond the fees. 21:52 So basically, if we can somehow tame MEV, Miner Extractable Value, and it is a significant multiple of the fee, like let's say 50x, 100x or something like that, so miner revenue is 100x from fees, but people are willing to pay for fees. 22:12 We kind of know the maximum of that, so whatever. 22:15 And if we can do that, and we can do that without fully centralizing mining, like it can remain decentralized enough, and its adverse effects do not really transfer to mainchain, if we could somehow anyhow do that, then I believe that would solve the security budget. 22:37 The inherent security budget unsolvable, I don't know how many lemma. 22:43 So that was one thing that made me very interested in drivechains, because drivechains enable MEV, and if we can somehow tame that, if we can somehow put that in the service of securing Bitcoin for everyone, and we could somehow make sidechains benefit that mainchain security, 23:03 and this increased mainchain security somehow dribbles down on these layers, and the users actually benefit from it, then that's a future that I can imagine where Bitcoin could be a great success and really eat everything, as people like to say. 23:22 Otherwise, I think it will be marginalized, and it will die. 23:28 Do you think that this comes from 301? 23:32 Yeah, that's one possibility. 23:36 So, blind merge mining is not really special. 23:40 It doesn't require a single way to do it. 23:47 You can do it many ways. 23:49 We could come up with at least five different ways to do it. 23:54 And, of course, 301 and 300, they are aiming to be the maximally block-size, byte-efficient ways to do it. 24:09 But people might say that's not the only perspective that we need to consider. 24:19 So, being byte-size efficient may not be the most important thing, but I think 300 and 301 are the most efficient, most specialized tools for these jobs. 24:36 You can probably use them to bring MEV to Bitcoin and 100x the miner revenue, which would mean that, let's say, if you had like a 0.5 BTC fee revenue, 24:55 that is absolutely bollocks if people are going to transact larger and larger amounts on the Bitcoin mainchain, 25:02 because the world is coming in, and everyone is condensing everything, and they are using custodians and custodians, and book, and whatever. 25:12 There are issues there. 25:17 But you are trying to secure tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of Bitcoins with 0.5 BTC per block. 25:23 That doesn't make sense. It doesn't make any sense to me. 25:27 0.5 BTC per block secures like 0.5 to 1 BTC transaction values. 25:33 That's what it secures perfectly, and it does not secure 10,000 BTC settlements. 25:40 And if the proof-of-work does not secure them, then what secures them? 25:44 And will that thing tolerate proof-of-work miners trying to take a cut from them when they are not even doing a fucking thing to secure their transactions? 25:55 And will the world tolerate proof-of-work if it does not actually solve any problem? 26:00 So these are the thoughts that bother me when I think about this. 26:06 And I try to come up with a way that actually makes proof-of-work useful, proof-of-work security useful, 26:12 that actually makes people being able to transact smaller amounts, and those make economic sense, and stuff like that. 26:22 So it's a very complex topic to answer your question, and I'm pretty pessimistic on the fees and the security. 26:33 I see. I just, the way I look at it is a little bit like, if you're transferring 0.5, if the fee is 0.5 per block for miner revenue, 26:45 then there's, from my understanding, there will be a lot more space for people to transact, you know, larger amounts. 26:54 And then the fee market would go high, it would actually be more than 0.5, because if it's 0.5, then there's more space. 27:01 There's not enough economic dense transactions ready to pay for it, you know, that much. 27:06 Yeah, I mean, it all depends on how fast it's centralizing again. 27:11 Because if people rush ahead, because it becomes inconvenient and expensive to use mainchain, 27:16 and they just rush ahead and everyone adopts custodians first, then we can get into a situation where custodians are only paying once per bite for space, 27:27 and nobody's using mainchain. 27:29 Yeah, I think that these custodians need to have the optionality, where it's like, if everybody's just onboarded to the custodial, whatever, 27:37 then yeah, then the fees can be extremely low, because that's just what everybody's using. 27:40 But if the custodial has, like, whatever the wallets are, they have the optionality, you could use the base layer right now, fees are low, would you like to? 27:49 If not, then you can continue on the custodial option. 27:52 Yeah, I think custodial scaling will come with off-chain settlement books. 27:56 So pretty fast people will reinvent the whole banking thing. 28:01 And I kind of expect that these large entities will find ways to secure their transactions by forming federations and settling on off-chain books and off-chain transactions. 28:18 Like, you have five or six or seven large financial entities, and they have an NFN, USIG, whatever. 28:28 Then nobody can screw anyone, they can maintain an always-online node, because it's not a problem at those levels. 28:36 So basically you're saying you can incentivize people to use these other layers enough that the base layer is very low? 28:42 Absolutely. Absolutely, they will defect. 28:44 So the moment fees go, like, without high, people are going to adopt these things, and they will work for them, and their friends will immediately start using them instead of mentioning them. 28:56 I think the whole thing will marginalize proof-of-work until people are starting asking the question, why are we even doing this bullshit, it does not secure anything. 29:05 So that's my main fear with all this, you know, all this dance that we are playing with the fees and turning away people. 29:15 I think everyone from the third world needs to be able to run a Bitcoin full node on their phone or whatever. 29:25 But it's not a problem if transactions are $100 or $1,000, because, you know, people will use custodians anyhow. 29:34 So this whole thing doesn't really make sense to me, to be honest. 29:38 So transaction costs are a bigger pain point than node costs, in my opinion. 29:46 At least at higher adoption, this is going to be more pronounced, because right now the fanatics are already in Bitcoin, I believe. 29:53 So the people who will insist at all times, absolutely from their mountain bunkers, to run a Bitcoin node, if they have to use it, then they will use a subprime or whatever, and they will just buy hard drives if they have to. 30:07 Those people are already in Bitcoin, probably. They are already running the nodes. 30:11 And like everyone else in the world that doesn't give a flying fuck about any of this, they are just going to use what works and what is cheap. 30:21 And also we are seeing that sadly not only just what works and what is cheap, but also they are very sensitive to exchange rate risk in the sense to the US dollar, basically. 30:35 So to their fiat currency, the exchange rate and the downwards volatility is very painful for them. 30:42 So that's also a form of cost, right? 30:47 It's also a form of cost if they are forced to hold Bitcoin, nobody likes that. 30:52 That's a shitty thing. 30:54 And if you add all of these things together, it paints a pretty bleak picture. 31:00 And I think we could try to make everything as good, as secure and as self-sovereign to the users as we physically can. 31:11 And even then, it's a really long road for the world to actually adopt Bitcoin in such a way. 31:19 It's already a fairytale at that point if we do everything that we can for these new users, the next 1 billion people. 31:28 But if we actually say, fuck them, right? 31:31 So Mr. Horl style, I don't give a fuck, I just want my cheap node and I don't give a flying fuck about those people. 31:38 If that narrative wins, if that is the prevailing attitude, then these people are not even going to try adopting Bitcoin. 31:47 Or if they do, they will use it as a stock and they will use it in a custodial manner. 31:54 And so that's kind of how I see all this playing out. 32:00 Okay, I actually have a question. 32:04 Previously, when you said they would defect on the main chain, you mean by they're just going to use the other custodial solutions like Lightning or ARK or even a different chain, completely a different asset. 32:16 That's what you mean by defect, right? 32:18 Yeah, I mean, ARK is a funny thing. 32:21 You don't mean defect like in a drivechain world where they're using a sidechain that's actually two-way pegged through hash rate or something like that. 32:30 You don't mean defect in that scenario? 32:32 I think most of them will defect Bitcoin as the asset. 32:36 Like that's kind of how I expected playing out. 32:39 Right, so you mean in a non-drivechain world though, right? 32:44 Doesn't matter. 32:45 I'm not sure I have a very hard time imagining that someone who is new to this is going to look at these things like all the altcoins that he can pick from and see that they have a much larger upside to Bitcoin. 33:01 That's how they advertise like that. 33:04 Okay, Bitcoin may do a 20x maybe in 10-15 years, we don't know. 33:10 But these things, they can do a 1000x if you're lucky. 33:13 So there is that utility that people want to be early. 33:17 And from that point of view, Bitcoin is probably losing. 33:21 It does not exhibit the number go up properties anymore. 33:25 If someone looks at the price chart, they start drawing lines and they are just looking at it. 33:30 The potent recognition in their brain is going to see that it is topping out. 33:35 That's what new people see when they look at the price chart. 33:38 There's diminishing returns, right? 33:39 Yes, yes, yes. 33:41 If you're speculating on a new asset that you really fully don't understand, you might as well speculate on something that's going to give you way higher potential returns. 33:47 I mean, it depends who wants what. 33:50 But I can absolutely see that a lot of people are going to be drawn to the same properties that early Bitcoiners were drawn to when Bitcoin was super volatile. 34:00 But what they won't have is the network effect and liquidity, right? 34:06 Yeah, I'm not an expert on that. 34:10 But I think a lot of temptation will go towards that. 34:15 And they will also have the cheap fees. 34:17 So that's another thing. 34:19 I mean, there were times where I looked at the transaction fees on Bitcoin, you know, going from one exchange to the other. 34:30 And I said, fuck it. 34:31 I'm not going to transact in Bitcoin. 34:33 I'm going to exchange. 34:36 I will use a shitcoin because that's like a tiny fraction of the transaction fee. 34:43 And that attitude is, I think, going to be perfectly natural to new people. 34:48 And it all trends towards that, you know, that Bitcoin as a medium of exchange and settlement layer is going to get marginalized as well. 35:02 As Bitcoin, the asset, might actually be marginalized, especially in bull markets. 35:07 I can totally see that in bull markets. 35:09 You know, when all the shitcoins are falling, it will see consolidations as we usually see that. 35:15 But when the bull market starts, everyone is starting to look at altcoins. 35:20 I can kind of see that in the posts and the behavior of people and the price actions of these various shitcoins. 35:29 You can see that people can't wait for the bull market to go into shitcoins. 35:34 And then that all is going to also limit Bitcoin's upside potential. 35:39 I still think that the more sophisticated players are only looking for a bull market to make more Bitcoin. 35:44 I think that the Harvard fact and the Metcalfe's law of hard money eventually winning in the future, 35:49 they don't mind to speculate on other alternate currencies. 35:54 But I think that they're still basing their long-term value in Bitcoin. 35:59 New players would not because they don't really understand that, I think. 36:02 Possibly, but we are talking about a very, very small fraction of humanity. 36:06 So I think if you are looking at the investors as a group, then... 36:10 Yeah, the fraction would be very small, but I think that if the actual amount of the total value there is going to be more than, you know, I don't know. 36:21 Yeah, I just look at these charts, right? 36:26 So I look at Bitcoin and think if I was a pension fund and I saw that it has 80-90% drawdown still, 36:35 but actually has diminishing returns and I'm looking at like best case, I'm looking at like a plus 80% and then after plus 20% in the next cycle. 36:49 But I have a huge amount of risk going with that. 36:52 And it's not like before that I only have to risk like 1 or 5%. 36:56 I have to go all in. 36:57 Not only, but let's say I have to go in a significant portion of my funds and that actually can affect my ability to pay out. 37:07 And really, I have all sorts of regulatory risk. 37:11 I'm just going to say nah, right? 37:14 So it's 1-2% exposure doesn't work anymore. 37:19 I can't risk more on these 80-90% drawdowns because, you know, banks have failed on less. 37:25 Like 30% on bonds can kill these institutions when they do these things. 37:32 So I kind of see that, you know, traditional finance is not going to be ultra-interested. 37:38 There is a population of investors that is very much interested in growing their value in Bitcoin. 37:49 But that can also change, right? 37:50 If they see that it has diminishing returns, if they see that it struggles to keep up with inflation, their interest will immediately go away. 37:57 And I think that's kind of the biggest problem that Bitcoin has right now. 38:03 It is out of sync with inflation and it does not even act as a good inflation hedge anymore. 38:09 That's probably the biggest issue that Bitcoin has overall. 38:14 And again, this whole thing in my head, everything just connects to each other. 38:21 Everything goes back to the demand for Bitcoin. 38:24 Demand for Bitcoin's basic properties. 38:26 Because as limited the supply is, if there is a really serious demand coming in for what Bitcoin actually does on the main chain, on the base layer, 38:37 it's very hard to see that we could not resume some serious NGO. 38:43 And that would, in this early phase, you know, still bring back this protection that people start seeing Bitcoin as something that you can hold long term and don't have to trade. 38:57 So, shifting into that point of view, if you're looking at Bitcoin eventually becoming the base layer, like the asset that's everything denominated in Bitcoin, 39:09 then people might not look at Bitcoin as the speculative asset to make gains, 39:14 but they're going to look at Bitcoin as the denominated asset for anything that they want to make gains on. 39:19 I'm not even really considering that in all seriousness. 39:23 And that's a good meme that I don't think that will ever happen at this rate. 39:28 I don't know. I think there's a considerable amount of altcoin traders or whatever. 39:34 They're basically denominated as Bitcoin. 39:37 How many of these people are there? Seriously, look at the world. 39:41 This is like a single detention camp in China or something like that. 39:48 That's what we are talking about. It's nothing. 39:51 I just recently read an article a few days ago that made some interesting things that I've been thinking about that I'm wondering other people's point of view. 40:00 So he was saying in a drivechain world where like big companies might be incentivized to create drivechains, maybe like a Twitter drivechain, a Facebook drivechain. 40:10 And he was talking about how because you need 90 percent approval rate from hashrate to add a new slot. 40:17 He was thinking maybe Facebook would have an incentive to control at least 10 percent of the hashrate to make sure no competitors would get a slot. 40:25 And I was thinking about this. Is this a positive or negative? Is this good for Bitcoin where it would incentivize companies like Facebook to have 10 percent hashrate to make sure their competitor doesn't get a slot? Or is this like bad? 40:39 What do you have to say about this? 40:41 I don't know. I honestly I did not. So I was thinking more when I posted that companies might actually sponsor and lobby for sidechains that they would actually use it for themselves. I did not necessarily think about stuff like Facebook. I was thinking more like stuff like Moon Wallet and Phoenix and stuff like that. 41:05 It doesn't matter what the company is, but the point is like you would incentivize a company, a large company to have at least 10 percent hashrate to make sure that no other competitor would get an active slot. Is this a positive for hashrate though? I think it could be a positive, but I haven't really thought enough about it to have a really good opinion. 41:24 I think we are a few cycles too early for this. Like seriously, like 10 years from now. 41:31 You would need a drivechain world and then you would need really, really high adoption of drivechain world and then you would have really successful drivechains, right? Like it's so far down. 41:40 Yeah, and even then controlling the hashrate can mean a lot of different things, right? In a corporate legal world, you can actually just contract a large mining pool and agree with them that they will not sponsor competitors. 41:57 You also don't really even need to have it at all times. You could just like rent out 10 percent whenever you want. 42:03 Yes, exactly. You can rent out or you can just sign contracts with mutual benefits, with pools. So I'm not sure I would go that deep into a lot and I absolutely don't want to even entertain whatever stupidity Jason and Larry comes up with. 42:24 I don't know, I think it's good. If you're incentivizing people to have hashrate, no matter how you think about it, I think it's a potential good thing. I'm not fully convinced yet, but I think incentivizing people to have hashrate is not necessarily bad. 42:37 It was very funny because I remember he was posting about this thing about somehow using hashrate for security and all this bullshit and I was just making a point that if Russia wanted to obliterate the power grid of Ukraine and Ukraine was trying to protect them with hash power instead of military, 43:02 it would cost Russia absolutely nothing, they could do it in a matter of hours or minutes and it would just be a missile salvo, a kinetic strike salvo and the power grid would be gone and Ukraine's hashrate would be gone if that would even make sense. 43:16 You know, a funny thing is right about, I don't know, like 15 minutes later people started posting graphs about internet blackouts in Ukraine because the Russians actually did zero their power grid with a single missile salvo. 43:34 What I got out of that article is that drivechains can actually be a lot bigger than I thought about because I really wasn't thinking that far out. 43:43 My point is power infrastructure is very vulnerable, so this entire notion that you can use hashrate as protection from kinetic threats or it would be superior to kinetic threats is absolute bollocks and we should not even speak about it at all. 43:59 Well, like Jason Lowery's point of view of the power projection. 44:03 Yeah, that's what I was talking about. 44:06 You're not going to use kinetic power, you're going to use hashrate power. 44:09 Yeah, I already talked too much if you were not arguing for that and let's forget it because I think that's complete bollocks but forget it. 44:18 And people are saying drivechain world but I don't know what the fuck that means because there are so many ways this could go. 44:30 So just people having base assumptions and the basic understanding, sort of social contract, shared morality, whatever, having an agreement on something completely changes the Schelling point. 44:45 The probabilities and the expected payouts for miners in their games that they can play with drivechains, it completely changes the Schelling point. 44:53 So I don't know what the drivechain world means because people are talking all over the place on how they see this working and what can main chain users, if they even exist because we can just reduce the block size and force everyone to drivechain. 45:10 I don't know what a drivechain world means, seriously. 45:13 It can be so many things. 45:16 Mun Sedla, can I ask you, sorry I'm a bit under the weather, I'd participate a bit more but my voice here is weak. 45:24 But can I ask you if you had to lay out a plan, very high level, and you had dictatorial control over the network and obviously that's antithesis to the value proposition to begin with but let's just say that no one cared. 45:40 What would you do, what dials would you tweak to try to assure that Bitcoin's success? 45:49 Yeah, that's a very interesting question. 45:54 So, to be honest, yeah, many times during my career, so to speak, I thought I had the answer. 46:07 I thought I knew exactly what we have to do. 46:11 And kind of got rug pulled each and every time on them. 46:16 I was really, really convinced that we need to create, like, to avoid regulatory culture, to avoid this fucking centralized nightmare that, you know, custodians are holding Bitcoin, they are telling us what Bitcoin is, and people are not even able to have access to the Bitcoin network. 46:34 And those that have not even access to the Bitcoin network, they are excluded from traditional financial systems. 46:39 So those coins can't actually interact with, you know, the vast majority of the coins that don't interact with anyone and stuff like that. 46:48 So I see the world going in that direction and I thought what we need to do is make Bitcoin, you know, function as electronic cash, peer-to-peer, you know, medium of exchange. 47:05 And it would fix the valuation because the scarcity properties, if people insist on final settlement for Bitcoin with a large enough circular economy, then it would fix the valuation, it would fix the value of money problem if people actually used it for real goods and services. 47:21 It would not be as manipulable as it is right now when it's traded as a stock on centralized exchanges and it's all beholden to the, you know, the legal regulatory system. 47:34 So I thought that was what we needed to do, but again, people don't really have an appetite for Bitcoin for this use case right now. 47:45 It's just too volatile, especially to the downside for them to want to use it as money, like a month-to-month spending budget to be in Bitcoin. 47:58 For most people that is just way too risky. 48:01 And since Bitcoin can't really function in this aspect, it's probably never going to be, you know, resilient enough against this sort of capture. 48:12 So that's where I am kind of in the depression train that even if you somehow manage to make Bitcoin, you know, usable for billions of people as a medium of exchange, 48:28 it wouldn't mean that they actually want that and they would adopt it. 48:31 Like, there is a chance, of course, but I see that as very, very low right now. 48:37 And I think Alex Kravets said that what people actually want from Bitcoin right now is to be smart collateral. 48:45 Smart as in being able to use in a non-custodial manner that is not beholden to the regulators, right? 48:53 So that's what people actually want. They want to gamble with shit and they want to use Bitcoin as collateral because it may actually be good for collateral that is super legal. 49:04 That's kind of the end goal of this whole crypto thing that Satoshi started is that we have a system that is not beholden to the legal system, to the judicial system, 49:15 that it works without, you know, central authority and these boomers that control the world right now. 49:22 So that was the original purpose of Bitcoin and that's kind of what people want from it. 49:27 They just don't want to use it as money. 49:30 And Bitcoin is so limited in its contractual capabilities that it does not really function very well as smart collateral even. 49:38 So not only it does not function as peer-to-peer money at scale in a large circular economy, that's absolutely out of question for Bitcoin, 49:47 but it does not even function as smart collateral. 49:50 And that was a pretty big blow to me when he said that because I felt that he is not just making this shit up. 49:57 He has thought about it deeply and I kind of have a feeling from what I've seen in the world and where things are developing 50:06 and what people are excited about it that there might actually be something in this. 50:11 And so, to be honest, I don't know what I would do if I could dictate the course for Bitcoin, 50:20 but I would really like to explore what we can do with governance. 50:24 I really would like to see how far we can push things, how far we can push scaling, how far we can push smarter contracts. 50:33 And they seem to be the least disruptive change that we can do with Bitcoin that can have a huge potential payout. 50:43 So that's something, but I don't think that we'll solve all the problems of Bitcoin, to be honest. 50:49 I just think we should really explore them and see how far we can go. 50:59 Hey, I made it. 51:01 I think, you know, as I think everyone here knows, there is like a cultural idea that Bitcoin doesn't have any problems at all and it's already perfect. 51:16 And I don't know if anyone has any ideas on how exactly to push back against that in a way that actually works, 51:24 like to just stop people from saying that. 51:28 Or maybe I just wanted to raise that idea because, you know, this is a wide idea. 51:35 I think it's a very strong idea because currently it works. 51:38 And at least currently from their observation, they can use it for whatever use cases they use it for. 51:43 So it works for them for what they're doing or what they're intending to do with it today, currently. 51:49 So I think it's very hard to push back on it because it's like a hypothetical future. 51:52 Even if this future is, you know, very likely, I don't think that they might see the future because they just they see it as how it is right now. 52:00 It's working. 52:02 So I would say it's very hard to push back on it. 52:05 Absolutely. And very easy to guess like people with, you know, what? 52:09 It's working. I can transact to pay nothing. 52:11 Lightning working. I buy bananas every day on the market with lightning. 52:15 What's your problem? 52:16 So very easy to guess like people. 52:18 But the truth is a real problem I see is that development is very slow. 52:23 Adoption, testing, whatever. 52:25 We are talking always in multi years. 52:27 Then when we want to actually improve on something, we want to add new capability. 52:31 Multi years to 10 years right now and can actually get slower later on. 52:36 And like I said, defection is lightning fast. 52:40 So that that is really, really fast. 52:41 Like if you make Bitcoin like a too expensive, too clunky, too unwieldy system for new people, then they will defect without within a heartbeat. 52:52 And that won't take years. 52:54 So that's kind of the problem I see with this attitude that that people are asking that what's the rush and it's all working for me. 53:03 Right. That I would like them to think like a little bit in terms of of how the development actually goes and how these capabilities can be deployed and how other people behave when they are met with a system that is just completely fucking unusable for them and too expensive. 53:24 I try to I try to look at it from a perspective of like, even if it's currently working, how much better it can be, because like there's there's obviously, I don't know, to me, it seems like there's more users on Ethereum. 53:37 And and Bitcoiners might be like, well, who cares? Right. 53:40 But to me, it's like, well, you can actually you know, you can you can get some of those users so it can actually be better. 53:46 So I think it's not I don't know. 53:48 I think it's just very hard to push back on it. 53:51 I completely agree that people will do like Fiatjaf and I were talking on Twitter and we were talking about how the Lightning Network actually it sort of has this problem that, you know, Moon Settler is very aware of about the L1 fee rate goes up and then the HTLCs become unenforceable. 54:12 And then Peter Todd replied with like a screenshot of him doing several different Lightning transactions for one set. 54:22 And that's an example, I think, of what you're talking about, where it's like they just say, well, it is working for me. 54:29 But we know like Fiatjaf and I know that those aren't that's not really HTLCs or it's not really the Lightning Network or that something else is going on or that even if that is something confusing. 54:41 And so I certainly agree that that type of thing happens. 54:44 And I have this very different I think I don't know why this view is so different, because the view that I'm about to explain, which is this network effect maximalist view, which is to me, I see this whole thing is like the biggest one is just going to win and everything else will go to zero, which I thought was the whole maximalism idea. 55:07 Like, it's like the spread of the English language into Canada, or something, you know, where it was like half French, half English. 55:17 But as the years go on, I mean, you're a fool if you think in 100 years, there's going to be like equal number of French and English speakers in Canada, like 0% chance of that happening. 55:31 Everyone will speak English. 55:32 And maybe no one will speak. 55:34 I don't know French. 55:35 You know, I'm not like, I don't know how that will work exactly. 55:39 But I do know that, like when people in Europe make different business contracts, like if someone in France and someone in Germany writes a contract, they write it in English. 55:51 And when people negotiate, like someone from Vietnam and someone from China, even something like China, I mean, especially not to mention India, where like everyone could speak English. 56:04 So, like, my view is, you're big, you are a threat to everything else. 56:12 It's a rivalrous contest. 56:14 So, Satoshi and Joy are mentioning Ethereum. 56:17 You know, if we have the Ethereum users, it's not just like some people who are having fun over there. 56:22 It's like you could, there could be like a two week period where ETH gets something really big and really positive, you know, like the FanDuel DraftKings on ETH or something that is just really popular. 56:36 And then you just have a flippening, you have one day. 56:39 Bitcoin has one day where it's down 50% and then the next day it's down 90%. 56:44 And then that's like completely game over. 56:47 Like, you know, like that's impossible. 56:50 Of course, the price is the most important metric, but you can kind of go back in time and think of an analogy where that basically has already happened. 56:57 If you were to go in 2015 and tell somebody in eight years, Ethereum is going to have 10 times, and that's, you know, that's at today's kind of bear market bottom. 57:10 So Ethereum will have 10 times the fees, 10 times the paying users of Bitcoin. 57:17 People would have denigrated you to no end. 57:21 You would have been called all sorts of, there'd been, Safe Team would have had a hilarious quip about how stupid you were, how you were a troglodyte. 57:31 At the peak of the bear market, Ethereum for a period of, you know, over a month had 100 times, 100x the, or I think it was average 80, but a few days, 100 times the amount of fees collected. 57:47 So in that metric where kind of a moonsetter was saying like, okay, the price, the market cap is higher on Bitcoin. 57:55 That's the most important thing. 57:57 But as far as people who are actually using it, and you know, you can say holding Bitcoin is using it. 58:03 That's true, of course. 58:04 But the people who are actually like, you know, doing their degenerate bullshit every day. 58:08 Ethereum has 10 times the amount of degenerate bullshit payment flow, not payment flow, but a fee collection as Bitcoin does. 58:19 And that's value, right? 58:21 So that is value to those people. 58:24 You can call it bullshit, of course. 58:26 I will also call it bullshit because I personally think it's bullshit. 58:29 But for those people that is value, value that Bitcoin is not providing. 58:34 Clearly somebody's valuing it. 58:35 Look at Las Vegas and Macau and all the other stuff that I would say is bullshit. 58:44 But humans in aggregate are valuing degenerate gambling to the tune of trillions of dollars. 58:55 Well, let me just say that Satoshi Dice was kind of Bitcoin's big break and that was degenerate gambling. 59:03 It's Eric Voorhees project. 59:05 So I just want to throw that in there. 59:07 Yeah, I would just say that it's still not the best pushback because we're in the event of like Ethereum creating like an amazing Ponzi that has like really, really good whatever Ponzinomics and it becomes like mainstream, right? 59:20 Like for one reason or another, like a fan fuel, dual, whatever that you gave that example. 59:25 But you can give any other example of, you know, some kind of mass media attention to some kind of contract that locks up a lot of Ethereum and is extremely successful for whatever reason. 59:35 And, you know, and Ethereum's price goes up. 59:37 I don't think that necessarily makes Bitcoin's price go down 50 percent or 90 percent. 59:42 I think that Ethereum's price, I mean, Bitcoin's price versus Ethereum can go down definitely because Ethereum's price can go up a lot. 59:48 But I think that's not a good enough pushback to Bitcoiners because to them, they care about whatever fundamental properties Bitcoin has, where they just they value that. 59:56 And they think that even if Ethereum's price goes up, it has other properties that they're just not interested in. 1:00:01 So I don't think it's still a good enough pushback. 1:00:07 Well, I mean, I think people do think that to some extent, but I think they are kidding themselves. 1:00:12 People, I think this is a situation where people are kind of lying to themselves about how much they believe something. 1:00:16 Because people say it doesn't matter what Ethereum's price is as long as Bitcoin's price is also where it is. 1:00:22 But what if there's the flipping? 1:00:24 What if Ethereum is 10 times the price of Bitcoin? 1:00:27 So what if Ethereum is 100 times? 1:00:31 The market cap of Ethereum, you know what I mean? 1:00:33 Like there comes a point where actually everyone kind of admits to themselves that it actually would be an existential threat to the project, I think. 1:00:42 But maybe there's a type of people there. 1:00:44 I think that like a lot of people that are just following Bitcoiners, they might start, you know, double guessing, double doubles, you know, whatever the other opinions now. 1:00:52 And they might start moving over to Ethereum for, you know, those reasons. 1:00:55 But I think like diehard Bitcoiners might think of it as a temporary thing that maybe it's, you know, maybe a few years of Ethereum being high or maybe a decade of Ethereum being, you know, flippant. 1:01:05 But I think that they believe that in the long term, the properties of Ethereum don't make sense to them where and it might be a smaller amount. 1:01:13 And then maybe their Bitcoins will lose a lot of users to that. 1:01:16 But I still think that there's going to be those diehard Bitcoiners that really care about Bitcoin's properties over Ethereum's, that it's just very hard for them to see those kind of things. 1:01:24 Yeah, but it's very interesting that they think it is a given, right? 1:01:27 So if we do nothing and Bitcoin will retain these properties that we enjoy, enjoyed to this point and enjoy today. 1:01:36 And that's not actually how the whole thing is set up. 1:01:39 So we know the subsidy is going away and we might actually actually want that hundred times fee revenue or maybe more. 1:01:47 Yeah, I think that the best approach is to show that the potential benefits can be extremely big. 1:01:53 And I think that that's the best approach, because like if it can have a potential enormous positive gain, then you need to start, even if you start weighing out the whatever hypothetical negatives to it, 1:02:06 then you've got to be fair and you also have to look at the potential, you know, benefits to it. 1:02:11 And then if you're looking at it, then you might be like, oh, if you start to see that there is potential huge, enormous gain from it, you might start thinking about being more open minded to it. 1:02:21 I think we also need to understand, like better understand where this confidence is coming from. 1:02:28 I kind of think that the early evangelists of Bitcoin who have, you know, orange peeled these people basically technically lied to them. 1:02:40 So what happened is they oversimplified things, they removed all nuance because these arguments and the way that people have been orange peeled and the things that they have been fed just got simpler and simpler and simpler because that worked better and better and better. 1:02:56 Right. So so the goal was always for the evangelists to actually believe that Bitcoin is going to be a huge success. 1:03:03 But of course, it's going to need more people because network effect is important and whatever, and maybe even wanted to pump drawbacks, who knows. 1:03:11 But the point is, these evangelists actually started to simplify the message to the point where it became a lie. 1:03:16 And these lies became very, very popular. 1:03:18 And these lies have been retold so many times and have been perfected so many times that it's very hard to approach them with any any common sense of technical nuance. 1:03:29 And that's kind of the situation we are in. 1:03:32 The majority of the Bitcoin and Bitcoin have been sold a lie or many lies, basically. 1:03:39 And it's not necessarily with the intention of lying. 1:03:41 It's just the simple message hit harder and spread better. 1:03:45 And people thought they understood Bitcoin. 1:03:48 They actually think they are. 1:03:50 But of course, the people, you know, that you say are lying, they don't think themselves to be lying. 1:03:55 Nobody knows what this is or what's going to happen for sure. 1:04:01 Or even like, you know, the best people are those that have some humility. 1:04:07 People are saying things like Bitcoin is unconfiscated, Bitcoin is immutable, Bitcoin is the ultimate universal source of truth. 1:04:16 And you need to get these ideas, you know, try to distill these ideas. 1:04:21 So it's very it's something very different than anything that's been before. 1:04:25 And it has analogies. 1:04:27 But when you have something that's like kind of invented that has only, you know, broad ties to previous to anything that existed prior, it's not easy to relay what it is. 1:04:44 So, I mean, I don't want these people to do that. 1:04:47 And of course, a lot of these people, they believe it wholeheartedly. 1:04:50 And now it's their business. 1:04:54 And many of them, not all of actually a lot, all of them, I'm sure a lot of the, you know, some of the loudest people actually aren't holding all that much coin. 1:05:01 And they are definitely still got to work for a living. 1:05:03 But some of the people, of course, of your Paul Storch's and the like have done very well and are now sitting pretty. 1:05:12 And of course, that further validates, you know, to them how intelligent and clairvoyant they are. 1:05:20 Yes, that is all true. 1:05:21 I agree with all that. 1:05:22 But what I wanted to say in the end, and of course, they don't necessarily do this on purpose, but they are saying increasingly insane things that are just technically not true. 1:05:33 And you can see that if Saylor posts something complete bollocks, that just completely mental, that he's raking in the likes. 1:05:46 If anyone with actual understanding to Bitcoin makes a smart technical observation, he gets two likes. 1:05:52 So that's kind of how the whole system works. 1:05:55 Right. So we are kind of set up to go towards idiocracy in the end. 1:06:02 But of course, it's a lot broader than that. 1:06:04 I mean, it's sadly the I think the whole Twitter discussion is much more important than it used to be, I guess, because, you know, the whole world was forced to kind of go with all the Corona lockdown bullshit. 1:06:24 Everybody had was forced to become like hyper Internet or whatever. 1:06:28 But, you know, I spent a long time at Kraken working as like kind of the front, like the top level kind of customer facing person for many years. 1:06:40 And I can tell you for sure that some of the most important people that are affecting this market, influencing the market and the like are not on Twitter at all. 1:06:53 Still to this day and are actually like extremely serious people. 1:06:58 Some of them don't even speak English or, you know, hardly do. 1:07:02 And sometimes I was just quite surprised how little they pay attention to the kind of technical discussions surrounding it. 1:07:11 So there is a much broader picture out there. 1:07:15 Like if tomorrow the some central bank or, you know, the Russian central bank or something comes and says, oh, yeah, we just bought, you know, we just bought 20,000 Bitcoin and we have plans to or they announce some giant investment or deployment of hash rate. 1:07:34 And in fact, I can say something that I do know for sure that not many people do. 1:07:38 I won't say like what it is exactly, but there is this all this discussion the last day because I guess Oman has announced this like one and a half billion or 1.1 billion investment in this mining facility, which I had been aware of that some time ago. 1:07:54 And it was like an idle, like an idle power plant. 1:07:59 And they had been like entertaining bids and stuff for some time now. 1:08:04 But there's also other sovereigns that are doing Bitcoin mining right now today that are not public about it, that I have like kind of a I was in a position to be involved with. 1:08:15 So, so, you know, these sovereigns are not on Twitter trying to see what the what to ask, what fucking spanky monkey 507 thinks about whatever bullshit they have. 1:08:28 This is a very different game, but it's always been like that. 1:08:31 It's not whenever even when it was on when it was on on Reddit and all the discussion, all the like pleb discussion was here and there. 1:08:40 There's a lot of stuff happening that's that's much more impactful than these people's retarded opinion and their 50 dollar a week dollar cost average on Swan or whatever. 1:08:53 Yeah, I just I just want to make the point. 1:08:56 Well, can OK, well, let Moon Settler say his thing first. 1:09:00 I'm just going to say, like, what can we actually do about it, though? 1:09:02 Like, like, I wanted I wanted to wanted to answer to Paul's question, where is this coming from? 1:09:08 Right. How did we get here and what we could do about it? 1:09:11 And I wanted to say that we need to understand where it is coming from. 1:09:16 I think it's coming from Bitcoin evangelists oversimplifying the message and that being very popular and very catchy and and and having basically 90 something percent of Bitcoiners not really understanding Bitcoin, but thinking they understand Bitcoin because they understand these oversimplified messages which are factually untruths. 1:09:42 And so I think that's that's where you start, that that you you try to try to discover how how we got here and what were the messages and what context that they, you know, given out and how they were simplified. 1:10:00 And one potential strategy could be to to to show that reality is more complex. 1:10:08 It's not that simple. 1:10:09 This has been oversimplified and it's technically objectively false. 1:10:13 I think that could work on some people, but I kind of have my doubt that it would work on the vast majority. 1:10:20 And it would be an extremely sad thing. 1:10:22 And I really don't want to participate and don't even want to know it exists. 1:10:26 But you can basically probably do the same bullshit like you can oversimplify your message. 1:10:31 You can you can sell lies that, you know, deep down are not true. 1:10:35 But but at least people would understand and you could sell your your thing that way. 1:10:40 That is probably the more successful strategy. 1:10:43 But if we if we, you know, start going into that direction, then probably the bigger marketing projects will win. 1:10:52 And eventually this whole thing will be taken over by the likes of Facebook and Microsoft and Google and whatnot and or the respective governments that put them on a leash or whatever. 1:11:04 So I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the direction. 1:11:08 Just wanted to say. 1:11:09 I have an idea. 1:11:10 I have an idea. 1:11:11 The question of what can we do? 1:11:14 Well, what speaks to me is is like the reward mechanism. 1:11:17 Like why does somebody buy an altcoin or shitcoin or whatever? 1:11:21 I think that they they think that there's a potential of them becoming a millionaire and the potential of them becoming a millionaire makes it interesting to them. 1:11:28 So so what's what's going on there? 1:11:30 Like you give them the potential reward and then they're interested. 1:11:34 So I think that the best way or I don't know, I just think it's an approach that if we can get people to be honest, that there is actually a potential benefit to be gained here. 1:11:44 I think that if they're being honest, they will realize that the game can be huge. 1:11:50 And I think that that's that's that's an approach that can be effective, because if they say, oh, well, I don't care about anything on an Ethereum style chain. 1:11:57 Sure. You might not care about anything, but there's obviously users there and there's obviously more users there that do care. 1:12:03 Right. So they'll be like, well, let them go over there. 1:12:05 Fine. But you could be like, yeah, but is there a benefit to them using Bitcoin asset? 1:12:09 And I think if they're just being honest, they will see that the network effect that Bitcoin will gain from that is is potentially tremendous. 1:12:16 And if you show them that reward that actually helps them and their Bitcoin, I think that that's that's like a more if they're being like, I don't know. 1:12:23 I think that that's that that's a way to give them more open mindedness to it where they can see a direct benefit to it like themselves, obviously, and also the Bitcoin network. 1:12:33 Yeah, I think like we could do something like we could form a new group that is like realist Bitcoiners. 1:12:43 And it's something like you can still become a Bitcoin millionaire while also not believing a bunch of simplistic garbage that, you know, we feed to the we feed to the masses. 1:12:58 We could do something like that where it's like we still think that Bitcoin is the most important thing in the world and you probably make a ton of money. 1:13:06 But we don't believe that if there's an HTLC below the set per byte ratio, then that's using the lightning network or something. 1:13:17 You know, we could make like a list of like, I don't know if that's good either, because you're going to lose the majority of people because the majority of people don't understand the technical parts. 1:13:25 The majority of people understand, all right, this has user demand, and if it has user demand, it's positive for Bitcoin. 1:13:31 If you bring it over to Bitcoin, I don't know. 1:13:33 I think that once you start going technical, you're just going to lose 99 percent of people. 1:13:37 And like most of the people, you're sure there's technical people that understand and they're just going to double down and argue with you. 1:13:43 But then most people that just follow them are going to also double down and argue with you. 1:13:47 So I don't know if that's effective. 1:13:49 Yes, the laypeople will never know, they'll never be specialists, so they always need to dumb down in some way or another. 1:13:56 But maybe if we just take your idea that we still say we stay positive about Bitcoin, we say, well, Bitcoin almost certainly will succeed. 1:14:07 But it's not like it's not just on autopilot to succeed. 1:14:10 It will succeed because of what all of its supporters do. 1:14:14 I think that's a better approach where not like it most certainly will succeed. 1:14:21 Like there's definitely a good chance it could continue to succeed, right? 1:14:25 Like there's a non-zero chance that it's fine and it will continue to succeed. 1:14:28 But how much better it can be is more the approach. 1:14:31 It could be like obviously it could also not work, right? 1:14:35 That's a reality. 1:14:37 But if it does work, can it actually be extremely better? 1:14:41 And I think most people will have to start to concede to that if they really start to think about that it actually can be better if they start thinking about this. 1:14:51 I'm sure Austin can remember a time when, I remember when Gavin Andresen would always insist year after year after year, like 2012, 2013, 2014, he would say Bitcoin is an experiment. 1:15:01 Bitcoin could go to zero. 1:15:03 It's just kind of amusing how now it's kind of ironic that instead, you know, you have people saying, we know the names, people saying like, oh, this is a $100 trillion asset. 1:15:16 You know, it's just a matter of when, not if, you know, stuff like that. 1:15:20 It's kind of flipped 180 degrees. 1:15:22 But I think it's important that they can be right, right? 1:15:25 Like there's a possibility that they can be right, which should be like, oh, all right. 1:15:29 Well, yeah, you could be right. 1:15:30 Fine. 1:15:32 It could be, but it could just be a million times better. 1:15:34 And it's not just like a little bit better. 1:15:36 It could be a million times better. 1:15:38 So I think that that's an approach that might get them to think about it because they're not going to admit that that's wrong, right? 1:15:46 That's their belief that, you know, it's a trillion, a hundred trillion dollar asset and it's going to be there inevitably. 1:15:52 That's their belief. Right. 1:15:53 And it could be right. 1:15:55 Like they could be right. 1:15:56 Who knows? We don't know the future. 1:15:58 And they obviously have strong reasons to believe that. 1:16:00 But if they can start thinking about that can be sped up, that could be so much better and not just a little better. 1:16:05 That could be so much better. 1:16:06 And start to think about how it can be so much better through proposals like, you know, 300, 301 or any other proposal, whatever they might think about. 1:16:14 Then they could start being more open minded to, all right, well, let's make this a billion times better, not just a little better. 1:16:20 Or just something that it was like, I mean, it used to be an idea that if you liked Bitcoin, you would like. 1:16:27 Tell people about Bitcoin, maybe, or you would, you know, you'd like you get like a Bitcoin shirt, you'd wear it, you know, like you would you do, you try to get your favorite restaurant to take Bitcoin or something like that. 1:16:39 There used to be this more of like an activist. 1:16:42 Kind of thing that I never really participated in, but it used to exist like the Bitcoin people would go around and they would say they would try to work for BitPay either literally or some kind of referral thing. 1:16:54 I think a different tactic that might work would be to, this is something that I think has a little bit of success where you could try to convince people that Bitcoin is a great project. 1:17:10 Things are going great in Bitcoin, but these people who take its success for granted are not helping the situation. 1:17:21 They're mostly irrelevant, but they're kind of making the situation worse or they're just not helping. 1:17:26 So you could say they have their own little thing that they do and they make a lot of noise. 1:17:31 But even though you kind of try to separate Bitcoin, the project, and even Bitcoin, the community from like, you know, like someone who is whatever, laser eye Twitter. 1:17:46 I don't think this is acceptable either, because once you start creating separations or you create this unity, that's not a positive. 1:17:53 I think it's better to find commonality in them and like point out positive things, point out commonality, completely ignore any negative things. 1:18:01 Because even if they are negative to you, they might not be negative to them. 1:18:05 And if you're pointing it out, it's just being divisive. 1:18:07 And I don't think that there's a gain from that. 1:18:09 I think the gain is from finding commonalities, finding similarities, finding like we all want Bitcoin to succeed. 1:18:15 Obviously, we all want a lot of users on Bitcoin. 1:18:17 Obviously, we all we all want the network effect of Bitcoin to grow. 1:18:20 Obviously, these kind of things that we all share will be a lot easier for people, for everybody to be under the same umbrella, because we want to find the most amount of common similarities and the things that we all agree on. 1:18:32 And like strengthen those, because then you'll have people in completely different camps that have completely different beliefs. 1:18:38 They'll also join because they share those things. 1:18:41 But once you start pointing out the things they don't like, they don't agree with, it automatically like separates them, even if there is commonalities, right? 1:18:49 Like the negative starts to become bigger. 1:18:51 I think it's the better approach is make the positive bigger, make the common bigger, make that like the, you know, the big thing in the room where it's like. 1:19:01 But that's the like the foundational value out of drivechain is that then despite different willingness to have different trade offs and, you know, different attributes that they're looking to utilize or whatever, everybody's holding the same asset. 1:19:21 And so, you know, that speaks to me, like, for example, you know, the idea of why do people have to create a different asset protocol? 1:19:30 Right. If they really like, there's no reason for for people to like, of course, the only answer to that is that only one person can win any technical debate. 1:19:43 Like Paula said a hundred times, you can only have in the current architecture, either big blocks or small blocks. 1:19:54 And so we're lucky that we didn't get, you know, a big block takeover, but the collateral damage has been immense. 1:20:04 And with the drivechain architecture, you can have, everyone can have what they want. 1:20:11 Yeah, this is this is very important because big blockers too, because we can be like, all right, well, what do big blockers want? 1:20:16 They want a lot of users of Bitcoin asset, right? 1:20:20 That's that's really what they want. 1:20:21 They want it all to be on one chain, but it can be a big block sidechain, like, you know, and then you can start talking about, like, you know, the technical differences of of a big block blockchain that could be there. 1:20:33 That's their base layer. Like they don't have to think about anything, you know, before that. 1:20:36 Yeah, I wanted to say, can you hear me, guys? 1:20:41 Yeah, we hear you. Yes. 1:20:43 All right. I was not sure because. All right. 1:20:46 So so what I wanted to say is that it is actually very, very, very important that we can disagree on things, because I think the group is not too big on having it being possible that we are going to agree on everything. 1:21:02 When it comes to the rule set that we want to be, you know, subjected to on the chain that we use. 1:21:11 I think Bitcoin is just too big for everyone to to agree on everything. 1:21:16 And basically the only thing that we can agree on is that we don't agree on anything and we don't change anything. 1:21:23 And that kind of means like ossification in my opinion. 1:21:30 But if we had a way to to like disagree in a way that we do not create shit coins with. 1:21:35 Right. So in a way that preserves the monetary unity of Bitcoin and people use the common language, the common asset, that that would be a huge thing, because I can tell you there are a lot of people on Bitcoin Twitter that I don't want to be on the same chain with. 1:21:51 Like literally, I disagree with them so fucking much that I don't even want to be on the same chain with. 1:21:58 Yeah, I think a lot of people feel that. 1:22:02 Could we. But I think that's kind of like a little bit what I was saying about saying that some people aren't helping. 1:22:09 So I want to defend this idea just a little before giving up on it, because I'm not sure it's the best idea. 1:22:16 But I think it's like, could you reframe it as like some people on Twitter are like literally like harassing developers or something like you could say something like that? 1:22:28 Like in a way, Luke was trying not Luke, sorry, Vitalik. 1:22:33 He was trying to do Ethereum on Bitcoin. 1:22:36 This is like a well-known story trope. 1:22:38 And it's not it's not really important. 1:22:40 The point is just the archetype of the story. 1:22:42 It's not important how literally true or false it is, although certainly part of it is literally true that, you know, Roger Ver tried to do a large blocks on BTC. 1:22:50 Vitalik tried to do Ethereum EVM thing on BTC, but then they couldn't. 1:22:55 So you could you could almost say on one sense, the toxicity is preserving the the L1 characteristics, which is a good thing. 1:23:04 But you can also say that it is actually closing down innovation. 1:23:09 And like you could say, it's literally harassing developers in some way would be a way of framing it. 1:23:15 And so it's interesting that BIP300 does a similar thing where it protects L1 like completely because there is no no one would change L1 at all. 1:23:26 In that in that paradigm, and yet the person could still make their own optional thing. 1:23:32 So maybe you could reframe all the negativity that comes from Twitter or that even comes from a technical debates. 1:23:42 You could try to reframe that as just quote harassing developers, unquote. 1:23:48 So now it's not the case that you are protecting Bitcoin. 1:23:51 It's the case that you are like if you're you're against whatever you want to call it, like you're against ZK snarks. 1:24:01 If you're against if you're against a developer who wants that or if you're if you're against someone who wants ARK, you know, you're you're like sort of harassing Barack or something. 1:24:14 If you are or Jeremy Rubin more directly, you know, if you're against 119 or if you're it's now it's now personal uncalled for harassing of the technical community by by random other people, you know. 1:24:31 I have a little idea. 1:24:33 Let's say you have like let's say you have whatever you have X amount of time in your day. 1:24:39 Right. And X amount of energy. One one or one use case of that energy is to point out the people that are harassing or like blocking innovation or whatever it is. 1:24:48 You want one one point of view. You can you can spend that energy on that or you can spend energy on showing the potential benefits of CTV or whatever it is. 1:24:57 Like I think that there's much better or like I think it is a better approach to spend your energy on showing what's positive from it than to show who are not right. 1:25:08 Because once you show who are not right, you're just spending you're spending your energy on toxicity. You're spending your energy on people that are dirty and you're getting dirty. 1:25:16 Otherwise, it's like the negative people will get to like Jeremy Rubin or whatever. And I think like one or two negative people can easily cancel out like a couple encouraging tweets. 1:25:27 I think if there was enough like people be more more talking about good things about, you know, the CTV, then Jeremy Rubin might have completely ignored. 1:25:35 Jeremy Rubin might have been more around. And I think a better approach to negativity is to ignore it. 1:25:42 Can I tell you what, you know, what I took from the CTV story? 1:25:48 But I don't know how to say it. So what conclusions I got from observing that very closely. 1:25:56 So it basically, when you have a Bitcoin change proposal, by default, nobody gives a flying fuck about it. 1:26:08 Like six people will care about it, they will maybe read the bit, maybe they will just skim the bit. 1:26:14 And these six people will talk about it among themselves. 1:26:18 Up until the point that you actually start talking about activation, then a whole bunch of people will get really, really upset. 1:26:26 But then people will actually look at it. 1:26:30 So the first point where people will actually start looking at the bit and start seriously discussing maybe the technical trade-offs is when actually talks about activation start. 1:26:42 That's when this becomes more widespread. 1:26:45 Despite whatever anyone says, earlier it just doesn't happen because people have, especially developers are very busy people, and everyone is very busy, and time and energy is scarce. 1:26:56 So people are not reviewing 600 bits and not keeping up to date with them and not discussing them day and night. 1:27:03 And developers are not going to build tools and stuff on features that may not even get activated or very likely not getting activated. 1:27:12 So the whole idea that you would have a finished product that you can demo is a bit bonkers because these things cost time and money and stuff. 1:27:22 So nobody cares about the bit that does not push for activation. 1:27:26 That was one interesting thing. 1:27:28 When you push for activation, people actually start caring. 1:27:31 The very interesting thing was the whole shitstorm about bit 8 versus bit 9. 1:27:37 So that was a very, I did not expect that to happen. 1:27:41 I did not expect that to completely derail all discussion from the technical merits, benefits, and possibilities of Bitcoin completely. 1:27:50 And just take it into partly personal attacks and harassment, as Paul said. 1:27:57 That is very prevalent. People who are not so technical will find a way to convince them. 1:28:02 They will find a way to, you know, try to dig up shit, try to imply shit, try to see shit where there isn't any, or maybe there is, whatever. 1:28:11 But they are going to start calling you a Mossad agent or whatever that is on the menu, or the special thing. 1:28:21 And the point is, that was a bit surprising to me that just bit 8 versus bit 9 created such a huge split and controversy alone. 1:28:33 And really, from what I observed, this whole thing, Jeremy just suggested it. 1:28:38 Like, he did not even release the software. 1:28:40 He just suggested that we may actually use the same, the exact same activation method that Taproot used, and it worked fine, and everyone was generally happy with it. 1:28:49 And all hell broke loose. From where I stood, this is what it took to me. 1:28:54 And basically, that was interesting, because after that, somehow, CTV was branded, tries to hand power over to the miners, 1:29:04 and completely screw everyone, and undo the big Bitcoin freedom fight of, you know, the SegWit USF that was not a USF, but whatever, it was still a USF, 1:29:17 because people wore the hats. 1:29:19 So these things that unfolded was a complete shitstorm, and then Jeremy backed off, and suddenly the whole thing died down. 1:29:28 And still, a lot of people, you know, FUD was very popular, so non-technical, non-well-thought-out FUD about CTV was very, very popular, 1:29:39 and very high-flying at the time. 1:29:42 It was very well replicated and propagated when that went on. 1:29:48 And then later, people slowly get the message that those are not actually true, right? 1:29:54 So somehow, I think, not completely, but some understanding saturated some part of the Bitcoin community, 1:30:03 that these things about permanent encumbrance are not really a viable threat, and it's absolutely not a question with CTV. 1:30:13 And then, what happened is, everyone chilled out, and then the pain came. 1:30:20 So, two things happened, you know, with ordinals and high fees, people suddenly got hit by the winds of the future. 1:30:30 They finally got a taste of, even some new people, that how it could be when the fees are permanently high, 1:30:38 and the mempool is permanently closed, in a higher adoption, higher demand future. 1:30:43 That pain, actually, coupled with some new inventions and new ways of thinking about CTV and this high building, 1:30:51 for a very short moment, gave the whole thing a very good back wind. 1:30:58 And basically, for a little while, it looked like that CTV is getting popular among the plebs. 1:31:07 And that, to me, looks like it was directly tied to the pain that people actually felt. 1:31:14 That's what I wanted to tell about all this long story, that pain seemed to have been the biggest factor. 1:31:21 Of course, there were other factors, but the pain that people actually feel, and this is my problem with the whole dynamic, 1:31:26 that I understand that pain and necessity will bring innovation, but I also know that it takes many, many, many years, 1:31:33 from the point that something like CTV is activated, to the point where it actually does something for the pain. 1:31:39 That can be an entire cycle, or maybe more than an entire cycle. 1:31:45 And the moment the pain is gone, the moment the interest has been largely subsiding, 1:31:50 and now people are again, suddenly asking, what's the hurry? 1:31:55 So when there is no pain, people are asking, what's the hurry? Why are you rushing things? 1:31:59 Why don't we think for 10 more years about which Covenant proposals to activate? 1:32:04 So this is how I saw it, and I think there are some interesting conclusions. 1:32:15 No, I think those are very, very good points. 1:32:18 I think I was taking some notes with my pen, and I think that actually all the points you made are, I think, all related, 1:32:26 which is that no one actually seems to care about whether or not the idea is good. 1:32:33 Instead, they care about activation, or they care about the timeline, or they care about how does it make them look, 1:32:39 if it's BIP-8 or BIP-9. 1:32:42 You would think if the idea is good, it wouldn't actually matter if it activated in a bad way, 1:32:48 because it would be like, you know, it's kind of like if you found a $100 bill in an envelope on your front door, 1:32:56 or if the wind blew it into your face or something, or if it just showed up in your checking account. 1:33:02 It's kind of like it's a good thing. You have $100. 1:33:06 It's like it doesn't sort of really matter that much kind of how it happened, 1:33:11 and I completely agree with you that the pain feedback loop doesn't operate the right way. 1:33:19 I think all those observations are right, but I think just in general to hone in on that idea of like these people, 1:33:26 I think it's just easier to comment on activation rather than to comment on – 1:33:34 because if you want to say something about CTV, you actually have to know something. 1:33:38 Yeah, but that's very rational because there is no prescribed political process. 1:33:48 So you have this system that's trustless, supposedly leaderless, but yet there is, of course, politics inherent in it. 1:33:57 So the debates and conversations around activation are essentially like debates and conversations 1:34:05 around what the political structure should be and what the technical parameters – 1:34:14 what kind of political structure like the technical parameters anchor it to versus how much wiggle room is there actually. 1:34:22 It's very similar to like the debate between – or the debate surrounding is it the miners or the node operators 1:34:30 that have the power when it comes to SegWit activation, which I don't think is settled either. 1:34:38 Yeah, I think that was a big loss in a way because I think people don't understand that even to change something in Bitcoin 1:34:47 doesn't really mean that it changes. 1:34:49 It's kind of like it's like you – because of the way the soft fork works, the change is like opt-in 1:34:59 and only affects the people who are interested in the change. 1:35:02 You know what I mean? 1:35:03 Like it's like you have a magic – I don't know how to describe this, 1:35:08 but it's like something like you have a magic basketball court that has a referee or something, 1:35:13 and then you have a different game. 1:35:15 The soft fork is like you have a different game where you say if someone makes three basketball shots – 1:35:24 one team makes three shots in a row, then during the next timeout we play a game of blitz chess or something, 1:35:31 where it's like if you don't know what's going on, you're just in the break not playing the blitz chess or something. 1:35:38 This is like a weird – it's a hard thing to describe, 1:35:40 but the soft fork is already pushing the envelope on like – it's not really even really a change so to speak. 1:35:50 Although, of course, Luke famously disagrees with this. 1:35:53 Luke has a very interesting – it's very interesting. 1:35:55 I mean I love Luke. 1:35:56 Luke does not agree with this. 1:35:58 He really thinks that it is the case that everyone must upgrade to the latest version 1:36:05 or else they have like completely – they're on a completely different network, 1:36:08 and they don't – nothing's enforced, and it's all – you've been fully degraded to SPV mode. 1:36:13 And sort of Adam Beck also who was on our space, on the recording of our space, 1:36:18 whatever that was two or three weeks ago, he also endorses this view I think, 1:36:25 although I thought we may have partially brought him around. 1:36:29 But this is another thing that I think is a kind of a sad – like a path not taken. 1:36:37 If people could have been convinced that actually you should just ignore most soft forks because they don't affect you. 1:36:44 But this is an intriguing thing that – let me raise – this is a completely different – 1:36:48 this is a totally related topic, but it's in a completely different dimension, 1:36:51 which is when you support a piece of software, you have lots of challenges. 1:36:59 Like there's dependencies, and there is code review, and then there's code complexity. 1:37:04 Then there's like CVE. 1:37:06 There's like critical bugs that certain people get notified about first 1:37:10 because you don't want the secret to get out because you don't want the bug to be exploited. 1:37:14 But you have to tell someone that, hey, you have to change this code. 1:37:18 So a CVE situation is – all this stuff is inherently what you might call centralizing 1:37:25 because it's better if there's a situation where there's like one person in charge of the bitcoin, 1:37:31 github.com, bitcoin slash bitcoin, that you can send a PGP email to and say, 1:37:36 by the way, there's a horrible bug in the software. 1:37:40 Change it secretly, and then push the change out so that everyone upgrades. 1:37:45 And then months after everyone has upgraded, we'll tell everyone. 1:37:49 And these types of things – it's very weird in a way that my view is that actually it's – 1:37:56 ossification is death, which many people believe, 1:38:00 but also frequent changes make it so that you are beholden to – 1:38:09 Frequent changes make it so that you are beholden to the lead developer or something. 1:38:16 I'm trying to articulate this point here, which is that the reality of software – 1:38:20 And the centralizing attributes of the repository, right? 1:38:26 So the GitHub repository is a huge centralizing factor in itself, 1:38:33 and kind of not even under the control of the developers technically. 1:38:37 So it's interesting that if you update too frequently, then that's very centralizing. 1:38:45 If you update too infrequently, then you are basically probably making everyone miserable. 1:38:54 Or if you update too infrequently, you may also miss out on the – 1:39:00 It may take too much time to fix the CVE. 1:39:04 And so in a very bizarre way, you can think of it as like – 1:39:08 There's like large blocks on layer one, like large blockism is bad, 1:39:12 but actually just because of the way – 1:39:15 Like not having a viable plan to ossify L1, possibly because it can't exist. 1:39:21 Such a plan possibly can't exist. 1:39:23 But there is also a parallel version of that in the dev world of like too much reliance on GitHub, 1:39:34 too frequently modifying the code, the problem of CVEs, the problem of dependencies. 1:39:42 That is like its own block size increase in a way. 1:39:49 Very hard to articulate that, but if someone has a great way of naming that or something, 1:39:55 that would be a winning – 1:39:57 That's like an enlightening concept that everyone, I think, should discuss more. 1:40:03 Yes. So one more thing I want to talk about, Luke, is today, even today, 1:40:09 he said something that completely baffled me. 1:40:12 He said, there should be no such thing. 1:40:17 There should be no such thing. 1:40:19 People should not use any node-less wallets. 1:40:22 And we should, if we can make it impossible for people to use node-less wallets. 1:40:28 And I was like, wait a minute. 1:40:30 That's just insanely coercive. 1:40:33 I think I was being a snarky ass and I responded something like, yeah, we should round up everyone that doesn't run a node and just shoot them, put them out of their misery, something like that. 1:40:47 So it's really coercive. And if someone is letting you use the node as a service, that's kind of like something like an anarcho-capitalist free market, voluntarist thing between two, right? 1:41:03 So why can't you two cooperate if you want to cooperate? Why would someone come in and tell you that you can't do that if you both want to do that? 1:41:15 So it was very weird to me. It was very kind of alien from how I look at this. 1:41:22 And I kind of think that people are going to go for cheaper resource use, more convenience, faster UX direction anyhow. 1:41:36 And this does not actually require a fork, so there is not really a way to stop this. So the whole idea that you want to control people's relationship with nodes is kind of weird on the dead end. 1:41:52 I think we can take an example of how previous softworks happened, like the more previous ones, not like before that, for example, SegWit or Tappert, and the potential that Jeremy could have taken with CTV. 1:42:07 And I think Pali is over here in the listeners. He takes a similar approach where getting people excited about a change before proposing it. 1:42:17 It seems like SegWit people were excited about that for maybe because of the block size wars or Tappert because they got sold, whatever. 1:42:25 So I think that getting community excited, even if it's a private community or whatever community, growing a community of people excited about something, a potential software, then proposing it would actually be, and might be just very, very hard or might be just near impossible. 1:42:40 Because I know, Paul, you've been trying to get people excited about drivechains forever, and only recently people are starting to grow in that idea. 1:42:47 And it might be impossible. It might be where doing that activation where it's going to fail is kind of putting it in the spotlight where after time people might start to realize. 1:42:57 So what if Jeremy started to give really good examples of what you can do with CTV and making it dumbed down so people could understand? 1:43:05 You could do a lot of that, though. I think that in the future no one will attempt a soft or hard fork of any kind. 1:43:11 I think just no one will do it. It's already basically reached the edge of just being something that's just not practical. I think no one will actually want to do it. And I think people regret having done it. Let's hear from Isaiah. 1:43:28 Hey, guys. I just kind of want to build off of what Paul was talking about earlier. Because I know it's a little hard to explain. Are soft forks voluntary or are they forced? 1:43:42 Because I know, Paul, you were saying you don't have to run the latest version, which that's kind of what I agree with. But when it comes to soft forks like SegWit and stuff, if you want to run a legacy node, you're basically saying the rest of the network is not valid. 1:44:01 Which that's the part where it gets complicated. Because if the majority of transactions are SegWit and Taproot transactions, you're pretty much just going to ignore a lot of the market. But there are some legacy Bitcoin maxis that still only recognize the original Bitcoin, which is kind of funny. 1:44:23 But yeah, that's why it's kind of a weird mix. It's not forced, but at the same time, you'll be in your own pre-fork group, I guess. You're forced to be in the older version if you don't think the new ones are valid. 1:44:41 Well, believe it or not, I think you're completely right. And those are very good. Those comments are all accurate. But I've actually been meditating on this for a long time. And I think it's actually SegWit is the odd man out. It's actually SegWit that is... let me try to explain it. 1:45:01 SegWit is like a mandatory extension block for signatures. And so it's sort of like SegWit is something that happens to be... the SegWit fork was actually kind of an evil fork. It was a mandatory hard fork. 1:45:20 And it also happened to be one that was so... it was like bespoke and custom that there was a one-to-one correspondence with the old network that it kind of like there's two parallel synchronized networks that are different. 1:45:37 But actually, the SegWit one is the mandatory block size increase. It's a mandatory extension block for signatures. And since it was enforced by the miners, ironically, before the UASF happened, it is in fact the first Luke Tash Jr. 51% attack evil fork in a weird way. 1:45:57 But that sounds kind of crazy. But I actually think that that is the only consistent... because if you go back and you look at other things that were soft forks like the, you know, whatever, CheckLockTimeVerify or something, they don't have any of these weird philosophical questions or problems. 1:46:11 So Satoshi changing the counting rule, and I'll put... let me put a link and you can read about some of my thoughts on this from this article that I wrote. But Satoshi changed the counting rule from the longest chain to the heaviest proof-of-work chain, and then SegWit and the evil fork and the mandatory extension block. 1:46:30 I think those are actually all... it depends, but the terminology is all screwed up. But I think it's actually SegWit that was unique. And since Tapper uses a different SegWit like script versioning, I don't know if it also falls under that category, which would be kind of strange if it does. 1:46:50 But I think the old idea of the soft fork was, we'll take this op that never throws the script interpreter error, and then we'll make it throw an error if new rules are broken. And so that way we tighten the rules, old nodes are unaffected. 1:47:05 So I actually think maybe you have to go... it's probably the case, and this is another link that I'll try to put it in the nest, which is that when I did two Miami conferences ago, I was on the soft fork panel. 1:47:19 And I was saying the soft fork has grown so powerful, it can do so many things with the evil fork and with script versioning history and just all the things that were learned, mandatory extension blocks and things, evil forks. 1:47:34 The soft fork has grown so powerful that there kind of no longer is, and no one tries the hard fork anymore. So probably the whole terminology should just be thrown in the dumpster. Because what are we really saying when we say something's a soft fork? 1:47:49 You know what I mean? It's not like we're contrasting it. It's not like we're saying hard versus soft fork, because no one advocates for a hard fork anymore. And the soft fork isn't what it used to be. And so I'm going to look this up, and I'll put these in the nest, and anyone who's interested in this mysterious philosophical topic, you can read and watch, and I'll try to do this thing. How do I do it? 1:48:14 Can I post this here? 1:48:19 I'll do this reply. I'll put this link, and then I'll put this other link. I'll try to look it up. 1:48:27 In the meantime, I just want to say that when Zaya came up to speak, I totally lost the sound, and I was dying. The app was dying, and I got disconnected. So up to the point I came back, I really heard nothing from what was said. So if anyone has a question or there was something interesting, someone could just sum it up, please. 1:48:51 Yeah, no, I was kind of just going off how, like, in my opinion, at least, SegWit, or any soft fork in general, was kind of optional. But people who didn't want to run SegWit, they couldn't really, you can't recognize SegWit transactions as being valid. So you kind of have to ignore a lot of the network and just live in your own bubble. 1:49:21 This was just going back to, know, like, are soft forks mandatory or not? 1:49:29 And before Isaiah, was saying how, like, 1:49:33 from a pleb point of view CTV and 119 of Jeremy, 1:49:39 a pleb just sees out of nowhere somebody's just trying to do some kind of activation 1:49:43 for some kind of change. 1:49:44 They have no idea who Jeremy is, have no idea what 1:49:46 CTV is they have no idea of potential benefits of it or whatever. 1:49:50 It's as a defense mechanism They're be like what the fuck right away and like wait wait 1:49:54 wait wait wait. 1:49:54 Let's learn about it, right? 1:49:56 As opposed to if you were instead trying to teach people about What it is and like get 1:50:02 people excited actually wanted show them the use case Show them the you know, like get 1:50:06 user demand for it before trying to activate it and maybe the activation That will fail 1:50:11 is a way to get people interested in it. 1:50:14 Maybe that is but but Like I said, years can pass without 1:50:20 any real interest in anything. 1:50:22 is not actually pushing the correct decision. 1:50:25 That's what makes it difficult. 1:50:27 That's what makes it very, very difficult. 1:50:28 To get people excited about something or to get people to able to pay for hard. 1:50:33 And the rejection is so harsh and so abusive if you look at it it probably 1:50:40 you can't even play that game that you are proposing activation to get 1:50:46 people's attention because you really think your idea is good and is ready for 1:50:50 activation or merging or something. 1:50:53 you are just proposing that, not even completely serious, 1:50:57 Let's say you think you actually want to activate it two years from now, that it's more 1:51:01 realistic, but you are saying, hey, let's activate this to get people look at it like 1:51:05 seriously, because now it's ready. 1:51:07 We looked at serious and discuss it and stuff like that. 1:51:11 But the the lashback is so severe, so 1:51:14 abusive that it will probably take the life out of anyone who tries to do that. 1:51:21 And I'm not really surprised that Jeremy said, for this, why I'm out. 1:51:27 Yeah, it's a defensive mechanism and you can say that there's a benefit to that too, 1:51:31 because then it's 1:51:32 going to be very hard for anybody to do a malicious change. 1:51:34 know, if the whole community just instantly rejected any kind of change right away, 1:51:38 that's good. I think that getting people excited, getting majority of Bitcoiners 1:51:43 excited about something, letting them see a potential use case that they're excited 1:51:46 about is... don't think it's 1:51:49 actually good. think people should actually discuss the BIPs. 1:51:52 However, we can get into a situation where basically someone is 1:51:58 running a DDoS attack on us with 1:52:02 ideas that come up 1:52:06 up for activation, 1:52:09 So someone could actually spam beeps and could actually start pushing them like with a 1:52:14 serious marketing budget. 1:52:17 And in a situation like that, I can kind of see that it would be a natural defense 1:52:22 mechanism to people just say, fuck no, and start talking 1:52:27 about who is pushing this immediately, right? 1:52:30 But that's not the word we live in. 1:52:32 But so we are having like some software proposed by 1:52:38 someone outside of the core. 1:52:42 establishment, so to speak, every like six years. 1:52:45 it's not really a DDoS attack. 1:52:47 In this circumstances, people could actually take that time and look at stuff and 1:52:51 discuss it. Or let people who they delegate the technical 1:52:56 signal giving or whatever, 1:53:00 bearing that they choose to follow in these things because they void their opinions. 1:53:06 Let those people discuss it and take a look at it. 1:53:10 I think we could afford this until things get so bad that literally a new proposal 1:53:15 comes up for activation every month. 1:53:18 And that's not where we are. 1:53:21 So like, Paulie has this, you know, own, and excuse me if I'm wrong, I've seen 1:53:27 Paulie had some articles about a really more, a different type of protocol for scaling 1:53:32 and he needs some certain upcodes 1:53:35 think 1:53:44 a idea. idea. 1:53:50 idea. idea. I that's idea. 1:53:51 I good 1:53:52 kind of proposal comes up for it, you know, for the opcodes that Polly wants, you're to 1:53:56 just have a whole bunch of people that are like, oh yeah, we want this because it can 1:53:59 do what Polly wants to do. 1:54:00 Or, you know, it can do this protocol, right? 1:54:03 As opposed to where just CTV comes out of nowhere and nobody knows anything about it 1:54:06 because they haven't talked about it. 1:54:08 know, it's just I 1:54:09 think that having community to be excited about something, wanting something, finding 1:54:14 an actual use case for themselves first before the 1:54:18 activation. We'll make the activation a lot more successful. 1:54:22 As you can see that the community is not released, crowning the 1:54:26 going the mailing list and the GitHub reports and the pull requests and Oh yeah, 1:54:31 it's out there for 99 % of people. 1:54:35 They're not, you know, not Yeah, they are looking. 1:54:39 No matter how they try. 1:54:41 They have people that they are attuned to, that they are looking for signals, 1:54:47 and a lot of people follow them back. 1:54:50 saw that all of them has to do is just like phrase a 1:54:56 concern in a very vague mannerism, So he can just be 1:55:02 very vague. 1:55:02 vague 1:55:02 that this could be dangerous and all hell will break loose. So many people are following him, 1:55:11 are tuned into his signals, right, that if he says something about your proposal that it is 1:55:18 like rushing things and it's too soon and we should like really think about things because 1:55:26 Bitcoin is not a play thing now, it's serious money and stuff, so he doesn't really need to 1:55:31 say anything concretely bad. People will immediately amplify that and like even go 1:55:40 for it. And that's kind of how this thing works. The thing that, like he's basically saying the 1:55:46 same thing as I am, that get people excited about something first. Yeah, but you can't, 1:55:51 that's what I'm saying, that everyone is kind of following signals and if those people who are at 1:55:57 the top of the chain, so to speak, are signal givers and torchbearers, if those people don't 1:56:04 look at something, then you are shit out of luck. Yeah, because it's so hard to find anything, 1:56:10 like this is why I say I don't think I could see, or for a soft fork to happen quickly, 1:56:16 I would expect it to be activated just like sometime in the 2020s because it just seems 1:56:21 like the process for this to be activated, it's just so absurd that, or I mean, I guess it could 1:56:28 be good, but I do think for a fast activation, I would be expecting as long as it's in the 2020s 1:56:35 for any soft fork, I would consider that fast looking at the way things are going. 1:56:41 You mean that you predict that there would be one soft fork activated in the next decade? 1:56:48 Well, yeah, but yeah. Or maybe I don't understand what you're saying. 1:56:51 I would consider that quick the way things are going. 1:56:55 I really hope that by 2024 we can activate some of the Covenant proposals. I really hope that 1:57:02 that is not going to take a decade, because really time is not working for us. But I wanted 1:57:08 to make another point regarding this that you said, that we need to make the community excited, 1:57:13 and there was a funny conversation I had today with someone and he actually did not like that 1:57:26 Burak tried to raise hype for his ARK idea without even releasing a white paper or having 1:57:37 any serious discussion among the developers. So you got the exact opposite argument, whatever you 1:57:44 come up with. You're still going to get that, but I like Burak's approach where he wants to explain 1:57:50 what this is and get people interested in it and then understand, oh, you need these op codes for 1:57:55 it. Yeah, I'm just saying a lot of people will find this suspicious. If you are trying to raise 1:58:01 hype, they will find it suspicious. If you are not raising hype, they will find it suspicious of 1:58:08 other people. So something will be suspicious to some people and they will be very loud about it. 1:58:14 And the way this rough consensus works in people's head is people seem to think that everyone has to 1:58:21 be on board with a change for it to happen. And if a group is, for whatever reason, whether it's 1:58:27 valid or not valid or really just hurting their business interest or whatever. So if a group is 1:58:33 loud enough, they are making enough noise and they can very easily create the appearance of 1:58:39 disagreement and controversy. So that's a very cheap thing to do. And basically the way I see it, 1:58:47 this could very easily result in a situation where maybe people who are invested in Bitcoin's 1:58:54 failure for various reasons can actually use this and basically block everything by making 1:59:02 everything appear controversial. And I don't think it will take a lot of money to organize this. And 1:59:09 I'm a little bit afraid that it may already be going on. But of course, the simplest explanation 1:59:14 is as you guys said, people are retarded. Everyone in their own way, even me in my own way. So people 1:59:21 are retarded and people like to shout about these things. And of course, people can go full crazy 1:59:34 with their own paranoia if they entertain their own thoughts in their head. I just want to say 1:59:41 something. I want to propose something. And I see Pierre Richard is in the audience and I know he 1:59:47 has some views on BIP300, 301. So I was wondering if Pierre wants to come up and share maybe his 1:59:55 ideas of maybe it's a bad idea. And then, of course, all with love. We all love each other 2:00:01 here. We're all Bitcoiners. We just want to talk about Bitcoin. So I think it's good to hear about 2:00:08 people that have opinions. And maybe we can share our opinions and understand each other better 2:00:14 if possible. Sounds good. 2:00:20 While we wait for him, from just what Moonsetter was saying, I think from an 2:00:25 investment thesis perspective, it probably only makes sense to believe that Bitcoin has 2:00:33 already ossified. You definitely should not be thinking that there's any changes ahead, 2:00:39 because it does seem like the possibility is at least strong enough that there likely will not be. 2:00:48 Yeah, I don't think Bitcoin will ever ossify. You know, when I think about what drives upgrades 2:00:57 in Bitcoin, it really is about, OK, do we have something here that has an interesting 2:01:04 set of tradeoffs? And when we look at the history of Bitcoin upgrades, what we see is 2:01:11 really the opposite of ossification. 2:01:14 We see upgrades that are increasingly significant in how they change the way that we can 2:01:23 interact with Bitcoin. 2:01:24 So I think ossification is a myth. 2:01:28 But the hard part with ossification is that we don't know what we don't know. 2:01:33 So we could go 15 years without a particularly compelling idea, and then it's 2040 and then 2:01:43 some computer scientist comes up with some new theorem that unlocks some efficiency gain 2:01:51 that is so significant that there's an upgrade, a soft fork at that point. 2:01:55 So, you know, we don't know when there's going to be good ideas, right, because there's 2:02:02 lots of bad ideas all the time, right? 2:02:04 I mean, coming up with bad ideas for how to change Bitcoin is probably the easiest thing 2:02:09 that one could imagine. 2:02:11 There's just a super abundance of bad ideas about how to change Bitcoin. 2:02:17 But good ideas on how to change Bitcoin, those are incredibly scarce. 2:02:21 I'd argue they're scarcer than Bitcoin itself. 2:02:23 So I think that, you know, ossification, the rhetoric, the narratives around it, I think 2:02:29 those are not based on the software engineering reality. 2:02:32 I think they're based on memes, right? 2:02:33 And and then they, you know, obviously, but the thing is, in order to achieve a particular 2:02:40 end, all of that is is is naturally it's subjective. 2:02:45 So as we reach, right, we can look at the, hey, look, Tacroot was a bigger upgrade than 2:02:52 SegWit. That's objective, right? 2:02:54 Do you think that SegWit was a bigger upgrade than CLTV or CSP? 2:02:59 No, I'm talking about the, I'm asking, I'm saying that in that just the idea of what 2:03:03 tradeoff is worth it is subjective. 2:03:06 That something has fundamentally changed in the incentive structures where now there will 2:03:12 not be any upgrades in the future, regardless of how good the tradeoffs are. 2:03:17 I agree with you, Peter, that it's that any kind of changes, we need to weigh the 2:03:23 tradeoffs well. And, you know, and if there is a demand for those specific tradeoffs, 2:03:28 then it might it might actually happen. 2:03:30 And with that tune, do you think that there is actually potential beneficial tradeoffs 2:03:35 to 300 and 301? 2:03:38 I don't know if you had a chance to really look into it deeply, but do you think that 2:03:42 Yeah, so I think that whenever we're looking at a BIP, what we have to first start is 2:03:47 really with with the beginning of the BIP, right, which is the rationale. 2:03:51 What's the reasoning? 2:03:53 What's motivating this BIP, this change to Bitcoin? 2:04:00 Presumably, you know, it's a real problem that is being solved and that that problem 2:04:06 can be explained, you know, in plain English in a couple of paragraphs of, OK, here's, 2:04:13 you know, how this is negatively affecting the users of Bitcoin. 2:04:17 I didn't see that in BIP300. 2:04:19 What I saw was kind of just economic illiteracy for several paragraphs and just kind of a 2:04:25 very disjointed thought process. 2:04:28 It wasn't particularly coherent. 2:04:29 And so at that point, I think that it's safe to say that if the problem can't be 2:04:33 described in, you know, a compelling manner, then it doesn't really matter how good the 2:04:40 solution is from a technical perspective. 2:04:42 Do you think that there always has to be a problem that a BIP solves? 2:04:44 Or can it also be that it's soft, like it has so much... 2:04:46 Yeah, there does. Otherwise, because there's an infinite number of BIPs that we could write 2:04:49 that don't solve problems, right? 2:04:51 So, for example, I could say, hey, look, the way that we can improve Bitcoin is by 2:04:57 changing this consensus variable name. 2:05:01 And then they're like, OK, what problem does that solve? 2:05:04 Do you think there's a huge problem that Taproot necessarily solved or even a specific 2:05:09 problem that like it necessarily solved or just added a potential other use case? 2:05:14 Sure. I mean, I think that, you know, there's a lot of problems that Taproot solved. 2:05:19 You know, one is, I think, one that is getting a lot of attention currently with different 2:05:26 protocol developments has to do with, you know, when you're doing a multisig, how much 2:05:31 data do you have to put on chain? 2:05:33 So before, back in the day, you know, with traditional multisig, you have to put, you 2:05:39 know, maybe five signatures on chain, right? 2:05:43 Now, with Taproot and with MuSig2 and other, you know, protocol improvements that are 2:05:50 happening, eventually it could be as efficient as a single signature. 2:05:54 So, you know, the problem of putting too much data on chain, that's a problem that I can 2:06:01 wrap my head around. 2:06:02 You know, that makes a lot of sense. 2:06:04 Wow. Yeah. 2:06:04 Bitcoin, in order to be decentralized, we want to do that, right? 2:06:08 So, you know, it's an efficiency game that's just based on the underlying computer science 2:06:14 and software engineering. 2:06:16 I don't have to make, like, crazy economic speculative arguments of, hey, we should 2:06:24 merge Taproot so that the relative value of Ethereum to Bitcoin, you know, like, that is 2:06:31 not a problem. 2:06:32 You want to see an actual problem being solved. 2:06:34 The motivation or rationale for a bit, because fundamentally, I mean, you're just making 2:06:38 like a, it's, you know, it's not, it's the tail wagging the dog, right? 2:06:46 I mean, it's like as a product manager, if I came to the executive team and I was like, 2:06:51 well, the problem we should solve is that we don't make enough money, you know, like 2:06:57 you would get fired as a product manager if that was like, okay, you know, that's your 2:07:02 contribution to the conversation here. 2:07:05 Because really what you have to think about is, is the users, right? 2:07:08 The customers and solving their problems. 2:07:11 That's, that's the role you have. 2:07:13 And so, you know, I don't think that it's a problem that Ethereum exists, right? 2:07:19 That like, you know, writing a BIP that claims that Ethereum will no longer exist after this 2:07:25 BIP gets adopted. 2:07:26 That to me, it's just, it's not compelling on its own. 2:07:28 Now, if that's just kind of sub-argument 3A, you know, like it's just, okay, yeah, 2:07:36 something that people throw out there occasionally, I get it, right? 2:07:39 Okay. 2:07:40 You know, lots, every cause has bad arguments that are, you know, thrown around by its 2:07:45 proponents. 2:07:45 I'm very familiar with that. 2:07:47 But I also just haven't heard any particularly interesting rationales or motivations, you 2:07:55 know, beyond that. 2:07:57 So, you know, when I've been trying to engage on Twitter with, sorry, on X, you know, I 2:08:04 guess that's a bit of a hard fork. 2:08:06 So, you know, the motivation to me is, at the very least, what needs to happen is that 2:08:14 it needs to be revised, right? 2:08:16 There should be a pull request on BIP300 that rewrites the motivation in a way that 2:08:22 is kind of just more in line with what one would expect for a BIP, or at least is logical, 2:08:30 right? 2:08:31 I mean, I think that's table six, that one could read through it and follow each logical 2:08:37 step in each sentence rather than kind of having a disjointed hodgepodge of economic 2:08:43 fallacies. 2:08:44 Okay. 2:08:44 Pierre, first, I want to say thanks for definitely coming in here and hanging out with 2:08:48 everybody, but also sharing your view where how you're looking at, you know, any kind 2:08:52 of changes where, well, what is it actually solving? 2:08:56 What is the actual definitive problem that it's solving to see that if it's even worth 2:09:01 even looking at? 2:09:03 I think that it's fair and it's good to see that that's, you know, that's how you're looking 2:09:08 at it, because then maybe potentially people can start to show, you know, for example, 2:09:12 maybe it solves this problem or that problem. 2:09:14 And then you can on your own to see if that's an actual problem, first of all. 2:09:19 And second of all, if this solves the problem or not. 2:09:21 And then you can think of the tradeoffs. 2:09:22 Does it actually have negatives? 2:09:24 So I think that everybody can think of different problems that it can or can't solve. 2:09:29 But some might like just a random one that I'm thinking of right now. 2:09:33 If the base layer becomes too expensive to use, like how can you send me $100 on Bitcoin 2:09:38 or something like that? 2:09:39 Do you think that drivechains can potentially solve a problem of actual scalability? 2:09:47 So is that in the BIP300 motivation? 2:09:51 Is that in there that I missed it? 2:09:53 I hear what you're saying. 2:09:55 You want the potential problems actually to be in the BIP, and I don't know if they are, 2:09:58 but I'm just trying to think of problems that it can solve. 2:10:02 Yeah, I mean, I think that, you know, I could come up on stage and say, hey, look, 2:10:07 if I buy a horse, you know, a pony, that will solve Bitcoin scalability problem. 2:10:15 What do you think about that? 2:10:17 It's like, okay, well, all right, let's talk about that, I guess. 2:10:22 I'm going to give Paul a chance to speak. 2:10:23 But I see your point is you want personally the BIP to show the actual problems that it's 2:10:28 solving, and then you would at least take it more seriously. 2:10:32 I think traditionally that's the way it works. 2:10:34 Well, I think just before I answer that question, I'd just like to know if you have any other 2:10:39 problems with the BIP other than the wording of the motivation section. 2:10:45 Well, so the BIP is ordered in a particular way, right? 2:10:49 It's not, did you randomize the order of the sections, or is there a logical projection 2:10:54 of the directions of the sections? 2:10:55 I'm just asking you a simple question. 2:10:57 I'm just asking if you have any problem with the BIP that's not the wording of the text 2:11:02 of the motivation section. 2:11:03 Paul, when I read English, left to right, top to bottom. 2:11:09 I don't start at the bottom, I don't start in the middle, I start at the top. 2:11:15 Yeah, but surely a reasonable person would read through the BIP and then they would say, 2:11:19 well, maybe I didn't understand that part. 2:11:20 Paul, do you know how much content there is on the internet? 2:11:23 How could one possibly read through, even just if you limited it to Bitcoin content, 2:11:28 it would be impossible to read through all of it. 2:11:30 So at some point when you're reading something and it's of terribly low quality, you kind 2:11:35 of just like throw an error, right? 2:11:37 I don't think, you know, I don't think, I think it's the case many times when I've read 2:11:43 something where I think, well, I don't really understand that paragraph right now. 2:11:46 No, it's not that I didn't understand it, it was just that it was illogical, right? 2:11:51 It was wrong. 2:11:53 Well, okay, well, let me answer, I mean, one way of answering your question is that Adam 2:11:59 Beck has said that one of the problems that it would solve would be a way of giving billions 2:12:06 of people their own UTXO. 2:12:09 So I don't know if you think that that's... 2:12:10 Yeah, so after you guys put in that pull request and it gets merged, I'll reread the motivation 2:12:17 and I'll think about the UTXO situation. 2:12:21 That sounds good. 2:12:22 Pierre, I think it's fair that if you have a specific way of looking at, you know, BIPs 2:12:26 and you think that that's the previous way all BIPs were and, you know, you want to see 2:12:30 that in a future BIP, you know, that that's your own, you know, and that might be, that's 2:12:35 the way you look at it. 2:12:36 And if that's the way you look at it, then, you know, that's fair. 2:12:38 And if you start to read a BIP and it doesn't have, you know, what you're looking for in 2:12:43 the beginning, then you might not even want to read the rest of it or it doesn't make 2:12:47 sense to read the rest of it. 2:12:48 The thing is that there's an infinite number of solutions that we could build, right? 2:12:53 The design space is infinite. 2:12:55 What constrains it is what's the problem and what's the value of the problem? 2:13:00 If the problem is one that its proponents won't even stand by for five minutes and, 2:13:07 you know, then they start throwing out other ideas that they just came up with, then, you 2:13:13 know, that destroys their credibility. 2:13:15 I think that the BIP allows the two-way peg. 2:13:18 And I think that that is such a, like, you know, out there idea that there's so many 2:13:24 ideas that can come from it that it's very hard to put that in, like, a specific problem 2:13:28 that it's solving because there's just too many potential problems that it can be solving. 2:13:32 You could just boil it down to a two-way peg. 2:13:34 I wanted to say that if BIP-119-CTV would start with, like, an essay about whatever 2:13:44 Burak is, you know, giving people the speech how Ellen Lightning Network fails at this 2:13:52 or that and how we could, you know, go around it and stuff like that. 2:14:00 The BIPs are technical descriptions of mechanisms, basically. 2:14:07 And I don't think we should go too far with that. 2:14:11 I would somewhat agree in a simpler case where something like, you know, like, 2:14:21 check-sequence-verify and check-log-time-verify that really just solve a straightforward problem. 2:14:28 And, of course, they did not contain in the motivation probably everything that we can 2:14:33 do with them, like, that would be insane. 2:14:36 I would guess, like, I can say not in front of me, but I would guess they probably did 2:14:42 not even have the most important things that we are using them for in the motivation. 2:14:48 I will check it out later. 2:14:50 Yeah, that would be a good thing to fact-check, for sure. 2:14:53 Yeah, there should be a limit to this. 2:14:57 So, in certain cases where, you know, where you can do so much with the change because 2:15:07 these changes are often really building blocks that we can combine in nearly infinite ways 2:15:13 and new use cases can be came up with. 2:15:16 Yeah, I mean, I think that we're not asking for 5,000 use cases. 2:15:20 We're just asking for one, you know, just like, okay, put the most compelling one there 2:15:26 and then, you know, that way people can get motivated and excited about it. 2:15:31 I think it can boil down to just a two-way peg. 2:15:34 I think that there's no current way to make a two-way peg, like, in a really well way. 2:15:39 There could be, like, you know, some kind of non-efficient ways to do two-way peg. 2:15:44 And I think that BIP300 with 301 together can solve the issue and make it a very more 2:15:50 efficient way of doing a two-way peg. 2:15:53 Yeah, I think Paul should sponsor you, you know, so that you can rewrite that and put 2:15:57 it in the pull request. 2:16:00 I'm not a dev. 2:16:01 I'm just like a regular person. 2:16:02 No, no, I mean, this is the dev, right? 2:16:04 I try to find... 2:16:05 We're writing in English. 2:16:06 Yeah, but I think, Pierre, I don't think that you're being... 2:16:09 I try to find the good in people. 2:16:11 I try to, like, see the good in their ideas and I try to bring people together personally, 2:16:14 you know, but yeah. 2:16:16 I don't think that Pierre is being serious when he says that he stopped reading at the 2:16:21 motivation section. 2:16:22 And I don't think that anyone who collided with the idea, if they say Luke Dashjr. 2:16:27 doing a pull request for it and you have Fiatjaf saying this idea is crucial for Bitcoin's 2:16:33 survival. 2:16:35 I think we all know that any reasonable person would read past the motivation section and 2:16:39 try to decide for themselves what it's for after learning about what it is. 2:16:44 I don't know. 2:16:45 So I think we all know that it's not the case. 2:16:48 I don't know because sometimes I could be unreasonable, right? 2:16:52 Anybody can be. 2:16:52 So I don't think it's like... 2:16:54 It doesn't matter. 2:16:55 I'm sorry. 2:16:55 Why is it unreasonable to expect the BIP to explain the problem that it's solving? 2:17:00 Well, it doesn't. 2:17:01 That's the most reasonable expectation I could possibly imagine. 2:17:05 I mean, I'm not being OCD here. 2:17:08 I'm just asking for, like, table stakes stuff and you guys, like, presumably you want a 2:17:13 soft fork, right? 2:17:14 So, like, let's find a way to work together here. 2:17:17 Because I think you don't have an honest interest in the BIP. 2:17:23 And your reading of it is not honest. 2:17:27 I think I'm making people... 2:17:32 Here's the thing. 2:17:33 Like, this is a way of avoiding, you know, having to do the work of saying, hey, look, 2:17:41 my critics are dishonest. 2:17:43 No, it's your way of avoiding... 2:17:44 I don't really need to, you know, justify my work. 2:17:47 All right. 2:17:48 That's fine. 2:17:48 But then, you know, the follow up to that is, no, I don't think drivechains is a path 2:17:54 forward and it doesn't seem to solve a problem. 2:17:58 And then, you know, that's where we're at. 2:18:02 Well, I think it's your way of avoiding having to do the work, because as you say, you just 2:18:06 read maybe two or three sentences and then decided to... 2:18:10 No, it's an extensive set of paragraphs, Paul. 2:18:15 Go back and read The Motivation. 2:18:17 I mean, maybe you read it so long ago that you forgot what you were working on. 2:18:21 The thing is that it was not just two or three sentences. 2:18:25 I read through those paragraphs and it's just economic nonsense. 2:18:30 And so when I look at that, then I think, OK, well, if this is just solving a non-problem, 2:18:37 then... 2:18:38 Well, why don't you give me an example of the economic nonsense? 2:18:42 An example of the economic nonsense? 2:18:44 All right. 2:18:44 Well, I mean, I think that there's the security budget, you know, part. 2:18:49 Yes. 2:18:49 That we can put aside. 2:18:50 We've already fleshed that out. 2:18:52 I think that we... 2:18:52 Well, have we fleshed that out? 2:18:54 Yes. 2:18:56 Would you like to talk about that or not? 2:18:59 We could talk about that. 2:19:00 We talked about the market cap. 2:19:02 I think that's an interesting one, too. 2:19:04 You know, the idea that there's a bunch of S-coins that break the scam. 2:19:08 Pick your favorite one and we'll talk about it. 2:19:10 I think my favorite one is this idea that, you know, that there's a demand for this. 2:19:18 Right. 2:19:18 And I think this is something that you touched on as well in that tweet of, 2:19:22 hey, yeah, it's probably too late. 2:19:24 It might be too late. 2:19:25 Right. 2:19:25 So that's where, you know, this is and this is from working at Kraken for three years. 2:19:30 The whole purpose for the cryptocurrency ecosystem is not really about the technology. 2:19:38 Right. 2:19:38 It's about the illiquidity, the pump and dumping, you know, the trading of the tokens. 2:19:44 And the idea that that's something that technology can fix. 2:19:49 I'm very skeptical about it. 2:19:50 I think, you know, technology can make it worse. 2:19:52 That's certainly the case. 2:19:55 But also, it's a problem that should be solved by the Bitcoin developers. 2:20:00 I don't think that, you know, looking at, oh, hey, we've got these token casinos, 2:20:06 you know, it's the responsibility of the Bitcoin Core developers to solve this problem. 2:20:11 Are you going to pick your favorite thing or not? 2:20:13 Your favorite thing is that there's an argument about the market cap of other currencies exist. 2:20:19 That's your favorite thing. 2:20:21 Yes or no? 2:20:23 Well, you know, it's this narrative that you've been pushing of, hey, this is going to kill S-coins. 2:20:28 Well, I think the reason why the market cap is in the motivation section of the BIP is because 2:20:36 it points to the fact that there are other people who are paying customers who put down 2:20:42 their money for this type of thing. 2:20:45 So it's saying this is a way of meeting customer demand for this. 2:20:51 This idea. 2:20:53 Well, the demand is already being met, right? I mean, I think that's what the BIP is establishing. 2:20:59 Well, no, I don't think so. Like, just to you, something like Monero or Zcash, the fact that it adds a privacy feature, that is completely irrelevant to the fact that people pay money for it. 2:21:15 Right. I think that people, you know, they're into the narrative, right? Like, they'll KYC on Kraken and buy Monero or Zcash, right? But, you know, in actual fact, they just... 2:21:29 When they spend Monero on a dark net market, that's a case where someone's buying a product with Monero and someone's selling their product for Monero. 2:21:44 There's a buyer and a seller, so there's not even a pump and dump possibility. And to you, that is like some kind of... I mean, how do you explain that, for example? 2:21:55 Yeah, so this is the classic AppCoin fallacy. And this has been around for a very long time, which is this idea that, hey, if we have this little gimmicky use case for our token, then that's going to drive demand for it and that's going to cause the price to pump. 2:22:09 And I think the problem with that is really a question of velocity, right? So obviously, the drug dealer who is receiving the currency is not going to pay his upstream supplier with that dark net currency. 2:22:26 And at some point, somebody is going to be demanding fiat. And I think that the conversion cycle there happens rather quickly. There's very little reservation demand that comes from dark net markets. 2:22:37 But that's not the point, though, Pierre. The point is, at first, there was no place to use Bitcoin. But then Dread Pirate Roberts created Silk Road. 2:22:50 Wasn't the pizza before that? 2:22:52 Yeah, the pizza, sure. 2:22:54 Yeah, I mean, so it's just like, there's all these little small details that get missed that make that, you accuse me of dishonesty, but I look at everything that you write. I've listened to you on podcasts. You're almost right, but then you get one little detail wrong. And it's like, wait, hold on. There's this obvious counterexample right here that blows up this argument. 2:23:18 And so that's really what drives my interest in having the BIP revised, right? That, hey, let's have an iterative process where, okay, you messed up. You didn't mean to make that argument about killing S coins. Let's go back to the BIP. Let's fix that motivation so that when people read this, they have a better idea of what this BIP is actually going to accomplish, right? 2:23:44 Not the opium, not the nonsense, but what tangible improvement this is making for the users of Bitcoin. I think that's something I can get behind. 2:23:55 Do you actually believe that someone buying two pizzas is a legitimate counterexample to my claim that it was Silk Road that showed, demonstrated what using Bitcoin as money would look like? 2:24:11 Like something with no names, no KYC, no social security number, no mailing address, this big marketplace operating in defiance of local laws and just operating behind Tor, very cypherpunky. 2:24:29 You're saying that two people, enthusiasts on a Bitcoin forum, who one guy ordered someone else two pizzas for 10,000 Bitcoin. You're saying that that is a counterexample to the fact that Silk Road… 2:24:47 I don't think that it's… I think it's more about… 2:24:49 No, I'm only asking you, Satoshi Enjoyer. I'm only asking him. Thanks. 2:24:54 So, yeah. I mean, I think that when I first got that magical internet money feeling, that's when I sent my first Bitcoin transaction to a third party, which was to pay for a ticket at BitPay, and that opened my eyes to what you're describing. 2:25:13 I didn't have to go buy drugs to get that realization. It's like, hey, look, I'm not saying that I'm a big supporter of pardoning Ross Ulbricht, I think he got railroaded by the judicial system, but I don't think that he played a role where without his creation of the Silk Road, the Bitcoin would have not grown to where it is today. 2:25:40 I think that… 2:25:41 I might agree with that. 2:25:43 … and we got to recognize that, hey, look, there's a lot of different ways this can play out. So, sometimes when people say, oh, Coinbase deserves so much credit for onboarding people onto Bitcoin, it's like, yeah, they were in the right place at the right time, but look, somebody else would have onboarded them. 2:25:59 And so, I think that there's a lot of like… I think it's like a mental fallacy, right, of, okay, it happened this way, therefore, it couldn't have happened any other way. And yeah, I do think that, hey, a transaction to buy pizzas is eye-opening, and that I could easily argue that, hey, a transaction to buy drugs is actually bad for the person. 2:26:25 You know perfectly well that what actually happened was, since I'm sure you know this Bitcoin history, is someone said, I want some pizzas. The other person made the telephone call and paid with fiat. It was a 100%… 2:26:38 Yeah, but how do you know that's not what happened with the drugs, Paul? I mean, like, you're really good at making irrelevant points that are just like nonsensical. 2:26:47 So, here's like a little thing that completely defunds your point of view, but really, it's just a nonsensical point that, yeah, the pizza transaction was not a direct, okay, Bitcoin 4 pizza in real life, you know, with a point-of-sale system using ATC Pacer. I get that, but it was, you know, not dissimilar, all that dissimilar to this idea of buying drugs on the Silk Road. 2:27:14 I would say Bitcoin would be better off if there wasn't a Silk Road. 2:27:17 Yeah, but it's directly related because I was talking about… 2:27:20 Luke makes a valid point, but I don't think that we want to have that debate today. 2:27:25 No, I was just making a simple point about darknet markets were a use case for Bitcoin in the early days. 2:27:32 Yeah, there's a lot of use cases for Bitcoin, right? 2:27:35 And the problem is that we refer to them as use cases. I mean, it's like, hey, I went to, you know, Target and I bought some pair of bathing shorts. Isn't that a great dollar use case? It's like, what are you talking about? Okay, it's just money, like, we get it. Yeah, you can buy stuff with it. 2:27:53 Would you like to listen to what I have to say or not? 2:27:55 Oh, I've listened to you so much, you don't even know. I've listened to you for hours, Paul. 2:28:02 Would you like to listen to my answer to your question or not? 2:28:05 What was the question? I'm sorry. 2:28:07 You asked a question about use case for Bitcoin. 2:28:10 It might have been rhetorical. 2:28:12 Yes. Well, I don't even know at this point if anyone in the audience but me can remember the thread of questioning because you have this mysterious trend to just start talking and talking. I don't understand it personally. But I think, I don't know. 2:28:27 It's because you're so slow. It's like, just spit it out, man. Like, get your ideas out. Okay, let's do it. 2:28:34 Scalability for Bitcoin, giving people lots of UTXOs. Is that a use case? 2:28:38 I did reply to that, Paul. I explained to you. Put in a pull request on the BIP. Update the language. That way we can all look at it. 2:28:46 If we just get into it on the spaces, okay, how are people going to, like, see the exchange of ideas, right? We need to have lots of eyeballs on it. Update the BIP. I don't know why the reluctance of updating the BIP. 2:29:00 I see. Yes. Well, I didn't know that anyone had any problem with the BIP text at all. But, of course, you can submit your own pull request to the BIP if you like. 2:29:10 Oh, you want me to update your rationale? You want me to update your motivation? You want me to work on your project for free? 2:29:18 No, I don't want you to work on it at all. 2:29:20 Okay. Well, you know, let me know when you've updated that BIP and I'll get back to you. All right? 2:29:25 But do you really think that that is reasonable to just say that you're not going to do it? 2:29:31 Of course it's reasonable to expect a change to Bitcoin to be motivated by a specific problem. It has some logic behind it. 2:29:41 Multiple people in this space have given you real motivation. 2:29:48 And I've asked them, why don't you put it in the BIP? And it's just like, well, we don't have to. We don't answer to you, Pierre. And that's fine, right? Like, I get that you don't report to me. 2:29:58 But in terms of actually garnering public support for a BIP, I think it's critical to make sure that, beyond just having great marketing on a website, by the way, so congrats on that, that the BIP, the 300 in this case, starts with a motivation that is written in a way that is compelling rather than a hodgepodge of economic fallacies. 2:30:27 Because a reasonable person will decide. They'll say, okay, maybe I don't agree with how the motivation was worded, but there is in the real world. 2:30:36 The real world is an idea. There is a real world motivation for the idea that many people agree is very serious, such as scalability, privacy, etc. 2:30:46 So since this real motivation exists, I'll just ignore the BIP text for now and then get into the ideas of the BIP. Or I'll say something like, well, I haven't read the BIP yet, so I don't know anything about it. 2:30:57 And so everything I've ever said about the BIP is laughably irrelevant. 2:31:01 So you're not going to update the motivation? 2:31:04 No, I'm just asking you if you are— 2:31:06 You're not going to change it? 2:31:08 Well, I don't see any reason to change it right now, especially because— 2:31:13 Rather than defending it, it seems like you're just kind of focused on changing it. 2:31:18 Well, I have a question here. How do you know that the motivation section is inaccurate, it doesn't match the idea of the BIP, if you haven't actually read the BIP part? 2:31:28 Yeah, so I don't know if the solution, the technical solution actually solves the problem that you described. 2:31:34 My argument is that the problem does not exist. So it's a very—whether a solution solves a problem that does not exist or not. 2:31:44 Well, now we're getting into degrees of creativity that is beyond me. I mean, I'm a simpleton. You know that. 2:31:53 So your position is that if there were an altcoin that were very similar to Bitcoin in many ways—coins controlled by keys, it had proof of work, blockchain, it had headers, it had Merkle trees. 2:32:09 Your position is that if we had something similar in the future whose market cap was 100 or 200 times that of Bitcoin, BTC, your position is that that would be—according to you, that's a totally irrelevant consideration, and that does not affect Bitcoin. 2:32:29 If we woke up and that had happened, that happens two weeks from now or something, your position is that that would be completely irrelevant to Bitcoin. 2:32:40 So let's explain this, because here's what I would do. I'd go on, go on GitHub, open that BIP, and in my BIP I would start the motivation with, hey, look, there's another coin that's very, very similar to Bitcoin, except for the fact that it solves this user problem. 2:33:01 And if we were to solve this user problem, then these people would come to Bitcoin. And so I think it would be the same kind of describing a user problem as Taproot, for that matter, or CSV or CLTV or SegWit. 2:33:17 Is it an unfair question? The question I asked you, is it an unfair question that somehow next year we find ourselves in a situation where there's a different proof-of-work coin and the market cap is 200 times that of BTC? 2:33:37 I'm asking you, you are complete, complete neutrality. You have complete neutrality on that thing. Is that, I'm asking you, you say that you're completely neutral on how good that is for Bitcoin? 2:33:50 No, Paul. I would be so motivated to identify the problem that that competitor is solving and seeing, OK, can we solve that problem in Bitcoin, too? Or would solving that problem actually create more problems, right? Or, you know, etc., etc., etc. 2:34:08 I mean, at the end of the day, the reason why somebody is able to outcompete Bitcoin is because they're solving a problem better than Bitcoin is. And that, I think, merits a close look. 2:34:21 So you think it is relevant, though, the relative proportions of the market cap? 2:34:27 market cap. 2:34:29 [Overlapping speakers] you can measure things like, okay, the 2:34:35 thing is that, you know, somebody can put in a trade and, you know, pump up their 2:34:38 market cap or things like that. 2:34:42 it's not the perfect measure, it's a proxy measure, and that comes with its risks. 2:34:48 There are other proxy measures to look at as well, but at the end of the day, I think 2:34:53 that the reason why, you 2:34:55 Bitcoin is not able to solve 2:35:01 some problems for folks is because there are trade -offs associated with the solutions 2:35:06 that are being solved. 2:35:10 I just want to point out here. 2:35:12 The answer is, yeah, fuck it, hello, yes, say something. 2:35:16 I just want to point out here that altcoins are not the competition of drivechains because they already could be doing a sidechain if they wanted to do that. 2:35:24 There are existing sidechains that are possible that are just basically the same as drivechains. 2:35:31 You could have a 999 out of 999 functionary situation, and that's going to be better than the current Bitcoin mining situation. 2:35:39 So the reason these things are altcoins is because they don't want to use Bitcoin. 2:35:43 So the fact that drivechains are available, they still won't use it. 2:35:46 They're still going to do an altcoin. 2:35:48 Yeah, I agree with that. I think that is actually irrelevant, but I think… 2:35:51 Yeah, that's why the motivation needs to be updated. 2:35:54 I mean, the motivation seems to have that as a central point of focus, and that you're not going to stand by that argument. 2:36:03 Well, I'm sorry, but you're going to continue to face pushback because it's a bad argument, and it's right there at the beginning of the document. 2:36:11 You disagree with it, but you don't want to update the bit. 2:36:14 I agree with everything I wrote, and first of all, the beginning of the motivation section is a quote from Reid Hoffman. 2:36:21 It's two paragraphs of quotation. 2:36:23 He invented LinkedIn. 2:36:25 Talk about guilt by association. 2:36:28 It's him why he invested in Blockstream, so it's of direct relevance to the two-way peg. 2:36:34 And I just asked you for your favorite thing, and you said the part about the market cap ratio, which is irrelevant and economic fallacy. 2:36:44 And then I asked you, well, what if the ratio were something 200 to 1, and then you said, well, that would be relevant. 2:36:50 So it's really you who doesn't stand behind your argument. 2:36:53 Yeah, I mean, I think that it comes down to, you know, we can play back the audio, but I think that it's a proxy measure. 2:37:00 I mean, I think it's a totally legitimate proxy measure that, hey, look, in this wide crypto ecosystem, if SHIB is skyrocketing, we should look at, does SHIB solve a problem that Bitcoin should be solving, right? 2:37:15 Yes, I agree. 2:37:17 And, you know, okay, the problem that SHIB is solving is about divisibility, right? 2:37:20 People want to buy a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the coin. 2:37:24 Is that something that Bitcoin should solve? 2:37:25 And then we can think through the engineering implications of that and come to the conclusion that, hey, despite SHIB's popularity right now, it might not be a good idea to soft or hard fork Bitcoin in order to increase the divisibility of Satoshis. 2:37:41 I think that's a totally valid perspective. 2:37:43 Well, I think one issue with that, though, is that I don't… 2:37:47 And so it really gets to the question of what you mean by relevance, right? 2:37:50 So if market cap relevance is like, oh, should we constantly be changing Bitcoin depending on what's pumping? 2:37:57 I'd say no, that's not a good idea. 2:37:59 But if we think about it as just a signal, right, a flag that, hey, look, maybe we should look at this technology. 2:38:06 Maybe, you know, it's something that Bitcoin should adopt. 2:38:09 With that, I think market cap is a valid, you know, way of kind of triaging things. 2:38:13 Yes, but isn't that the way I use it in the BIP? 2:38:16 But also, I think the idea that one person will know everything that's going on and everyone who's ever working in crypto or whatever you want to call it is basically impossible at this point. 2:38:32 There's too many people working on too many different things. 2:38:34 And there's no way… 2:38:36 We can't read all their BIPs. 2:38:38 Yeah, that's for sure. I agree. Right. 2:38:41 So how would you even begin to work on the task of looking into what is being done in Zcash or Ethereum or whatever? 2:38:50 Storage, Filecoin, et cetera, Namecoin. 2:38:53 Yeah, I mean, I think Wikipedia is a good place to start. 2:38:57 Maybe go have a beer with Zucco. 2:39:00 Yeah, right. 2:39:02 Are you in favor of like Zk-SNARK level privacy for Bitcoin? 2:39:06 If the trade-offs are good, then yeah, I think that would be fantastic. 2:39:11 If you would be for that, you'd be motivated, one could say. 2:39:14 Yeah, one could say that if you submitted a BIP for that and, you know, had a really great… every paragraph kind of just flowed coherently together, right? So then it makes sense. 2:39:28 You know, but the first few paragraphs are, they're not, I'm quoting, I directly quote Reid Hoffman, so maybe… 2:39:35 I don't subscribe to a different authority. I look at Reid Hoffman and I think to myself, I don't know if I want to take his advice on this BIP. 2:39:46 I agree, but I'm saying like, if I write Reid Hoffman a note, will you co-sign it with me and we can ask him together? 2:39:52 If he will go back to his LinkedIn post in 2014 and he can change some of those paragraphs so that when I quote them in the BIP, it flows together in a better way. 2:40:06 I wish that was the only problem with the motivation section. I mean, that would be so easy to fix. But unfortunately, it's pretty flawed end to end. 2:40:14 Okay, so we went for your favorite thing, which is the market cap ratio that you later admitted is actually… 2:40:20 you actually later completely 180 degree reversed your point of view and you said actually it does indicate… so why don't we try your second favorite? What's the second favorite? 2:40:30 Well, so Paul, I mean, earlier you accused me of being dishonest, but you'd have to admit that we were talking about this market cap issue in the context of killing S coins, right? 2:40:40 And so the idea is that, hey, if Bitcoin adopted these upgrades, then this market cap would flow to Bitcoin. I think that's a markedly different point than the one we were discussing, which was around, okay, does an increasing market cap mean something, right? 2:40:55 And so if we start conflating questions like this, I think that we get into kind of the economic mumbo jumbo that you thrive in. 2:41:04 But Pierre, it's you who's conflated it though, Pierre, because I only use it in the first sense. I only use it in the sense that it's an indicator of value. It's an indicator of customer demand. 2:41:18 Did something happen? 2:41:33 Did we lose Luke today? 2:41:36 I think this app has been glitchy sometimes, but I think everyone's back. 2:41:41 It is very buggy. 2:41:43 Did a Zcash have an inflation bug? 2:41:48 I don't know. But if it did, if it did on a sidechain, it would not affect L1. So that's an advantage of Zcash sidechain. 2:41:58 You can theoretically talk about the market cap, but for some time now, Ethereum has been kind of drastically outperforming Bitcoin in terms of fees. 2:42:12 So that's probably a more pertinent metric to try to discuss around. I mean, hopefully we never see any sort of market cap flippening, but sadly, the fee flippening is now ancient history. 2:42:27 Well, I don't know if Pierre is going to come back or if this app is being weird as it has been the last few times. 2:42:38 But, you know, I did ask him about his favorite. I only use in the BIP the market cap as an indicator that people want something. 2:42:49 And I say, well, we don't know how much they want it, but we do know the market cap. And that's something. 2:42:55 And we also know that it's evidence that people don't consider it a settled question that one coin is kind of the victor, because then we would be in the world we were before 2016. 2:43:07 And I think the world before 2016, it would be like kind of a 26. It was like a 96 percent ratio on coin market cap Bitcoin versus everything else. 2:43:19 And then now it now it is sort of different. And I would have been happy to go into the market, whatever you want to call it, the security budget point or whatever else that he thought was not good. 2:43:34 But I don't know if he is. So if he comes back, we'll put him back on the stage. But we seem to have had... 2:43:44 Well, I think you might have to remove yourself as co-host in order for it to bring him back. 2:43:51 I don't even see him in the audience. I know that Paul became co-host and then some things happened. 2:44:02 But I do want to mention that just for the sake of being able to talk about topics and conversations, sometimes it's OK to be like, OK, that's your point of view. 2:44:14 And then we can continue to go on to the next point of conversation. And if somebody has an issue with, for example, the motivation part of the BIP, OK, all right, that's your opinion. 2:44:24 And now we can continue. That might be more productive because... 2:44:28 Good luck with that. We need Robert's rules of orders in here. 2:44:35 I think his point is he has an issue with how the motivation is structured. And that's his point. That's OK. At least we can hear what his point is. 2:44:45 Now we can talk about other parts of it that he might agree or might not agree with. But if that's his point of view on that part, we can just start to dissect that. 2:44:55 But that's not going to give us opportunity to talk about other parts that he might agree with. 2:45:01 I don't know why, but I was made the co-host. And since I think, I don't know if it kicked Pierre since I think I blocked him on Twitter. So someone has to invite him back. 2:45:17 Did you also block Luke because it kicked him? 2:45:19 No, of course I haven't blocked Luke. Luke is the best. 2:45:21 Oh, I love hearing Luke. I'm so happy that he's back on Twitter. 2:45:31 What I heard is constructive criticism. If it's a constructive criticism of the way the motivation is written in the BIP. Now, it doesn't mean it has to change or it doesn't mean you have to change it. 2:45:43 You could just be like, oh, OK, fine. Let's talk about other parts of it. At least we understand his opinion of that specific part. Whether there's going to be a change or not is irrelevant. 2:45:54 It's more about understanding the other person's idea and maybe getting them to understand other ideas that we might share. 2:46:01 And then we can be like, OK, well, here's our differences of opinions. Fine. But at least we understand each other. I don't know. 2:46:09 By the way, I just want to say, I think I mentioned to Paul way back that I think it's kind of badly structured. It's a bit random. 2:46:20 And then he said he made a lot of improvements. And it looked to me that it actually did improve. Maybe I will read these BIPs again to have a fresher recollection. 2:46:34 But from what Pierre said, it sounded like there might be some... 2:46:41 Yeah, I never even looked at it from that point of view of a BIP having a specific problem that it's trying to solve and written nicely in a motivation. I never looked at it that way. 2:46:52 No, no, no. Just the overall structure. So, how logically things come for a reader. That's what I meant. So, there was, when I first read the BIP, there was a bit of randomness to it. 2:47:04 Like that critique that they did. So, from how I remember that was true. And then Paul said he fixed it up. He made a lot of improvements. 2:47:16 But it just occurred to me that maybe I should read it again and maybe suggest improvements. 2:47:22 I just felt like if we gave him the, okay, what if the BIP said it's trying to solve the two-way peg? Are you going to be okay with that? And would you be open to maybe looking at it more or discussing more parts about it? 2:47:35 Do you think that that's a better direction to put in the BIP, for example? And if he says yes or no, then we can continue. 2:47:42 I just looked at the other BIPs that were mentioned and really their core motivation, their core benefit they bring was literally like one sentence each time. 2:47:55 Maybe that's a good criticism. What if the motivation just said potentially solve the two-way peg? If it opens the door for more people to look into it, then maybe there's a benefit. 2:48:08 I don't actually agree though, Satoshi and Joy. I mean, how can you fall for that? 2:48:13 You might not agree, but you want more people to be interested. 2:48:16 But I don't think his actual disinterest is motivated by the motivation section at all. 2:48:23 Okay, sure. But at the end of the day, if that's what he's saying, then you could be like, okay, then continue, right? And then maybe he might come up with another reason. 2:48:33 He could have like a separate version of the BIP with a different motivation section for him. 2:48:42 It would be a lot of people with hands up. And tell him to come back though. He can come back into the space. 2:48:50 We can talk about all the problems with the motivation section, starting with the market cap ratio that he later admitted was actually something that he also cared about. 2:49:01 And he also looked at as an indicator of meeting consumer value, which is the exact sense in which I used it. 2:49:12 But yeah, we have lots of hands. Who should we do first? I think we had CBS hand first. 2:49:17 Hey, I actually forgot that I was on stage until Pierre came up and I tabbed back over. 2:49:25 I was like, oh shit, I've been here for a while. I don't actually know why I was out as a speaker, but I'm happy to be here. 2:49:32 I followed the drivechain thing since it kind of resurged. And obviously my focus has been on Ordinal's side of the space. 2:49:40 So now that that's cooled off, I finally have some extra brain cells to allocate to other things. 2:49:47 And my buddy here, Satoshi Enjoyer, is a good signal for things I find interesting and a good voice I like to listen to. 2:49:55 But Paul, I actually remember I was at Mining Disrupt in Miami and I remember you came by the Luxor booth and we chatted briefly. 2:50:07 Yeah, it was good to meet you. I have said that I'm undecided and neutral about drivechains. 2:50:15 I just find it really curious and interesting and find this conversation pretty interesting. 2:50:19 But I tweeted this morning and I've kind of been thinking about this a lot, which is there's a lot of discussion here about what would miners do in miner incentive. 2:50:34 And I think that makes a ton of sense to talk about. 2:50:37 But, you know, as a miner myself and I do work for a mining pool, I kind of look out across the landscape and I see this was very, very obviously displayed with Ordinal's. 2:50:51 And I got to see this kind of firsthand with Ordinal's in that Bitcoin miners, obviously they're not a monolith, but Bitcoin miners do not really generally pay attention to these types of discussions, which is kind of an interesting observation. 2:51:08 In fact, like, you know, as as me and my business partner Cypher here in the audience, we've kind of discovered firsthand, like the world of Bitcoin mining is just I knew this beforehand, but it's like a very different side of the brain. 2:51:22 Like largely miners do not pay attention to discussions over protocol governance or like what I call Bitcoin under the hood. 2:51:32 And I'm kind of interested because I saw you at Mining Disrupt and I saw you kind of walk in the floor and I see you beating the ground or, you know, boots on the ground talking about this. 2:51:41 Like, have you talked to other miners? 2:51:43 I think it is kind of ironic that Pierre was just up here because he would be like the one exception, not the one exception, you know, one of the few exceptions of people who is highly engaging and representing a Bitcoin mining company about like protocol discussion. 2:51:57 But like what have you talked to other Bitcoin miners pools have like what kind of sense are you seeing from these folks, you know, in my side of the industry just from, you know, since since kind of drivechain have come have come back in the conversation. 2:52:14 Like, what are you seeing? 2:52:17 Yes, well, because of what happened with SegWit2x and that history, I really did not I really avoided talking with miners for a while because it's kind of like what Moon Settler was saying, where there's a paradox where if you do something, people will get offended. 2:52:33 And if you if you try to hype it up, it's suspicious. 2:52:37 And then if you try to push something that there's no hype for, then it seems pointless. 2:52:41 And so there's a lot of chicken and egg type things. 2:52:44 And so I didn't want to talk to the miners sort of at first. 2:52:51 But then recently, over the last few months, maybe last six months, I have started just kind of barely started to do that. 2:52:59 And the miners are very supportive, I think. 2:53:02 So like the Luxor CEO has tweeted that he would signal for BIP300 activation publicly. 2:53:12 So that was pretty supportive. 2:53:14 I think a lot of the people at Mining Disrupt, they were like, one person actually said, I don't even know why you're here, because obviously all the miners will support you. 2:53:22 So they said that. 2:53:23 I don't know what that translates to. 2:53:26 I think that you're right that miners are like a race and breed apart and they're on a completely different planet. 2:53:33 And they have their own. 2:53:37 I think I think a new split that will probably appear actually in Bitcoin will be like practical miners who have costs, revenues. 2:53:48 I think there will be something like like the miners have like a fiduciary duty to maximize profits. 2:53:58 The miners are practical. 2:54:00 The miners are they have real numbers. 2:54:02 You know, they have like a business plan. 2:54:04 They have a time horizon versus the kind of like I think the kind of like the cult, like the Twitter cult. 2:54:12 I think that will be a new split in Bitcoin that will probably is probably on the way. 2:54:19 That's my guess. 2:54:21 But I think miners are very supportive in general, and I think most people are like, as you say, most people don't miners don't look into it at all. 2:54:28 They just think, oh, when something's ready, then we'll just activate it. 2:54:32 Yeah, that's kind of my that's kind of been my read, too, is like miners are just going to say, oh, this is this is what we're doing now. 2:54:38 But, you know, I could be wrong. 2:54:41 My career as a miner has only been post SegWit, so I haven't like firsthand participated in this discussion before. 2:54:51 You know, one thing I do kind of observe is that so in a in a in a drivechain world or drivechain system, it requires we talk about miners broadly. 2:55:02 And it's important to distinguish between like the miners and then the like the block producers or the producers of hash and the producers of blocks, which you could distinguish between. 2:55:12 And in such a case, it would kind of require the miner business model to change or evolve a little bit to being highly participatory in sidechains, which, again, is like a very different type of, you know, this is this is the eternal recurring story of Bitcoin mining. 2:55:27 Is it your it's this all of this constant, you know, walk uphill and and adding different types of business competency that going from like having heavy Chinese footprint to acquire a six and bit main relationships to being able to acquire energy and specific like like infrastructure specialty and access to capital to now, you know, in a drivechain world that would require 2:55:55 miners to have like more like technical, you would say almost like conventional like crypto expertise in-house, which is kind of interesting scenario to imagine. 2:56:09 That's I don't really have a question, but that's just kind of a thought that I've been having. 2:56:14 Yes, I see it as, as you say, like at first mining was just like in 2009, mining was just running the software and running generate, you know, generate coins on your home PC. 2:56:29 So I see it as the ongoing professionalization of mining as a trend. 2:56:49 And I do think this does add a new dimension to that. 2:56:53 The dimension is which sidechains like maximize our transaction fees or maximize the Bitcoin exchange rate. 2:57:03 And I think that is a different type of expertise. 2:57:07 I actually don't think the expert they don't really need to know anything about crypto or even about software necessarily. 2:57:14 They're they are kind of like a they're kind of like someone who is there like a I don't know, like a casino manager putting together a show or something. 2:57:25 They're going to try to put together events. So they're like, you know, they're going to manage, you know, like some kind of they're having some kind of like party or something. 2:57:36 And they're like, OK, we want the Zcash band and we want to whatever the Ethereum catering or whatever it is, you know. 2:57:43 Yeah, I make the analogy that we're that, you know, you have people who run mining companies and we're like like, you know, ringleaders or like conductors at a circus or something. 2:57:53 That's it's more like that in a business sometimes. 2:57:58 And this is sometimes leads to the whole like changing miner incentives train of thought, which it does in the same sense that anyone broadcasting a layer one transaction is with a fee. 2:58:11 Anyone who does that or anyone who says I'm going to broadcast this, I'm going to pay five dollars worth of fee every day or I'm going to open one lightning channel every every year forever. 2:58:22 Those people are also, quote, changing miner incentives, unquote. 2:58:28 But, you know, of course, the bigger the bigger picture is the point you made about mining is always evolving. 2:58:37 And this is part of the evolution to not only cut costs or hash as quickly and efficiently as possible, but also to maximize the fees, to try to maximize the fees, sort of pick the portfolio of. 2:58:52 So willingly support the sub modules that maximize the fees. 2:58:58 And, yeah, this idea has not been tried, so it may not even work. 2:59:02 But that is the idea is that you have these. 2:59:10 You have the sidechains that generate fees, like an apple tree for a farmer. 2:59:15 You know, they're generating fees and that's why the miners want to keep them around. 2:59:20 And so that's our works. 2:59:22 I'll say briefly that this is not anything new whatsoever. 2:59:25 If you go to the Foundry website, which is probably at the moment the most important entity in Bitcoin mining, you'll find a very well labeled section on Ethereum staking, of which I think they are one of the biggest participants in the Ethereum staking network. 2:59:44 And, of course, throughout the years, Bitmain has been producing Litecoin ASICs and Zcash ASICs. 2:59:50 And many of the pools and miners have, prior to the transfer to proof of stake, were doing Ethereum proof of work and on and on. 3:00:04 It's a long term trend. 3:00:08 One thing I was surprised to learn from my conversations with miners is that actually very few miners only mine Bitcoin. 3:00:15 I was very surprised to learn that. 3:00:17 Anyway, I think we should go to – I think it was Zender who had his hand up next. 3:00:23 I know it was Polly, but yeah, I can take it. 3:00:25 Oh, really? Well then, I guess we should go then. 3:00:33 Hey, I'm just going to continue off where Pierre left off with all the issues that he might have found with the motivation section. 3:00:44 I think it would do you a great service to take all of your – from your PDF, where you got a bold claim of seven statements of heterogeneity, scalability, privacy, scams, security budget, decentralization, fundamental value. 3:00:59 Take all that and stick it in your motivation section. I shouldn't have to dig through your website, dig through your PDFs, dig through all your videos to find all that stuff. 3:01:09 You've already labeled it out. Take it there and – 3:01:12 Well, yeah, I certainly could. I actually thought I liked that slide, and I always thought that I should actually link to that slide from Drivechain.info at the top, and then I never got around to it. 3:01:25 I agree, I like that slide. You like that one, right, with the little list there, the heterogeneity? 3:01:32 Yeah, I got a few problems with it, but I think it would be a good start. 3:01:39 Something I'd like to say that I just think is funny is that people always say something, and they're like, well, I really want the DisneyCast slideshow, but I don't really want any of those other ones. 3:01:47 And then you talk to the next person, and they're like, oh, we really need to have deep lighting panels, but we don't need any of those other ones. 3:01:57 Everyone has their own thing that they think is the same. 3:01:59 I hear that every day with CTV. Every day, it's like, oh, I don't need that feature. What else do you got? I'm like, well, we got 40 other features. 3:02:09 But yeah, if you just focus on the two-way pegs aspect of it and kind of go through it, it'll help connect with people. 3:02:21 A few questions for heterogeneity. I had Henry make a claim. I want to see your opinion on it. 3:02:30 Let's say we got 10 sidechains, and we have a big breakthrough, and sidechain 11 is coming out. 3:02:38 And everyone just shifts over to sidechain 11, and all the feeds die for the first 10 sidechains. 3:02:47 Would a miner try and take some of those withdrawals from those now-dead sidechains? 3:02:55 Or would they support the whole ecosystem as a whole and don't rock the basket sort of thing? 3:03:06 Well, I mean, I gave you my guess. My guess is that the miners would say, well, if we rug pull these 10 obsolete sidechains now that are obsolete, if we rug pull them, then maybe people will feel very nervous about using sidechain 11 at all. 3:03:23 So they say, we don't want to do that. So they tell everyone, listen, withdraw your coins. 3:03:28 They say you have, like, whatever, six months to withdrawal period or something, to withdraw the coins from 1 through 10, because we don't see them as active anymore. 3:03:39 We're going to stop standing by them eventually. 3:03:43 I can also see them continuing to support them, because remember, what do the miners really lose by continuing to support those 10? 3:03:51 They don't really lose anything, because it's not like the swaps are scarce and someone still might be paying fees over there. 3:03:59 It could go so many ways. They could instead decide to attack the number 11 chain because it's giving them less fees, and they like the original 10 more. 3:04:08 There's so many different ways. 3:04:10 If it's the case that sidechain 11 decreases the total amount of fees paid across all sidechains, and it decreases the – like, let's say the market exchange rate is totally unaffected by this sidechain. 3:04:24 But let's say this is a sidechain that decreases the fees, then I would expect the miners not to activate it, which is rational, and that's what I would expect. 3:04:35 It may interfere with the transaction fees being paid in a way that it stops people from using sidechain 7, because it attacks sidechain 7. 3:04:48 I think all the transaction fee rates will be very low on all the chains. 3:04:55 It could be. It could go some different ways. 3:04:58 The miners have an incentive to maximize the total amount of fee revenue, which I think will be very low per transaction. 3:05:09 They basically want to maximize the total number of transactions across all chains. 3:05:13 Yeah, which mines say that they won't go for chain 11. They'll say, we only get one more chain. 3:05:19 In fact, we want to disable chains 2 through 10, and you only get chain 1, because that will maximize our fees altogether. 3:05:27 Yeah, but I don't think that it actually will, because the reason why I don't is because I don't actually believe this story about the transaction fees going up because of constrained block space. 3:05:37 I think when the fees go up, the users get very, very unhappy, and they do other things, like they stop using the chain as much or they try to batch their own transactions or whatever. 3:05:50 So I don't actually believe that, so I don't actually think that that does increase the long-run revenue. 3:05:55 I don't think anyone's going to want to pay a $50 transaction fee for Bitcoin, like 24-7, 365. 3:06:02 I just think people won't want to do it, and I think as time goes on, they'll want to do it less and less and less and less. 3:06:07 There'll be free stuff. There'll be WeChat Pay. There'll be Venmo or whatever, and there'll be altcoins and stuff that have a similar thing. 3:06:17 It'll be like a Litecoin. It's going to be almost the same as Bitcoin, except the fees will be near zero. 3:06:24 So I don't think that any of that actually adds up to fee pressure. 3:06:28 So I think that the way the miners will try to maximize their fee revenue is by maximizing the block space available. 3:06:35 For the sidechains, they can make their own fork changes. If they want to increase their internal block size, they can do that. 3:06:47 They can do all sorts of things once you create them, right? 3:06:51 Yes, they can make sidechain 12 or something. 3:06:56 Well, to make sidechain 12, they've got to talk to the miners. They don't get to do that on their own. 3:07:03 Yeah, I'm saying the miners can make sidechain 12 is what I meant to say there. 3:07:07 Yes, but miners also aren't developers. They're not going to go build chain 12 until someone says, hey, we've got this chain 12 we can make. 3:07:17 Indeed, yes. But I think the miners could also just hire developers or pay them off or whatever. 3:07:23 So I got a question about privacy sidechain. We have Litecoin. We have MemoWimble on Litecoin, and it got banned. 3:07:34 A lot of places delisted that extension. What is going to prevent a Bitcoin sidechain from having the same fate? 3:07:42 I think what would happen would be it would be banned, but only the sidechain would be banned. 3:07:47 And that's actually not a problem at all, because going from L1 to the sidechain is something you can do unilaterally using just the software. 3:07:56 And there's no cap on that. So I think actually that would work out just fine. 3:08:00 But I think that this privacy sidechain would probably be banned. 3:08:03 But probably because the ban is so ineffective, maybe the ban would be lifted soon. 3:08:06 But I think the idea would be it would be banned and then it would not matter because you just buy L1 coins. 3:08:14 Or you buy coins that aren't banned and then you just move them through. You use the swap thing. 3:08:19 Does that answer your question? 3:08:22 Yeah, I mean, that's kind of how it would go anyways. 3:08:26 Do you think we should... We have three hands up. Do you think we should rotate and come back? 3:08:32 Yeah, because I could go for another hour. Let's take five and move on to Zender. 3:08:37 Let's do Zender, and then Terence, and then Moonsettler. 3:08:41 Hello, hello. So we spoke a little bit in private and on Twitter. 3:08:46 My issue with the drivechain is that it changes a bit the nature of the security assumptions. 3:08:52 So that it's not only proof of work. I told you that. I know you don't agree with it. 3:08:57 But it also has some aspects of proof of stake when people have to vote. 3:09:04 People voting for me, I don't like voting. It reminds me of democracy and all the shenanigans that can happen in a democracy. 3:09:12 And voting can be bribed, can do lots of bad stuff, as you know. 3:09:18 And more specifically with the drivechain, because I read the BIP, I don't know how many people know actually how it works. 3:09:27 Miners vote, but whenever you vote on a certain proposal, you actually downvote on the others. 3:09:37 But you can also do alarm, if I understand correctly, which is downvote on all. 3:09:42 Which means that a minority of miners could on purpose downvote on a proposal or sidechain to peg out with just 26% of the votes. 3:09:57 If all the miners are actually voting, if all would be voting, there would be a need of 75% of upvotes. 3:10:06 But if there's a 26% of downvotes, it would not get to 50%. I don't know if it's very clear, but Paul, I know this is how it works. 3:10:14 But this can be even worse. 3:10:18 This can be even worse that if, let's say, 20% of the miners don't vote at all, because they don't care, they get paid the fees no matter what. 3:10:27 They can just abstain. That means 80% of the miners are left to vote and with a minority even of 16%, you cannot get to 50% needed. 3:10:39 So I think there's an issue there, because it's clear that miners could do stuff on purpose or maybe governments can force them to do stupid shit like that. 3:10:50 For example, let's say in USA, Foundry has so much percentage of the hash rate, they can be forced by the government to never peg out again from a privacy sidechain. 3:11:02 So then people cannot use it. 3:11:05 Okay, great. But before I answer those two questions, just remind everyone to invite Pierre back and that it was actually Henry's fault that he got kicked probably. 3:11:17 I don't know. So if he wants to come back, he can come back. 3:11:23 Or it was a glitch because Luke also got kicked, which is mysterious. 3:11:29 Actually, it has been glitching a lot. 3:11:32 But the first question was about democracy and voting. 3:11:37 The problem with democracy is that when you have more than maybe – I think it's literally something like more than – I think it's actually something like 15 or 16 people. 3:11:51 There's so much ambiguity as to whether or not your vote will even affect the outcome that you might as well not even look into it. 3:11:58 You have like a 0% chance of affecting the outcome, let alone when you have like 100 million people vote. 3:12:06 So I agree with you that that's a flaw in democracy that is fixed with prediction markets, I think, is my guess. 3:12:12 It's an unrelated topic that we can talk about if you want. 3:12:15 But in the BIP300 concept, it's just under the hood since you're one of the few people who have read the BIP, which I appreciate. 3:12:23 That's always encouraged. 3:12:26 You know that it's basically just this counter that's counting up to 13,000-ish, and people would think, well, what's the use of that? 3:12:34 But if you build a kind of prison where it's easy to walk in through like a turnstile – and this is answering your question eventually, I promise. 3:12:45 You can easily go in one way, so you can just walk into the prison, but in order to get out, you have to like get on this weird train, this weird capsule. 3:12:54 And it can only move forward like along its train track, like one unit at a time, one unit per 10 minutes, and it's going to take three months to get to the other side. 3:13:04 This makes it – this is a very slow and transparent process. 3:13:10 So you say this is a prison, and you say the warden can only get people out on this slow little string. 3:13:16 And you say, well, what difference does that make? So what? I'm still going to escape. 3:13:21 The string is just really slow. 3:13:24 But now we have what are you voting on in BIP300, which is the question of is the prison warden operating the prison well? 3:13:36 And that is something that would ordinarily be a very complicated question, but thanks to the magic of hashes and Merkle roots and things, with the BIP300 sidechain, it's actually very easy. 3:13:47 Because the sidechain knows exactly – it will publish this hash that is – everything is 100% correct hash, including the exact little capsule that's supposed to leave the prison. 3:14:03 So it's kind of like that's the hash that is – the real hash is broadcast by the L2 blockchain, which is – it's only going to change once every three to six months. 3:14:18 So it's the hash of everything being okay, and that is equal to the hash that is embedded on L1. 3:14:24 So all that the miners are doing is they're saying, does this hash match the other hash? 3:14:31 And that is answering the question of is the prison warden doing their job right? 3:14:37 And that is equal to the question of are the right people leaving this prison? 3:14:43 Because of course people are coming and going from the prison at various times. 3:14:47 And so we've shrunken what is normally an enormously complicated task into just does one hash match another hash? 3:14:58 And that is why it's not as big of a deal to vote on that as it is when you have 115 million people each trying to figure out which leader would better represent them for innumerable tasks like national defense, healthcare, infrastructure, energy, what is our policy on education, culture war, etc. 3:15:20 So it's a very different type of thing. 3:15:24 Now, why is it so much easier to delay? 3:15:28 So first of all, you're correct. There is a risk that you won't get – your coins will get stolen or that they will be tied up in this process. 3:15:38 And they will fail to withdraw, in which case they haven't been stolen from you yet. They're still on the L2 sidechain. 3:15:45 But it's going to take another three months at best, or maybe it will take forever. 3:15:50 Now, the reason why that's a good thing is because what you don't want is – if they're stolen, then you have minus 100% of your wealth. 3:16:00 But if they are only delayed, then you only lose the time value of money to whoever is the most patient because you can sell them to someone else who is willing to wait. 3:16:09 You sell them for $0.99 on the dollar or $0.98 on the dollar, whatever the interest rate is for three months. 3:16:15 Sell them to other people, and then those people will take your place. 3:16:20 When you sell, you kind of like switch brains. It's like when Rick and Morty has the brain gun. 3:16:25 You switch brains with someone who's outside the prison, and they go in the prison, and then they get in the capsule. 3:16:36 They get in the little train car, and they're trying to leave. 3:16:40 So let me actually say one more – I forgot to say the most important thing, of course, which is that yes, this is a risk, but this is the whole point. 3:16:47 The whole point is the people on L1, they don't want to care about the L2s. 3:16:52 That's their priority. 3:16:54 It's the L2 people that want something. 3:16:56 They want larger blocks. 3:16:58 They want zk-SNARKs. 3:16:59 They want something. 3:17:01 So it's the L2 people that want something, and they should bear some risk. 3:17:09 So it's very appropriate for them to bear this risk of either losing all their coins, having the miners steal from them, or having to wait another three months, 3:17:20 eventually getting their coins back but having to wait three months longer than they thought they would have to wait. 3:17:25 So because they're the ones who want the new feature, it's appropriate that they have to wait. 3:17:33 Right, but my point is that it's possible that, for example, the U.S. government says you will never release those coins to Foundry. 3:17:43 Foundry has more than 26% of the hash rate, so they could be blocked there. 3:17:48 They could be locked there indefinitely. 3:17:50 And my bigger worry than this one is that – because I don't care. 3:17:54 If those people lose their coins, it's their business because they put their coins in the drivechain willingly. 3:18:01 My bigger issue is that many times I heard you say that many problems could be solved with user-activated soft forks when it comes to drivechains. 3:18:10 When we add complexity to Bitcoin, I don't think we want to incentivize creating more and more USFs. 3:18:19 Because maybe even this issue where the miners at Foundry would not break any of the BIP300 rules, they would just stall indefinitely. 3:18:28 Maybe at one point the drivechain people might say it's a very big Monero sidechain. 3:18:34 They say, okay, but we want our coins, let's do another USF or bring another rule inside BIP300. 3:18:40 So this is my worry, that eventually, because of added complexity, it happens what happens in Ethereum, 3:18:46 where they have to change again and again and again the protocol in order to solve some problems that were not foreseen or cannot be solved. 3:18:55 Well, I don't really see why it gives an incentive for more USFs. 3:19:02 Because people could decide that they want to do a USF for anything. 3:19:06 But even if they did do the USF, it doesn't actually – you try the USF and if it doesn't work, then it's clear that it won't work. 3:19:14 Because the other side has a huge hash rate majority. 3:19:17 And so it's like you would try it and it would not work. 3:19:22 I mean, you would say that the USF would be to force the withdrawal of the coins? 3:19:26 Is that what you would say the USF would be or am I misunderstanding? 3:19:29 A change of rules, like you're not allowed to use Alarm anymore or you don't downvote anymore. 3:19:35 Or BIP300. 3:19:36 Yeah, yeah, exactly, exactly. 3:19:42 I don't think you could solve – you'd have to do like BIP-300B or something, some new thing. 3:19:48 But I think the idea is that you would – imagine there's a popular feature. 3:19:55 It's like we want to make the coupling as loose as possible. 3:20:00 And so we have this L2 where the feature is. 3:20:09 We have this feature where the L2 is. 3:20:12 And if it were popular in a world where there were no sidechains, 3:20:16 it would be like some kind of like altcoin gaining popularity for the feature or something like that. 3:20:23 I don't know if I'm making sense with what I'm trying to say here. 3:20:25 See, what I'm trying to say is the risk should be borne by the L2 coin users. 3:20:33 And so they may try other things to get their coins back, but I don't think – when push comes to shove, 3:20:38 I think it actually will be understood that that is the risk that they chose to take. 3:20:46 I guess I wasn't very articulate on my part, but does that make sense what I'm saying? 3:20:51 See, what I'm saying is the prison warden in that example I gave, those are the miners. 3:20:56 So the miners are making money from all of this. 3:20:58 And it's kind of like the question of are they doing a good enough job is just if one hash matches another hash. 3:21:03 Maybe the case where Foundry is told by the U.S. government to – let me give you this story. 3:21:10 Foundry is told by the U.S. government never to withdraw the coins. 3:21:13 As a result, the coins on the privacy sidechain, they no longer trade on a market basis from $0.99 on the dollar to – 3:21:23 they tank to $0.95 or something on the dollar. 3:21:27 And who's buying up these coins? 3:21:29 The individual miners could do that. 3:21:32 They would buy these coins, and they would buy the coins, 3:21:35 and then they would all temporarily point their hash rate at somewhere other than Foundry. 3:21:40 Foundry would just evaporate overnight temporarily. 3:21:43 There would be no Foundry. 3:21:45 Miners bought all these coins for $0.95 on the dollar. 3:21:48 Foundry doesn't exist anymore. 3:21:51 They withdraw their own coins since they're miners' coins now on the L2. 3:21:55 They withdraw them to L1, and then they just reform Foundry later. 3:22:02 How's that for a story? 3:22:03 But I think it's kind of like whatever – I mean do you like that story or no? 3:22:09 It's going to be fun. 3:22:12 The mining pools, I think, they lead an existence that is very – 3:22:18 think about how much easier it is for a hasher to point their hash rate at a different pool 3:22:24 versus how difficult it is for someone – like you start – 3:22:31 point your hash at a different pool or start up a new pool. 3:22:39 Versus the situation of how easy is it for someone who's running a pool to buy a bunch of ASICs and start hashing. 3:22:47 So what's that ratio? 3:22:50 I think you know perfectly well that the ratio is like literally something like $10 million to one or something. 3:22:56 Would you agree with that? 3:22:57 Yeah, okay. 3:22:59 Who's more vulnerable in that relationship? 3:23:02 Obviously. 3:23:04 When I look at the pools, I almost always see someone who is trying their best to serve the interests of their customers 3:23:12 and someone who is hanging by a thread and could just be killed from existence. 3:23:18 Yeah, my problem is that it introduces a bit of politics. 3:23:21 Like the state can interfere with how the protocol works. 3:23:25 Even if you're saying it doesn't matter because the site changes. 3:23:29 You see it's a separable thing. 3:23:31 Not to interrupt you, but it's a separable thing, which is that it's the miners who steal the coins or who fail to withdraw the coins. 3:23:40 And then the state is interfering with mining. 3:23:43 But again – well, not again because I didn't say it. 3:23:52 What I'm saying is the state can always try to interfere with mining, but basically won't succeed. 3:23:59 It's true that this – I guess you could say that BIP300 introduces salient events. 3:24:04 Like this is an event, the withdrawal. 3:24:07 So I think that part is true. 3:24:10 But it's a situation where everyone who is undertaking the withdrawal, they all know that it's not as secure as L1. 3:24:17 It is miner-related. 3:24:21 Hmm. 3:24:23 Yeah, I just don't like the politics of it. 3:24:28 But do you understand what I was saying about there's no vote on value of like 115 million people with nothing at stake in the outcome. 3:24:38 It's like does one hash match the other hash or not? 3:24:41 And they're earning fees from all this, so they have an incentive to get it right. 3:24:46 Everyone knows what the right answer is. 3:24:48 Anyone who runs a sidechain node or even a sidechain node in SPV mode, all those people know what the right answer is. 3:24:57 Right, that's why they do it on purpose. 3:25:00 It's not really a democracy-type vote. 3:25:02 It's a kind of like a – it's a kind of functionary-type vote. 3:25:06 It's kind of like – it's a kind of ceremonial vote in a way. 3:25:11 Given they can be influenced like voting, that's my issue because voting can be influenced as well. 3:25:18 In this case, it can be influenced as well. 3:25:20 Let's say maybe if China says, okay, all the Chinese pools have to not let a Tether sidechain withdraw because it uses dollars or something like that. 3:25:32 It doesn't matter. 3:25:33 But again, the pools can always say – the pools can always tell the Chinese officials. 3:25:38 They can say, listen, if we do that, everyone will be gone. 3:25:41 All the hash rate will leave our pool tomorrow, this week. 3:25:45 It will be the end of Ant Pool if we do that. 3:25:48 So don't make us do that. 3:25:50 But because it's not – whatever it is. 3:25:52 Because BIP300 assumes that the portfolio of sidechains is maximizing the transaction volume and the market exchange rate of the coins. 3:26:03 But they still get the fees no matter how they vote. 3:26:06 Why would they lose – 3:26:07 No, they won't get the fees. 3:26:08 No, they will lose the whole future stream of fees if the withdrawal system stops working. 3:26:13 Because the only reason the fees are there is because people assume that the deposits and withdrawal rail is working. 3:26:18 So they would – all of the miners would lose all the fees. 3:26:21 Yeah, well, we'll see. 3:26:27 I don't agree with that. 3:26:29 It's not like a vote on everyone's favorite color or something. 3:26:34 You know what I mean? 3:26:36 It's nothing like that at all. 3:26:39 I mean if the withdrawal fails, then people are stuck on the sidechains. 3:26:44 And a lot of people are going to just stay there because the mainchain still doesn't work because we didn't do anything to upgrade it. 3:26:51 So I don't really say that the withdrawal thing forfeited would affect the sidechain value necessarily. 3:26:58 Maybe it might dip and break the peg momentarily. 3:27:02 But long term, no. 3:27:04 People are stuck there. 3:27:06 Where are they going to go? 3:27:10 Well, I suppose at that point it becomes like a space chain or something. 3:27:13 But I think it's like the one reason why – I'm saying is if the withdrawal process is permanently broken because that was the example I thought that Zender – Zender was giving me some kind of thing that says you will never withdraw. 3:27:26 You must never withdraw, and you must always sabotage the Zcash sidechain thing. 3:27:34 And so I was saying in that situation, there's not going to be any Zcash fees because no one will accept Zcash anymore. 3:27:41 No merchant is going to take Zcash because they think, I can never get – Zcash becomes kind of like an unpegged – it could be anywhere between zero and one. 3:27:49 It kind of becomes like a Minero. 3:27:51 It becomes a whole new Zcash again. 3:27:53 It becomes Zcash. 3:27:55 It kind of alternates. 3:27:56 Yeah, it becomes – its value is based upon its utility now. 3:28:00 So if the privacy chain is depegged, it will hold value based upon its utility. 3:28:06 So it could forever keep on going. 3:28:09 But I really think what happened would be the value would dip, and new people would be buying it over there for maybe 90 cents, 95 cents on the dollar. 3:28:21 Yeah, so I got a question. 3:28:23 Why are we doing a vote? 3:28:25 Why are we making a huge down? 3:28:28 Because that's what it feels like. 3:28:29 It feels like $300 is a huge down of voting. 3:28:32 Like, why are we – 3:28:33 Well, because the L1 node has to track something, and we do not want the L1 node to have to download the sidechain software or any of the sidechain blocks. 3:28:42 Well, what about SoftChain? 3:28:45 SoftChain uses proof-of-fraud. 3:28:47 It adds a little bit of extra overhead for the mainchain nodes, but there's no voting, and we get perfect two-way pegs. 3:28:55 No, I think that SoftChain doesn't have – I don't remember exactly the details, but these things all – they have some kind of like – 3:29:04 I think SoftChain has the requirement that every sidechain that is added is a soft fork where everyone must run the sidechain node. 3:29:15 No, no, no, no. 3:29:16 The way it works is each new SoftChain is a soft fork, which makes it explicit instead of implicit, unlike drivechains, because that's a soft fork, too. 3:29:26 Let's not pretend that's not. 3:29:28 But also, the sidechain cannot fork itself. 3:29:33 The mainchain can fork it, so if they wanted to increase the block size, the mainchain would have to do that. 3:29:38 But each new SoftChain has a slight overhead of roughly 100 megabytes a year. 3:29:45 That's the only requirement of the mainchain is 100 megabytes per SoftChain, which is quite reasonable. 3:29:53 And we get away from this voting, which is insane. 3:29:59 Well, I think SoftChain is like one markdown file, and it's like – I don't think it's an actual idea, so I think maybe we should wait until someone codes the software or something. 3:30:15 I mean, are we trying to activate in 2023? Are we in a rush? 3:30:21 Why are we in such a rush? 3:30:24 Why are we not surveying everything? 3:30:26 We have multiple proposals. We have covenants. We have two-way pegs. 3:30:30 There's so many things that we've not even discussed on. 3:30:33 Why are we focusing on this one specific proposal that's been around for almost a decade now? 3:30:39 Why are we so hyper-focused on this one little thing? 3:30:44 We keep calling it the Holy Grail, but if it was the Holy Grail, we would have done it seven years ago. 3:30:50 There was no software seven years ago. It was just a blog post. 3:30:53 And I don't think – so a lot of people are focusing on this idea, but I don't think everyone is hyper-focused on it, per se. 3:31:01 I really think that – I really think SoftChainz is just one markdown file, and I don't know if that – I don't think that's – I think that's very, very wet. 3:31:23 I mean, it could be, but why not look at it more? 3:31:27 Why not look at it more? Why not add it to the list of things? 3:31:37 I've had a lot of DriveChainz guys telling me that they are pro-CTD, but I never see them talking about it. 3:31:43 All the time, I'll catch them correcting people on DriveChainz, but they never actually talk about anything else. 3:31:51 They only talk about it if we put them in a corner and saying, why aren't you talking about this other stuff? 3:31:56 Like, oh, we're pro-CTD. Like, why don't – only when we put you on the spot. 3:32:00 Like, I – you know, I just don't get it. 3:32:07 Well, I mean, one reason is that you could use CTV. We already have a – we have a sidechain, 300 sidechain that has CTV on it. 3:32:14 So why – from my point of view, you just get – you get 119 with 300. 3:32:21 No, you don't. No, you don't. That is an absolute lie. I hate that lie. 3:32:28 You do not get CTV on a sidechain. Like, the miners get benefits. Lightning gets benefits. 3:32:35 They chains get benefits. RGB gets benefits. Everyone benefits – DriveChainz benefits from CTV. 3:32:41 We do not get CTV on a sidechain. It is not the same. 3:32:46 I don't even want to use CTV on a sidechain because I would have to hold my own data, and the whole point of sidechains is to have data availability. 3:32:54 And now I'm removing that with CTV. Like, it is not the same. And that narrative needs to die. 3:33:02 Well, I think it's true that you get – well, I mean, it's true that something being on a BIP300 sidechain is not the same as having it on L1. 3:33:11 So what I am saying is you can actually – like, right now, CTV doesn't exist at all. 3:33:16 But if you had – we already have coded and we're testing it, and actually anyone can download it and try it out. 3:33:30 I'm just saying that if you activated BIP300, you would be able to use CTV on the sidechain, and that's not the same – you're right. 3:33:38 It's not the same as having it on L1, but that's also, I think, why – I don't think – you should make – you know what you should do? 3:33:45 You should make a site that has all the different – like, a table with everything, and get signatures and see, like, who supports which bit. 3:33:57 That would be neat. Why don't you do that? That would be fun. 3:34:00 It's a community effort. If you want to do that, that would be wonderful. We all each have to focus on what we're focusing on, though, right? 3:34:09 Just like you were telling Pierre, if he wanted to make a fix to your bit, that, you know, he could do it. 3:34:17 I think there seems to be you who is interested in, like, who you want to round up all the names for. 3:34:23 I think, actually, Jeremy already had a thing on one of his sites, and he asked me to endorse CTV, and I think that I did. 3:34:33 I don't know. It's been a little while. Maybe I'm not remembering it, but I think Jeremy already has, like, a big table for 119. 3:34:40 You're worried about people hiding the fact that they are supporting 119. 3:34:47 He has a signals table. It's got, like, 50 or 60 people on it. It hasn't been updated in a couple years now. 3:34:56 But it doesn't do what you're asking, which is a simple comparison between everything and what features people are asking for. 3:35:04 And, you know, that is something that we can do, but at the same time, you know, Drivechain doesn't have that. 3:35:12 We don't have a Drivechain table that says, okay, on two-way peg, we can do this sidechain with that, and this other sidechain can do this, 3:35:20 and we can make this big, long sidechain of 32 megabytes or whatever. 3:35:26 You haven't flushed out all the different scenarios, which are infinite, but you haven't flushed out a few set of them of what sidechains you see happening. 3:35:36 Because I know that you said before on one of your videos, like, there's, like, 12 different unique things that you can do with, you know, crypto, 3:35:44 and so you don't see that many sidechains actually occurring, but you don't have that table made up, you know? 3:35:51 And I've been trying to flush out everything. 3:35:54 I have some lists, I think, somewhere, but let's go to MoonSettler, I think. 3:36:02 All right, I got to get going. 3:36:08 Cool, thanks for stopping by. 3:36:10 All right, so I just had, like, one question that keeps coming back to my head, and I did not really hear it discussed a lot. 3:36:22 I watched a lot of your videos and listening on the talks, but maybe it came up, I just wasn't there, but I'm curious. 3:36:33 What do you think happens with drivechains if, you know, a sidechain has a civil war and they decide to fork? 3:36:43 So what's the idea there? 3:36:45 Because, of course, normally if some of the users are not satisfied with the way a sidechain is, 3:36:54 if we discount the network effects and all the other factors, 3:36:57 then they could just try to get the miners to activate a new chain with their preferred features, 3:37:03 and then people would naturally migrate over. 3:37:06 But stuff like, you know, in certain cases, like, established ecosystems and network effects, I think. 3:37:15 So people might actually disagree on who gets to carry on with that legacy, 3:37:21 and they might actually do a consensus fork. 3:37:24 So how would that look like, do you think? 3:37:30 Sorry, could you repeat it? 3:37:35 So how do you think it would look like if the sidechain had a civil war and a consensus fork? 3:37:43 What would happen with the drivechain as a rule, and how the miners or anyone could handle that? 3:37:51 Yes. 3:37:52 So the cool thing is the sidechains actually inherit the protections of the soft fork. 3:37:58 So as long as there's two different, if you release a new version, or if you have a different history, 3:38:06 so, like, if you run the oldest, like, the original version of the software, 3:38:11 it should report on which withdrawals are real, like, which hash is real, 3:38:15 like, which thing should be leaving the, like, the prison or whatever you want to call it. 3:38:23 So which withdrawal capsule. 3:38:26 And if the sidechain upgrades via soft fork, all of the different versions will report the same withdrawal hash. 3:38:33 And if the sidechain has some kind of, like, reorg thing, 3:38:39 it will go with whatever is the longest valid chain, according to the first version of the software's rules. 3:38:46 That would be, like, the authoritative withdrawal. 3:38:49 And if it does anything else, that would be, like, kind of hard forking the sidechain. 3:38:54 So at that point, it's kind of like, by default, you can only do soft forks to upgrade or tamper with the sidechain, 3:39:01 which is a good thing, because it means that everyone is protected by the original property rights. 3:39:09 And so in that way, there's never any problem, because maybe some people aren't happy about what happens, 3:39:18 but it's like a sorry for your loss situation where one side is just clearly losing and the other side is clearly winning. 3:39:25 And then the other thing that you could do is maybe what you would do would be conceptually the same as hard forking the sidechain, 3:39:33 which is when you make a change that's so big that the original software no longer works. 3:39:42 And I don't know if I'm explaining this in the right order, but when you first activate the software, 3:39:49 you're allowed to add, like, the hash of the software and the hash of, like, the tarball and, like, the release hash, the commit hash. 3:39:57 So you can, like, you could flag a certain bit of software as, like, the software for that sidechain so that everyone can agree what it is. 3:40:08 And then when you… 3:40:16 Sorry, I was distracted by something. 3:40:19 When the idea of hard forking the sidechain is kind of like replacing… 3:40:24 that software with new software. And so by default, everything is a soft fork, 3:40:29 and this is clear winning, losing side. But then I suppose if there was some compelling reason 3:40:35 that would somehow maximize miners about, like, the transaction fee revenues or the exchange rate 3:40:43 somehow, then you could hard fork the sidechain. But I don't actually think that will happen, 3:40:48 because what I think is anyone who's using a sidechain, they already have, like, a tenuous 3:40:52 connection. You know what I mean? Like, their best case scenario is, like, they can deposit 3:40:57 and withdraw to this sidechain according to its declared rules. Like, maybe someone on sidechain 3:41:02 5 is going to be watching this drama, and they're going to think, you know what, maybe sidechain 3 3:41:07 screwed up, but it should just… it should only affect the users of sidechain 3. 3:41:15 But, of course, it's theoretically possible for them to have some kind of, like, complicated 3:41:22 other relationship with everything. Like, it could… people could decide to do whatever for 3:41:27 any reason, you know? I don't know. So, basically… 3:41:33 I don't know if I'm answering that question, but does that make sense? 3:41:39 The way I would like to make a distinction is you can have BIP300, right, with an alternative 3:41:45 consensus mechanism for the sidechain, which can be anything. And at that point, the ways 3:41:51 it can fork, the ways the community could disagree there, and the ways they could fork it, 3:41:58 even with mutually exclusive soft forks or whatever, you know, they are both UTXO forks 3:42:03 of the sidechain. And the issue is that they lay claims both to the same escrow, basically, 3:42:14 and the system does not seem to be equipped to handle that, like, elegantly. 3:42:21 And the other possibility is that it is a blind-merge-mind chain, and as you said, 3:42:28 one of them would have to overpower the other economically via fees and bribes, and there 3:42:34 would be a clear winner in that case. But in case it's not a blind-merge-mind sidechain, 3:42:41 it is an alternative consensus mechanism, it can actually have a proper split. And 3:42:48 do we kind of expect this, or do we think that people are really, like, motivated to solve this 3:42:55 in a civil manner, or what's the expectation? I can answer this how I think it would happen. 3:43:07 I think as far as the base layer is concerned, the blocks with the heaviest proof of work are 3:43:12 just going to rule, and then behind that is just going to be whatever economic incentive it is to 3:43:18 include any withdrawal proposals or not. And if there's drama going on on the sidechain, 3:43:24 if there is a fork of consensus failure or whatever it is, as a base layer, you're just 3:43:29 looking at, you know, whatever blocks are coming in, they're valid, they're the heaviest blocks, 3:43:33 the most proof of work, and that's it. And it's up to the drivechain to figure out if they're, 3:43:39 you know, whatever their drama is, and they might have to convince the miners that this is the best 3:43:44 one, or that is the best one, but the base layer doesn't really have to care. I don't know, that's 3:43:50 kind of how I look at and boil that down to. I mean, I would say, like, from zooming way out, 3:43:57 it's like a thousand foot view or something. I kind of think it's a situation where everyone 3:44:06 wants there to be consensus in the long run, like in the abstract. So by default, this is what 3:44:14 people want, you know what I mean? Like, in a particular case, they may really hope that they 3:44:19 can bend the rules for themselves in the short term, but I think this is just kind of Satoshi's 3:44:24 design, is my guess, is that people want to buy into a system where they can do whatever, 3:44:32 where they play by a fixed set of rules. And I think they don't want, like, any rule breaking. 3:44:41 So as long as the tools are there for them to sort it out, like, they want to keep the party going, 3:44:47 is what I would say. So if there's some problem on the sidechain, most of the people there will 3:44:53 want to figure out, you know, how can we keep this network going? How can we continue to generate 3:44:58 fees? How can we continue to enjoy the future? Yeah, but I was just thinking maybe they are 3:45:07 going to have their own block size war. Like, that's the simplest thing to imagine. We already 3:45:12 had one with Bitcoin. And so you can't really make sometimes a moral judgment on who is right, 3:45:21 because the group just simply split in two, and they both think they are right. And maybe they are 3:45:29 widely of different size, maybe they are roughly of equal size. We can't really tell how it will 3:45:35 play out. I was just wondering if there is a mechanism where, you know, this could be solved 3:45:43 in a somewhat cooperative and, like, orderly manner, right? So let's say the group split, 3:45:51 they agree on splitting somewhat after, let's say, they realize they can't really, you know, 3:45:58 solve it with brute force or just trolling or whatever. Then I guess it's very easy to create 3:46:07 a withdrawal transaction that will simply split the escrow, I guess, and the miners could vote in 3:46:14 a new sidechain, right? So that would be, like, the best case, civil resolution. Can you just 3:46:21 explain what you mean about split the chain? I didn't really understand what you had in mind. 3:46:26 Yeah, like, they just want to continue with two separate sidechains. 3:46:32 But it's like a sidechain in slot 5, and then there's, like, 60 coins there, and then... 3:46:41 Yeah, that's the interesting issue, like, how if they, like, split the UTXO set or 3:46:48 they just try to continue, both of them try to continue with the whole UTXO set, 3:46:52 that would be the worst case, because then you really can't resolve that with the escrow. 3:46:56 Like, I don't know how to do that. There's always the authoritative 3:47:03 source of truth is the the original software. That's what I tried to say. I don't think I 3:47:08 explained it very well, but when you claim slot 5, you tag a certain piece of software. 3:47:14 You don't actually literally put the entire piece of software, of course, that would be ridiculous 3:47:19 on the blockchain, but you tag it with the hash, so you say, this is the software that is 3:47:24 supposed to be the sidechain full node software, and whatever, that's going to just return one 3:47:32 chain state, or it will just freeze or something, and if it freezes, you can always... 3:47:37 See, what you can always do is you can always release a soft fork, 3:47:41 and you can always release a chain that, like, it says manually invalidates sidechain block number, 3:47:47 like, 612 or something, with a block with certain hash, you know what I mean? You manually 3:47:52 invalidate this block, and then proceed with this new soft fork tightened rules, so that could be 3:47:58 like sidechain software version 4.0 upgrading to, like, 4.1. That can be, like, an upgrade, 3:48:07 and now the sidechain goes from being frozen and stuck, it just orphans the stuck block, 3:48:13 and then it has a new block, and then it has the problem fixed. 3:48:17 So, then they kind of got around it there, in that worst-case scenario. 3:48:23 Merely with a soft fork, because the... Well, actually, maybe that wouldn't, because if you 3:48:28 ran the really old version, it would still maybe freeze there, but I think... So, maybe, actually, 3:48:34 I said something mistaken there. Oh, no, actually, no, I wouldn't, because the old version will 3:48:40 naturally orphan the problematic block. Oh, luckily, I said it right there. So, you run version 1.0 3:48:47 of the software, it would freeze if it got to that block, but that block will be orphaned, 3:48:52 because it will see that as just merely an orphaned block, and it will just ignore that block. 3:48:58 So, it will never reach the conditions that causes it to freeze or crash or whatever. 3:49:03 So, then, basically, we don't expect anyone to try to follow the sidechain, 3:49:09 and what happens if, say, MainChain experiences another chain split fork? 3:49:16 What is the idea? Where would the sidechains go? They fall into the sidechains, 3:49:22 and what happens if they fall into the sidechains? 3:49:25 Yeah, they're all riding on top. All of them are riding on top, 3:49:41 and so, if the sidechain, if your MainChain has blocked 9,001, 9,002, 900,001, 900,002, 3:49:50 900,003, 900,004, and whatever, and then, so, 900,004 has sidechain block. It has two 3:50:04 sidechains in slots 2 and 7, and sidechain 2 has block G, and then sidechain 7 has block whatever, 3:50:15 900,004, 900,005, or whatever it is, and then it goes from G to H, it's slot 2, and it goes from 3:50:26 gamma to delta, I think, is how the Greek alphabet works. So, you would do that, and then, 3:50:33 if you re-org'd out 900,005, it's just as if it just goes back to G and gamma. 3:50:42 Yeah, yeah, yeah, I understand that. That's not what I meant. I mean, 3:50:47 if we experience another chain split, like with BCH, right? 3:50:54 Oh, yeah, but then something really funny happens. I think you can guess what happens in that 3:50:58 situation, though, which is it doubles everyone's coins everywhere, and it doubles the sidechains 3:51:01 also, which is kind of funny, I think. I think, why not? Why not do that? 3:51:07 Yeah, I just think there is a tiny little bit of identity issue. I think people would be confused, 3:51:16 or maybe even competitive about claiming the brands, you know? Who is actually the Bitcoin 3:51:26 monero sidechain, or whatever? Bitcoin monero sidechain. 3:51:29 Exactly what happened with Bitcoin, with Bitcoin Cash, and etc. They tried to fight over the ticker 3:51:34 and everything, but of course, what I would say, of course, in my defense, is that the whole reason 3:51:41 we had a hard fork was because there were no sidechains. That's like my propaganda, you know, 3:51:48 for that line. 3:51:48 Yeah, right. I would like to have one last question, and then I'm done. 3:51:52 So, one thing that has been bugging me lately is people keep, when they talk about who decides 3:52:02 what Bitcoin is, this is a huge ongoing debate, and every time soft forks come up, this gets 3:52:08 amplified, and so people keep talking about the economically significant nodes, like those are 3:52:14 the ones that truly enforce the rules. Of course, miners enforce the rules on the block-to-block 3:52:20 basis, because they are motivated to economically, right? The whole game theory, but everyone 3:52:27 assumes that the economically significant nodes are the ones that kind of set the rules of the 3:52:34 chain, and if they do a soft fork, then the miners, we assume, have to follow them. Of course, it's 3:52:42 always better if the actual fork is coordinated by the miners. That's way smoother than any 3:52:49 stupid deadline activation or whatever. That's kind of a rational rule, but the point is, 3:52:56 who are the economically significant nodes? Because it sounds a bit hand-wavy, right? So, 3:53:01 when people say, oh, well, the economically significant nodes matter, who are these? 3:53:06 These are the centralized exchanges, basically, or what are we talking about? 3:53:14 Well, I think it has no clear definition. It's not a crystal clear thing. I think, probably, 3:53:20 it's ironic, the exchanges went through a long period where they were not relevant, 3:53:26 but now they're some of the most relevant people. Anyway, like big exchange, big payment 3:53:32 process or someone with a lot of coin, maybe. I don't know. I don't think it has a clear definition. 3:53:39 Yeah, I also think it's not clear, but to give some examples of how that, I don't know, 3:53:44 like how you can define that, you really can't define it, but if you had to, 3:53:48 if I had like 1,000 coins and maybe Paul had 10,000 coins and there was a split on the main 3:53:54 chain, if you value Paul's coins, you would value whatever node software he's running, 3:54:01 and then you can say that Paul's node is the economic, it's an economic node because you're 3:54:07 valuing the Bitcoin from that software. So, I think it's very hard to know what people value, 3:54:13 but that's how people are ascribing economic full nodes is which software nodes of Bitcoin 3:54:18 are people valuing over another, if that makes any sense. 3:54:23 You're right. I was just wondering if we are talking about basically Coinbase and 3:54:28 Krokan and Binance when we are talking about- 3:54:30 Yeah, I don't know if it's necessarily specifically like the biggest exchanges, 3:54:34 because we saw in New York agreement where they all signed and that wasn't good enough. 3:54:37 So, I don't know if the exchanges is good enough, but they probably have an effect, 3:54:43 especially if they have coins that people want. 3:54:45 I think maybe a way to phrase the question is to say, if there was a miner activated soft fork, 3:54:52 what coalition could reverse it or prevent it or what would it take to 3:55:00 have a resistance to that miner activated soft fork? 3:55:03 Yeah, I have not even thought about necessarily reversing, but 3:55:13 there is this idea that is thrown around that the economically significant nodes 3:55:18 enforce the rules and the miners have to adopt if they want to, 3:55:21 you know, sell their coins that they are mining, basically. 3:55:25 And probably we can kind of suspect that the exchanges are beholden to their users, 3:55:31 like a large exchange can't just decide independently of everyone that they are 3:55:40 only going to honor, you know, Bitcoin withdrawals on a chain that the users generally don't want, 3:55:49 because that would probably put them out of business. 3:55:52 So, there is something like that going on. 3:55:55 I'm just wondering if, like really, we are just talking about basically a loose 3:56:00 federation of the largest exchanges at times like this and probably neither the users nor 3:56:07 the miners would really, you know, want to go against that, unless they have a very, 3:56:13 very good reason. 3:56:14 So, I can imagine scenarios where the users would say, fuck this, although I'm not sure 3:56:19 if they can actually do that. 3:56:21 Like, so the ratio of the custodially held coins and self-custodied coins becomes pretty 3:56:28 important at times like that. 3:56:30 And also, again, if the economically significant nodes can influence how the hashrate is deployed, 3:56:37 then basically any fork that the users might actually prefer might actually become non-viable 3:56:45 under proof-of-work. 3:56:46 We have all sorts of problems like that. 3:56:49 So, it's not really a clear picture and that's bothering me, because people are throwing 3:56:52 it around like it's an absolute alternative. 3:56:55 End of the debate statement and I don't even know what they are talking about, really. 3:57:04 We have someone who has a hand up for a while. 3:57:08 Hey, thanks for having me. 3:57:09 I was just curious, are we actually utilizing drivechains and sidechains now? 3:57:13 And is this a bull case for ordinals? 3:57:15 And is this layer 2, like better than stacks? 3:57:17 Because stack sucks. 3:57:20 Oh, it's Tandy. 3:57:21 What's up, Tandy? 3:57:22 Welcome to the drivechain. 3:57:24 Yo, Chuck! 3:57:28 I think it's way better than stacks. 3:57:30 Stacks is like the opposite of this in many ways, because stacks has its own token that's 3:57:35 required. 3:57:37 Whereas with this, there is no new token at all. 3:57:40 It's only BTC. 3:57:45 So, this is like an actual layer 2 and not just some Ponzi that claims to be a layer 2. 3:57:50 Right. 3:57:51 Beautiful. 3:57:51 Is this a bull case for ordinals? 3:57:54 Well, I don't know. 3:57:56 It's hard to say. 3:57:58 But maybe. 3:57:59 I mean, it may draw more attention to Bitcoin and it may make... 3:58:02 I just need a firm yes so I can pump my bags. 3:58:04 Yeah. 3:58:09 Can I chime in for a healthy context here? 3:58:14 Tandy, could you give like a 15-second primer to Paul, like where you come from here? 3:58:21 Because otherwise, we could go off the rails. 3:58:25 Let this go off the rails. 3:58:26 Now, I'm Tandy, the ordinal maxi or once ordinal maximalist and soapy booba developer and enjoyer. 3:58:34 I pump my wife's tits on the Bitcoin blockchain and the witness data of UTXO. 3:58:37 And I really like a major bull case for ordinals for the future so I can pump my bags. 3:58:42 Also, I'm a guy who doesn't enjoy stacks because that Ponzi kind of sucks. 3:58:47 I can give you my opinion on how it might or might not affect specifically ordinals and 3:58:52 inscriptions. 3:58:53 If you think drivechains can make the base layer fees a lot more expensive, then you 3:58:59 can value the block space that inscriptions are put on for like much more expensive. 3:59:04 And then you can, I don't know if you want, then you can also say that previous inscriptions 3:59:09 might have a higher value because it costs more to put them on chain. 3:59:13 But you would have to jump through all those steps. 3:59:15 So this is multiple hoops to jump through to pump my early inscription bags. 3:59:19 I'm bullish on it. 3:59:20 Thank you. 3:59:21 Yeah, like it makes the L2 blockchain. 3:59:25 Like it makes it so that the L1 is contrasted favorably with L2. 3:59:30 They say, well, there's lots of L2s, but there's only one L1 and there's only one whatever. 3:59:36 There's only one L1 Bitcoin. 3:59:39 Mr. Tendi, I think as you look into it, you'll find drivechain to be the pump technology 3:59:44 to end all other pump technologies. 3:59:48 The pumpanomics behind drivechain are so incredible. 3:59:51 It's almost like it took me. 3:59:54 You already sold me on pump technologies. 3:59:56 You don't even have to go any further. 3:59:57 Pumping technology is all I needed to hear. 3:59:59 You're going to pump my bags with this. 4:00:00 I'm so fucking bullish. 4:00:01 Thank you. 4:00:08 Also, I forgot Minnesota was a state. 4:00:11 Charlie, did you know that? 4:00:13 I did. Welcome to the stage, Tendi. I'm not in charge. I just happen to be here. I'm glad you're here to bring a different personality to the conversation. 4:00:24 I also like listening about the drivechain tech. And I've been kind of like listening in on alternative layer twos because Stacks is like dead and that Ponzi is kind of washed out. 4:00:35 That's why I'm here, too. I just happen to be up as a speaker just because I got here early. I know Paul likes to try to have more of like a guided, just open discussion. 4:00:49 But I mean, yeah, I don't really have a whole lot to say about drivechain. I just have more questions. And but I do like this idea that it drives more value accrual to Bitcoin. 4:01:05 I would think that you, Tendi, probably speak the language of most of the crypto market participants, much more so than the eggheads and the neckbeards and the autists and the basement dwellers and such. 4:01:26 Obviously, the key to the success of all of it, and people like to think that they're high and mighty and self-righteous because they hold Bitcoin. 4:01:36 Are you talking about Shinobi now? 4:01:41 I'm talking about many people. He's not even the worst of it. I'm talking about people who seem like they make it seem like it's sacrilegious in the literal sense of the term to discuss strategies for Bitcoin price appreciation. 4:01:57 And that somehow they're like members of this like anointed class with their own priesthood that's, you know, quote unquote, in it for the revolution. 4:02:11 Meanwhile, if you talk about price, you know, in any sort of boundary that they deem to be unseemly, then you're just a moon boy or whatever terms they use. 4:02:26 But of course, you know, some of the anointed ones that are the people that, you know, that they are willing to allow to talk about them, you know, they'll listen to like sailors price talk, and I'm sure they were all on top of stock to flow. 4:02:46 But, you know, the what seems like a very plausible explanation of how drivechain could pump Bitcoin in a very meaningful way over the long term, then that's goes against the dogma. 4:02:59 So right now it won't for long. I do think you're going to have a capitulation wave after capitulation wave, probably a nice wave before activation and then a wave or two after activation. 4:03:12 But, you know, a lot of the Bitcoin people, it's like there's this very self-righteous element to it. That is just it's it's there's a lot of cringe in the crypto world, but I think it's the cringiest of it all because it's like just so I don't know. 4:03:32 So like my favorite thing is I asked them how a commercialized quantum computing is going to affect SHA-256 and its inevitable breaking of SHA-256 encryption. 4:03:44 Did it just sends them into this fucking tirade of like, oh, my God, we're here already. Commercialized quantum computing is going to be the end. No, it's not. And in our lifetime, probably not. 4:03:56 OK, yeah, that's that's fun. 4:04:01 How do you guys feel about that commercialized quantum computing eventually breaking SHA-256 encryption? 4:04:07 Well, I don't think it's SHA-256 is a hash. So I think it may break ECDSA. 4:04:15 I think we I don't know. I actually heard a lot of people say that that would like that was long, really far away. 4:04:22 And then the qubits that people claimed have gone up and up and up. And now someone claims to have like a 200 qubit thing. 4:04:31 But so, yeah, I don't know. That's, of course, a very specialized field of computer engineering. 4:04:37 But it does seem like they're making a lot of progress. And but there are, as everyone, I think probably everyone knows, you can switch out the signature algorithm for one that is immune to quantum computing. 4:04:51 So that seems to be what everyone will do when the time comes. I mean, how could you not do that? 4:04:57 We can always swap our back to Solana, right? 4:05:00 It's not so easy to switch out to quantum resistant. As far as I know, they are all huge compared to the signatures we have right now. 4:05:09 Let's say current signatures are around 60, 80 bytes and and it would be 8 kilobytes to have Lamport signatures. 4:05:17 So that's a totally different kind of Bitcoin. And also, we can't really do anything about, you know, old UTXOs that are low. 4:05:27 We pay to pubkey like the Satoshi Trove and stuff like that, unless Satoshi shows up in time and moves his coins. 4:05:33 Then, you know, that that is going to hit the market suddenly, maybe one day when the quantum threat becomes legitimate. 4:05:43 There's also a possibility that like there will be social consensus to fork out those coins. 4:05:51 Interesting, because right now, if you ask Bitcoiners, they are going to be foaming at the mouth and saying there is no way we will ever violate anything. 4:06:00 But there is a need for like a 21, I think it's 2138 or I could be wrong, maybe 2038. There's some sort of need for a bug fix anyway. 4:06:11 So maybe in like a super long term one. Paul probably knows the details. 4:06:16 That's the difference. A bug fix and messing with people's property rights are two entirely different things. 4:06:23 So that's not the same. I think hardcore Bitcoin maximalists will react rather violently if you suggest that we fork out or evade people's coins. 4:06:35 The whole thing that BSV has going on with the confiscation that would literally send people up the wall if anyone suggested for Bitcoin. 4:06:43 So it's only one step away from that to fork out certain UTXOs and make them unspendable. 4:06:51 If they are not like very, very, very reasonably and almost probably absolutely unspendable because they have been created as such, that would maybe be a different situation. 4:07:03 But as far as we know, Satoshi's UTXOs are perfectly fine. 4:07:09 And so I see a bit of a potential civil war if anyone actually suggests. 4:07:16 But maybe the situation changes when in the future people realize what it would do to Bitcoin's valuation and their bags if those coins, 1 million something coins actually hit the market suddenly when mining revenue is like below 1 BTC. 4:07:33 So that maybe then you get different answers. 4:07:38 We had a space a few weeks back and Portland talked about this idea where paid a public key where it was like previous transactions where the Satoshi coins are just paid a public key not to the hash of the key. 4:07:55 Those would be like the lowest hanging fruit. 4:07:57 And then if somebody had like a quantum to be able to crack it, you would think that they would just try to crack one at a time or it would take them time to crack one. 4:08:08 Probably it wouldn't be the same exact amount of time that it would take to crack all of them. 4:08:12 So when they crack one, either they try to spend one or they could just secretly wait and crack them all and try to spend them all. 4:08:18 And then there's two scenarios. One scenario is either Bitcoiners just take the hit and whatever it is, keep it to very binary, true or false. 4:08:28 And if it's true, let's accept it no matter what. Or most likely human incentive is just going to want to fork it out. 4:08:36 Yeah, the funny thing is we wouldn't know. 4:08:38 So it would actually make sense from Satoshi if he waited until the quantum thread becomes legitimate and then he starts spending his UTXOs from back to forward one by one, like every week one or something like that. 4:08:58 We wouldn't even know if it's a quantum or if it's actually... 4:09:01 We wouldn't possibly know, but maybe, just maybe people might actually be calmed down by the rate that this happens and they might actually take it more chill and less panicky 4:09:13 than if like thousands or ten thousands of coins moving at once and this happens frequently and stuff like that. 4:09:21 So it all depends. A lot of assumptions can go into it, but basically if an adversary, if a quantum adversary actually wants to destroy Bitcoin for whatever reason, 4:09:33 then this is one. So he can actually on purpose try to crash the market instead of trying to maximize his revenue. 4:09:44 And again, like a quantum miner could actually lurp a Satoshi and tell everyone that chill out people, I'm just going to withdraw a little bit of coin at a time and I'm not trying to crash the market. 4:09:55 A quantum adversary would be able to sign a Satoshi. 4:09:59 I want to pivot to another topic that came up before Paul was in the space where I was thinking of the point of view from the article that I read recently 4:10:15 was about if their drivechains are going to be successful and there's going to be a huge demand for them. 4:10:21 And if we have like Facebook having their own drivechain and Twitter having their own drivechain, would they have an incentive to have at least 10% hash rate or to at least rent 10% hash rate to make sure no other competitor drivechain gets included? 4:10:37 Because you need 90% to agree. And if that's a good thing, if we're incentivizing bigger conglomerates to have hash rate just to make sure like their competitors don't get a drivechain slot. 4:10:49 Well, isn't that an arms race that we want to have happen? In a way we're in the early stages of right now with Oman and Abu Dhabi and such. 4:11:00 Yeah, that's the way I saw it because in the article, it seemed like it was a negative, but I didn't really come to that conclusion right away. 4:11:08 It seems like it's actually a positive thing to incentivize people to have hash rate. 4:11:13 If the large institutions on earth are doing Bitcoin mining, I would say that's a massive win. 4:11:18 That's how I was looking at it too. So I was like curious, why is he framing it from a negative? 4:11:25 There's this idea that permeates throughout the Bitcoin culture that mining is something that you need to be able to do from your basement or in Sub-Saharan Africa in wartime conditions. 4:11:38 And we have one CPU, one vote, and it's just nothing like that as I'm sure many people know, Mr. CBS speaker. 4:11:50 I think they don't want miners to have hash rate for any other reason than just doing regular transactions. 4:11:58 If you have any other reason to have hash rate, they don't like that. 4:12:01 I think another perspective that you can look at this is you generally probably don't want people to be able to entrench their market position and play these games. 4:12:12 Usually in the traditional world, I played with lobbying and buying politicians and regulators. 4:12:18 That's kind of how businesses entrench their position. 4:12:22 I think we could come up with examples from even Coinbase. 4:12:28 They usually break the laws, do shady shit, and then when they are in a winning position, they try to pull up the ladder behind them. 4:12:38 That's pretty widespread in the traditional world, but it's actually not a good thing to any free market type of system. 4:12:46 You probably generally want good ideas and good systems to be adoptable. 4:12:53 Well, Bitcoin can't protect itself. 4:12:55 If Bitcoin can't survive in that environment, then it just cannot survive in the real world and can only survive on paper. 4:13:03 That's not what I said. 4:13:04 I said it's bad for the users if this starts. 4:13:08 There is another chain coming in because they can give you more value. 4:13:12 They believe they can give you more value and someone can just stop them from coming in to preserve their position because they would take a haircut on the revenue. 4:13:23 That's probably not good for you. 4:13:25 It's not about Bitcoin surviving. 4:13:27 That's not what I'm talking about. 4:13:29 What is good for the people and why we don't really want monopolies? 4:13:33 In this situation, would there at least be some incentive somewhere for a chain to rival Bitcoin then, one that actually corrects for those mistakes and focuses on decentralization or focuses on the user? 4:13:50 I have a question related to that. 4:13:52 Do you think that there's a scenario where Bitcoin continues to accrue value and is an objective success but perhaps remains somewhat niche at the same time? 4:14:12 I guess so. 4:14:14 That's pretty plausible to me. 4:14:16 Right now as Bitcoin is, my baseline assumption is that it will remain very niche. 4:14:22 That's what I assume from how things are and how things are going. 4:14:31 I'm going to hop off in a few minutes. 4:14:33 I just want to say thanks everybody. 4:14:36 Yeah, me too. 4:14:38 Thanks for bringing me up here. 4:14:41 I didn't really contribute a whole lot but I enjoyed listening to the conversation. 4:14:44 Peace, y'all. 4:14:46 Thank you. 4:14:47 Top tier talent. 4:14:51 Maybe we should end it soon. 4:14:53 We have Fuzzy Bear as our speaker so maybe they can speak. 4:14:59 Thanks, Paul. 4:15:00 Hey, this might be something gone over a lot so forgive me if this is old hat. 4:15:05 I've been seeing a lot more BIP300, BIP301 stuff coming out on Twitter. 4:15:10 You've been retweeting a lot. 4:15:12 I just didn't know if that meant you have more time on your hands or if there's been some sort of shift in sentiment or publicity or demand or something. 4:15:20 Is the project accelerating or is there just people sharing more content about this? 4:15:27 It's probably that but it's probably also Luke's pull request. 4:15:31 He did a draft pull request for how BIP300 might be merged into the latest version of Bitcoin Core. 4:15:40 So I think that makes it much more real. 4:15:45 Paul, can you point me to this? 4:15:46 Sorry, which pull request? 4:15:54 Did you die? 4:15:55 Can you hear me? 4:15:57 I think if you have your permissions open or whatever, I can DM you if you'd like. 4:16:03 I don't remember the number but if you go to github.com slash Bitcoin slash Bitcoin, I'll try to look it up too. 4:16:09 Or you can just get it from Austin. 4:16:24 It's actually Paul's pinned tweet on his profile. 4:16:28 Luke Jr. merged last week, BIP300 various improvements, is that right? 4:16:32 Yes. 4:16:33 Thanks. 4:16:35 Also, I think a big reason for the kind of acceleration in BIP300 discussion is there's some of it on the back end from people associated with mining and how things can go viral. 4:16:59 But the reality is the market is kind of stagnant. 4:17:04 And during this last cycle, an insane, unbelievable amount of capital has been invested in the mining ecosystem. 4:17:12 And I think more and more mining participants, employees, people in management, at the pool level, at the miner level, I can say that on the back end of things, it's definitely getting a lot more discussed. 4:17:30 Because it's perhaps a way to, you know, sure up Bitcoin fee revenue and kind of drink the milkshake from these shit coins. 4:17:44 If you look at cryptofees.info, I think it is, you'll see that it's a really telling chart. 4:17:51 I think one of the most telling charts in the industry. 4:17:54 And it's that Ethereum every day for a long time now, years, outperforms Bitcoin in terms of fee revenue by on average like 10x. 4:18:06 And at certain points during the peak of the bull market, it was averaging 80x. 4:18:13 I think the record day was over 100x. 4:18:18 So this is, you know, we're getting our ass kicked in that metric. 4:18:24 I think another thing that kind of helped it be more talked about more recently could have been the ordinals and inscriptions. 4:18:30 Where people used to, a lot of people might have looked at Bitcoin as like this pet rock boomer coin. 4:18:37 And now they see that Bitcoin can potentially do things other than just that. 4:18:42 And it opened up discussion for Bitcoin potentially doing more things than what they thought of just being, you know, like a pet rock. 4:18:50 I think the timing from that can also show some kind of correlation because like after ordinals and inscriptions, you can see definitely a lot more discussion around drivechain after that. 4:19:01 And of course, Paul's been putting his pedal to the floor and busting his ass really hard on getting the word out there. 4:19:12 Yeah, I just want to add one tiny little thing I would really like. 4:19:24 If the debate and the conversation was like more on the technicals and less, you know, conspiratorial and stuff like that. 4:19:35 But like I said, everyone contributes on the level that they can, I guess. 4:19:47 I think we should give anyone who really wants to speak. 4:19:52 Like last opportunity to come up on stage. 4:19:57 Then we can end the space. 4:20:06 Have a good weekend, guys. 4:20:10 Thanks. 4:20:15 Okay, great. I guess no one else wants to say anything. So space over until next week. 4:20:23 By the way, next week, I think we're going to be having Pete Rizzo join us. 4:20:29 So, you know, he's the one of the most interesting people when it comes to analyzing Bitcoin culture and history. 4:20:37 And then he kind of thinks about the future track of Bitcoin from a very different perspective than a lot of people. 4:20:44 And I've been speaking to him a lot lately, and I think he's going to have a really I think he's going to be very interesting to have a discussion with. 4:20:53 That's September 1st. 4:20:59 Okay, cool. Thanks, everyone.
