0:01 Okay, hello everyone. I just started the space and I didn't put any music, which of 0:07 course people always should do. But you know, we'll ramp it up, I'm sure. Okay, now 0:16 I'm torn between waiting for more people to join and just getting right into it. 0:21 I will make some of the co-hosts in case my phone crashes, which it... I don't know, 0:28 sometimes during the space it often does. We'll add some. We'll add... why don't we 0:40 add Detroit as a co-host, if we can. Just because that way if my phone crashes it 0:48 will not nuke the space. Okay, now since we're recording everything I'll just 0:59 sort of start. And last week we had a great space. We didn't have any haters 1:07 join this week. I personally invited Mr. Hoddle and Sergio, Damon Lerner. Now 1:13 Sergio wrote this piece apparently, but I've got to tell you, you know, and I know 1:18 how this sounds, but you gotta just bear with me on this one. Which is, you know, 1:22 I've been reading people critique me and my ideas and what I've been doing, you 1:28 know, for years and years. Like we're talking like 10 years. And you know, like 1:34 at this point, like so many times, so many times, you know, people haven't even 1:40 looked into what I've been doing at all. And I just don't see why I should put 1:45 more than two hours per week, which is these two hours. You got two hours, but 1:50 if no one wants to come up and ask anything, then I'll read Sergio's post 1:57 live on the space and I'll react to it. You know, we'll do it live. 2:03 Hashtag Bill O'Reilly dot gif. So, but yeah, some other random things. Okay, Mr. 2:11 Hoddle, he was saying, you know, this and that, which is fine. There was a bit back 2:16 when we were doing the previous spaces, he joined once and then he rattled off 2:20 like seven or eight things. I remember specifically I had to grab a pen and a 2:23 piece of paper because he was saying so many things. And then we went down the 2:26 list and then he was like, oh yeah, you know, you were right, Paul. I was wrong. At 2:31 least a few times. So we can go back to the recording because human memory, you 2:36 know, human memory is very unreliable. But we can go back to the recording. 2:39 Unfortunately, the recording is also unreliable because the recording is also 2:46 unreliable because sometimes Twitter just deletes them for some reason. But 2:53 we're going to fix that. We're going to make copies of all of these so that 2:56 doesn't happen. But Mr. Hoddle was saying like that. Okay, well, he was 3:04 saying like the point of BIP300 is to give miners control of Bitcoin. And I was 3:08 like, oh, that's not really true. I think that's a misunderstanding of this 3:14 whole L2, the relationship of 51% hashrate to L2. And I presented this at 3:22 Opnext. But it goes like this. If 51% hates your L2, the L2 is dead. Okay. And 3:31 so your L2 has to be friendly with the 51% hashrate. And that's why merge 3:37 mining is the way to go. And I think this has been misinterpreted as saying 3:42 like, you know, because it's true that Drivechain is like a mining based L2. 3:48 But it's not true that. Okay, listen, we have a chat thing. Okay. So it's not 3:58 true that this is like, like, I guess it is partially true that is planned out by 4:03 me in the sense that every good idea is planned out by me that I you know, 4:07 everyone, I wake up in the morning, I only want to do good ideas. So we can go 4:14 into more details on that, if anyone cares. But then he was also saying that 4:19 this whole project is a scam on VCs. I've told him many times, this isn't how I 4:24 planned things to go. But it just happens to be the case that we've never really 4:30 taken any money from VCs, we have one or two people who are like, they run their 4:34 own VC fund, and they kind of invest as an individual. But mostly, this is like 4:39 oh, geez, very reputable people, and their friends who have invested. And so 4:45 not that that particularly matters very much. But I think it's very telling that 4:49 he's just going to say this line about VCs. And there's literally no VCs. And 4:55 we've told him many times, but so does any of that matter? I don't know. We'll 5:00 Sergio show up, will Mr. Hoddle show up? Probably not. There's plenty of other 5:05 things, I should really start taking a list of like all the stuff that happens 5:09 through the week. Unless someone wants to raise their hand and come up and ask, or 5:15 just be a hater. That's encouraged, I guess. But another thing that happened 5:23 this week was people are finally realizing that RGB is like a bad idea. So 5:27 the idea behind RGB is like client signed validation. But what it means in 5:33 practice is that absolutely no objective proof exists that your asset is real. And 5:44 what that means is that there's no like blockchain, there's no like block 5:46 explorer, where you can say, Oh, here's my transaction, or here's my whatever. So 5:51 it's so client side that it just disappears off the earth. And since 5:54 these are already digital assets, there's no like physical asset. So it's 5:59 just kind of like ends up being just a little, you know, thing that you just 6:03 enjoy with your friends. Basically, it's just open timestamps. And it's very hard 6:08 for you to prove something to someone else unless they run a whole scheme, a 6:13 whole set of nodes and relay nodes and blockchain with that specific asset. And 6:18 in particular, that is an issue because, like, okay, one other side effect of that 6:24 is that if you want to upgrade the whole thing, you can't like upgrade it 6:26 with a soft fork, you have to, you basically can't. This is the same 6:30 problem with zk-SNARKs, is that all the blockchain based things, they're kind of 6:34 loose, and they let you just upgrade by the soft fork, but zk-SNARK, RGB, all 6:41 this other stuff does not. So yeah, we have various. We have various critics, a 6:49 lot of this stuff I pointed out, like six or seven years ago. Another thing 6:53 that happened was Robin Linus was tweeting about, well, what's so bad about 6:58 CUSF? And then I don't think CUSF, the Core Untouched Soft Fork. I don't think anyone 7:03 gave him any serious answer. Maybe they did. And I didn't see them. But that's 7:08 because there is nothing wrong with CUSF. It's actually the perfect solution to 7:12 the problem that the Bitcoin Core developers don't want to take 7:14 responsibility for soft forks. The problem is really just that we live in a 7:18 world where very few people understand even the basics. And I don't even think 7:22 the Bitcoin Core developers understand like, what they're doing these days, let 7:26 alone the miners, let alone most normal people. So even like back in the day, you 7:31 had like, all kinds of people going up on stage and saying that Taproot is like a 7:37 huge smart contract upgrade for Bitcoin. This was this was said on on stages, with 7:43 cameras rolling and so yeah, so those are some of my thoughts of the week. And so 7:50 yeah, if anyone would like to come up and, and raise their hand and either 7:55 hate or, or love, I suppose, or just comment or just ask a question. Or just 8:06 do another do something else that you might do. But yeah, I'm gonna start like 8:13 to like take notes throughout the week, I'm gonna turn this into like a tiny 8:15 Bitcoin uncensored. And I'm just gonna take notes on like, okay, we got some 8:20 people want to come up. Justin and Iron, I think they were both here last week. 8:26 Added them. 8:30 Hey, Paul, how you doing? 8:31 I'm doing well. Thank you. 8:33 Hey, I had a question. Could you elaborate a little bit on the the way 8:39 Bitcoin miners operate today, and your view that if nothing changes, how there's 8:47 at least my understanding from what you're proposing, there's no incentive 8:50 for them to be rewarded with the way the system is run now. And what you're 8:57 proposing with Drivechain and the way that incentives will will work with the 9:02 new eCash hard fork is that they can actually be, you know, compensated, 9:06 rewarded for their their work. And you know, if that change doesn't take place, 9:12 what happens to Bitcoin as we know it today, with the way the mining fees work 9:16 in the way miners are compensated? 9:19 Okay, this is like a few different issues. Really good question. This is a 9:22 good few different issues rolled up into one though, which is that one of the 9:25 issues is the security budget. And then the other issue is like, why are we not 9:31 doing soft forks right now? So I'll get into the second one more because fewer 9:38 people are talking about the second one, which is like, why don't you know, why 9:41 can't miners just upgrade via soft fork? Or why don't they want to? Or what 9:46 exactly is going on with that? And this is really hard to unpack. Honestly, I 9:51 think very few people understand it. And you really kind of have to take out a 9:54 piece of paper and start like writing it down. So like, first of all, when we 9:57 people say miners, they mean a couple different things. So there's the mining 10:00 pools, then there's the individual hashers, the people who actually do the 10:06 SHA-256 mining. So a lot of the individual hashers, they're not like 10:13 specialists in Bitcoin, and they don't even consider themselves to be like 10:16 Bitcoiners per se. They are just people who they have the data center, they have 10:21 the cheap electricity, they have access to cheap ASIC somehow. Sometimes in the 10:27 case of China, they have like an extra advantage because for a while it was 10:31 difficult to like get money out of China. So back in like 2016 or so, people would 10:36 mine Bitcoin at a loss, just because Bitcoin could leave the Chinese 10:42 mainland, but other forms of capital money could not. So we had that going on. 10:50 So those people are primarily competing against other hashers. And they are 10:57 trying to get the cheapest electricity and the best cooling. And they're not 11:03 necessarily concerned because of the way the difficulty adjusts. They're not 11:07 even necessarily concerned with what's best for Bitcoin. Of course, they are to 11:11 some extent, because if Bitcoin goes to zero, their whole investment in ASIC 11:15 chips will be worthless. Although now these days, even that is not a very big 11:22 guardrail or whatever you want to call it, because now a lot of them can pivot 11:24 to AI. So now a lot of them, you know, like be careful what you wish for. We 11:29 get a lot of decentralization. But now as a result of this, this out that they 11:34 have, they're not as loyal to the Bitcoin project. So you can see already 11:37 this answer is sprawling into like lots of different territory. Because we 11:41 already said security budget versus why, you know, minor governance. And now even 11:48 minor governance, you have hashers and pools. Now the hashers mostly compete 11:52 against each other. And because the difficulty adjusts, even if they 11:55 increase the price of Bitcoin, after two weeks, or after enough difficulty 12:00 adjustments, it will cancel out. And what they really need is a sustainable edge 12:05 against their rival hashers. So you can see that it's not exactly at the top of 12:09 their mind, if you have, if you have like 1 millionth of 1% of the network cash 12:15 rate, you don't actually care that much, you know, about whether or not we 12:19 activate, you know, OP_CTV, or whatever OP_CAT or something. Okay, so then we 12:24 can turn to the pools, the pools are kind of in a weirdly similar situation. 12:28 On one hand, they are specialists, and they do construct the block. So they the 12:34 entire business model of the pool is basically, we run software. And, and we 12:41 have a brand and we collect the fee. So it's not that difficult to run the pool. 12:47 From a just nuts and bolts perspective, you know what I mean? It's not like 12:50 SpaceX, where you have to build like a giant hanger, and you have to get all 12:54 this fuel, and you have to build like a giant tower, and you got to like do 12:58 engineering and stuff. The mining pool is just like a server. It's just it's just 13:03 the name, it's just Luxor, but it's also a brand. But the mining pools are mostly 13:08 concerned with, hey, how do we get more people to join our pool? And leave like, 13:13 you know, foundry and join Luxor? Or how do we get more people to join? Whatever 13:17 it is, you know, and pool. And they do their firmware discounts and stuff like 13:22 that. So again, these people, even though they are specialists, and even though 13:27 they should be more responsible, and they have fewer outs, because if the pool 13:31 brand is dead, you can't really, you know, sell all that stuff or reuse it. So 13:37 it's a slightly different situation. But mostly they care about, how do I get 13:42 people to join my pool and leave their rival pools? And so again, they're not as 13:51 interested in what's best for Bitcoin per se. They still should be because they 13:56 get a percentage based fee of what the miners get. And so they still should be. 14:00 But for a variety of reasons, the miners been trained to not care as much about 14:08 like having an opinion. So during the last block size war, there was this whole 14:14 like do miners control Bitcoin, like cultural war. And the miners did a bunch 14:18 of very foolish things. I thought like they did Cyclo 2x. And they did all this 14:22 weird stuff that they that was very hamfisted. They could have done small 14:27 variations of those things. And then they would have done better. But instead, 14:34 they did this weird other stuff that got labeled an attack. Then they blockade 14:37 they blockaded SegWit for like a long time, like a year. Then, you know, they 14:43 were kind of cast out as the enemies. This was a long, long time ago, but a lot 14:46 of people still like, care about this. It's cultural inertia still there. So 14:52 that I think that's a more interesting question is like why they won't just 14:56 save us even when I was in people can watch when I was in Vegas recently, I was 15:00 on the security budget panel. And Nick, the CEO of Luxor, he was on the panel 15:06 with with the rest of us. And I made this joke that people laughed at about 15:11 we'll have Nick like you are a pool like scallop your other pool friends call 15:15 and pool. And you know, you could all just stop doing this. Stop doing this to 15:19 you guys are doing it to yourselves, you know, like this, you could just stop at 15:22 any time. And, you know, he kind of had like a little like, embarrassed smile on 15:29 his face, like, you know, because I was kind of right about that. But they've 15:32 been just trained to just not have an opinion. They care a lot about like, Oh, 15:36 what are other pools doing? So it's, but I think the most important thing to say 15:41 is that I don't really know why it's so screwed up. But I do know that it is 15:44 because I walked up front and said, security budget is a little easier to 15:47 explain. I'll try to make it a little shorter. But the security budget is how 15:51 much money we pay to the miners. So that's the total amount of transaction 15:57 fees paid. This is also how much money that miners get in revenue, it's the same 16:01 quantity of money, like if it's $13, it's $13 for them all. And then this is in 16:06 equilibrium. This is how much money the miners spend on mining because they get 16:10 13 coming in. If you can spend 12 and get 13, then you would and the difficulty 16:16 adjusts, it increases the cost. So it's like buying a $100 bill for $90. It's 16:22 like auctioning off a briefcase with a million dollars in cash. What's the bid 16:26 the bidding is going to stop at like, you know, like $900,999 basically. It 16:33 depends on where the briefcase is from. So these are the this is the situation 16:39 in mining. And we want to live in a world where the miners collect a lot of 16:45 money, because if the miners collect a huge amount of money, they will be loyal 16:49 to the Bitcoin users to the Bitcoin network into the node runners. But if 16:53 they don't collect a lot of money, then a lot of this proof of work stuff is just 16:58 kind of a big theater. And it doesn't really do anything. And so it's 17:02 pointless to have why even have proof if the entire security budget is 10 17:06 cents per year, and it costs 10 cents to rewrite a year's worth of blocks. This 17:13 is an extreme case, this is very unlikely. But hopefully you can tell 17:18 like, well, if that's the case, I mean, we kind of might as well not even have 17:21 the proof of work. And if we don't have the proof of work, then you know, what 17:25 difference does it make if we have the blocks? What difference does it make if 17:28 we have anything? Okay, now we have Wicked has raised the hand. Hello. 17:34 Hey, you know, it might not be that unlikely that you're able to reorg the 17:38 entire year's worth of blocks with 10 cents on the eCash fork. Okay, but 17:47 depends on the security budget. Yeah, it depends on the one. Another reason why 17:51 security budget is important is because it gives you a clue as to how much market 17:57 demand is there to actually use the network to transact. So it's the clue 18:01 into whether or not you have real users and real demand. So I had a question. So 18:06 I had a real question. So you had said previously that the plan was to drop the 18:13 difficulty down to one. Is that still the plan? 18:17 I have to say like, I was not really, it can't actually go to one, first of all, 18:23 but what I really meant was not that. So I meant like, basically, the idea is 18:29 because you don't want to like deal with the whole like, there's like a CPU era, 18:32 and then it's like a GPU era, and then it's like an ASIC era. What I mean is, 18:35 if you have like, 12 block erupters, you could find, you could find 10 minute 18:41 blocks, like, I mean, like, basically very, very low, I don't, I didn't 18:44 literally mean one, but that would kind of not even matter. It would just be a 18:47 really bizarre first couple of weeks, basically. Yeah, because it would go up 18:52 by four, like several times in a row, because you can find 2016 blocks in like, 18:56 you know, half a second. 18:57 Yeah, exactly. Yeah, I did the math. And I was just I was looking. If you had one 19:02 bit X, if you had one bit X at difficulty one, it would take five days for the 19:08 difficulty to stabilize around 70k. And that would be after 17,000 blocks. So 19:16 that's one, that's just with one bit X. And then, you know, if you have like 100, 19:19 then the difficulty stabilizes at about 7 million in nine days after 25,000 19:24 blocks. 19:25 I might end up using if you actually have good numbers on it, I just kind of 19:29 never bothered to, to do something like that. 19:32 But you can probably you can just ask Chad Chibity, and he'll spit out a pretty 19:37 accurate table. And then you can ask it to give you the code to if you want to 19:41 actually run the numbers yourself. 19:43 Yeah, this AI era is pretty cool. Overall, although there are weird parts 19:48 about it. But yeah, that's what I want. I mean, you want to check the underlying 19:53 code. But yeah, 19:55 trying to convey the idea that we were like, like out of like, 20:01 because you can see like, even if you it doesn't matter if you have it like on a log scale or an absolute scale, like it will be from the perspective of the current 20:10 army of shots of the six a six, you know, it'll be like, basically, like, falling all the way down, you know, like, but I didn't really mean like, as you are perfectly aware, there's no reason to go like, even further below the like bit X level or something. 20:29 So yeah, I think like, probably like, I think, yeah, and block eruptor is like a word from like an earlier time. There used to be these block eruptors that were there were kind of like fun little novelties. But today, the bid X is kind of like the novelty thing. So I think you're right. It's probably we're going with something like the 10 bit X level is probably like what it would be about a million, a million difficulty, which is a nice round number. 20:52 So yeah, thank you for that clarification. Sometimes, you know, I'm really torn between when you try to write something, you're torn between like, okay, I can use one sentence and get like 92% of the way there. Or I could like go on and on for like three paragraphs, and then it would be like, much more accurate, but it would be like, really long. And then yeah, I'm kind of like torn by that sometimes. So every now and then I just 21:19 say, Well, you know what, we, I got to just go with like the one sentence thing. Because the people who are really smart, like I think anyone who really, really, really, like, knows their stuff, as you clearly do, they would be like, Okay, why would he like set it into like the CPU difficulty, like, era like that would, there's no reason to do that. So 21:45 Well, I was thinking, I was thinking if you if you were doing that on purpose, like you had purposefully said, you're going to set it to one and thought about it. I was thinking in terms of just the memetics of the launch, it would be very crazy for like two weeks. And probably the only thing people are talking about is just how quickly blocks are coming in and getting reorg and how chaotic it is. 22:12 And of course, they're in those first two weeks, no one would be able to transact. There'd be no, 22:19 like an exchange would say, like, how many confirmations are needed, and they would be like, there would be 1000. Yeah, exactly. 22:26 You know, again, like, 22:28 here's the thing is to be kind of crazy. I think it'd be crazy anyway. So you don't even get that much more crazy. In terms of like human days, right by setting it low, you only get like a couple, like one extra day of craziness. But in return, it's like much many more blocks, many more initial difficulty adjustments. So you don't even really get that. It's not it's not even the marginal craziness is not even that much. 22:56 It's because as you're saying, like, it's like the literally like the first like, one hour, it will just soar up to like a million anyway. 23:06 Yeah, I mean, well, not, it would take well, it depends on obviously depends on who's mining, but obviously, like with a lower difficulty, you're not really going to have like, there's going to be no for any large miner, or person with a, you know, handful of basics, let's say, we'll classify that as a large eCash miner. 23:28 At least initially, there's no incentive for them to build off of other people's blocks. If they're kind of, you know, they have the most hash rate, and it's significantly more than, you know, what would cause 10 minute blocks. 23:42 So let's say you set it at a million, which is the equivalent of 10 bit axes, but then someone comes in with like 10 s 21s. So now they're effectively, you know, coming in with like, billions of difficulty, they have no incentive to build off of the other, you know, pleb bit axe miners, and they're just going to reorg anything like they'll mine for a little while, and then publish and reorg anything that had happened prior. 24:08 Right. So I think you run into this problem, regardless, and you have to kind of game out, you know, who you think the people who are going to be mining it are going to be. And if it's just going to be bit axe miners, and maybe millions good enough, but if you think there's gonna be others, you know, you might want to set it higher. But you don't want to set it too high. So I don't know. I think more probably. 24:28 I think it depends on like, if you can generate a block faster than it would take you to sync to the tip, then you would just stay with private selfish mining. But otherwise, I think you would just say, Well, listen, are there other blocks around, then I have to add them faster, you know, it's like, so if they can mine a block faster than it takes to bring them in, then I would agree to be selfish mining. 24:54 But I think, you know, it exponentially hits. If you're in that scenario, you're finding the blocks very, very quickly. And how long will it take you to find 2016 blocks, if that's the case, so you must be able to find them. 25:07 It's all relative, but you're right. I mean, obviously, the more hash rate you have relative to the initial difficulty, the quicker you're going to then adjust it upwards to, you know, the equilibrium. But I think it always takes, you know, like, no matter what the initial difficulty is set to, unless you're very, very close to it, it's always going to take a number of days to fully adjust. 25:34 There's some, I don't know, I need to do the actual mathematics, but there's some logarithmic, you know, relationship, I think. 25:45 Yeah, it's limited to a factor of four. 25:48 Although I can't remember how many times it's actually, I think it may have never been. 25:55 It only ever hit four once, and it was the very first difficulty after GPU mining took off. And it actually hit four almost exactly. Like, I mean, so, you know, if four had not been the limit, it would have been like 4.0 something. But it hit four, you know, instead, it hit that limit. 26:18 Which I always thought was pretty wild that Satoshi had, you know, set that limit and basically nailed it. And we've never gone... 26:27 Eyeballed the limit. And the limit was basically the real limit. And then the one time it hit, it was because there was this phase change. 26:37 Yeah, and because GPU... I mean, so ASIC was probably a larger phase change long term, but GPU phase change was so intense because there was already so many GPUs out there. So all they had to do was just, you know, point them at hashing, which is why it flipped the switch so crazily and actually hit that limit in one adjustment. 27:00 And then, you know, I think our whole economy is built on AI GPUs tumbling through text. So even that... Okay, anyone else? Anyone else got anything they want to bring up or say? Or, you know, what also is encouraged is if you see a hater, and they don't want to come up here, you can just like, you can come up and say, Oh, this hater said this, you know, what's your reply or whatever. 27:30 But yeah, like, you know what I mean? Like all these years, I've been listening to a lot of haters. And it's like, sometimes you give them way too much time. Okay, we got an Andres. We got an Andres with a hand up. Hello. 27:41 Hi, Paul. Can you hear me alright? 27:48 Well, it's not absolutely the easiest to hear you, but I can still understand you, I think. 27:53 Okay, so my question is, you were just talking about how miners and hazards and pools are pretty indifferent to increasing the total fee revenue. So my question is, isn't that pretty bad news for strike chains, since strike chains relies to some degree on miners caring about keeping every strike chain alive and doing the withdrawals correctly and so on? That's my question. 28:24 Okay, it was not super easy to hear you. But I think you were saying something like, Okay, Paul, if you're right, that miners don't care about their own financial self interest today, like how will that isn't that bad news for a Drivechain or what else will happen as a result? 28:40 Okay, I think it's a kind of a different thing. A lot of things in life are different when they're the status quo. So if you were the first person to propose, so like it might like democracy. And what's another example would be like a double like a financial accounting, like audited financial statements. And I think another example would be like prediction markets, but we're still not through that one. 29:07 So like, let's, we'll take the example of the audit financial statements, where you say, imagine we lived in a world where no one audited the financial statements at all. And then one guy said, Hey, I've got this idea, you know, we will what we're going to do is, we have these really great financial statements, and we're going to hire someone, we're going to hire Deloitte or whatever. And we're going to hire them to audit our statements and publish a report or something. 29:33 Well, that would actually kind of look very suspicious at first. So in a world where no one does it, it would be like, Oh, why are we calling attention to the fact that we might be untrustworthy? And it would be like, you know, because everyone's we live in a world where everyone just pretends like they're honest. So what I'm kind of trying to get at is, well, okay, let me finish my point, which is, in a world where everyone has audited financial statements, it looks, it's the reverse. 30:00 It looks super, super suspicious for you to say, well, here's this thing that we mostly all do. This is the norm. This is the law in many cases, but we're just going to not do it, we're just going to make up our own, you know, whatever numbers, then that would look more suspicious. 30:17 And some of what I was getting at with democracy is that, you know, if you lived in a world where everyone had kings, and you just said, well, you know, we should have this democracy. And instead of a king, we should just vote on and then without all this stuff worked out about parties and like ballots and whatever, primaries and nominations and stuff, it would all like just look really weird, and it would fall very flat, and you'd probably the king would probably just execute you. 30:43 So it wouldn't work. But if you switch it around, and you have a democracy, and so we should have a king, and he should just always be in charge, no matter how old or crazy he is, and then we'll have his children be in charge forever, no matter how bad they are. 30:56 And we'll just do whatever they say, if they just want to kill someone, we'll just do it. So that would not probably work. So that's a long winded answer. But basically, in a world where you have Drivechain, you have most of this revenues coming from the L1 fees, and you have most, you have, you already live in a world that has all these L2s. 31:21 Where this is like, more than half of mining revenues come from the merge mine L2s, which of course I think in the long run, it will be like, you know, much more than 99%, or even 99.999%. 31:35 Maybe all basically all of the fee revenue can come from the L2s, because in the long run, you can take 10 cents out of every transaction, there could be trillion transactions per year, this is gonna be 100s of billions of dollars per year from the L2s, and then maybe the L1 will have like this tiny, tiny little contribution to that. 31:57 So it'd be hundreds of billions from the L2, and then like, maybe 50 million or something or less from the L1. 32:05 In that world, it does look really weird for the people, the miners to just not care. You know, in that world, it becomes more like neglect. 32:13 Can I jump in really quick, because you're actually touching on exactly my question regarding the L2 fees. 32:20 And it's something that I've been trying to understand reading a lot of your web publications, but I still haven't really found an answer as to why would a Drivechain pay all of their fees to the L1 miners? 32:37 Regardless of what fees they're collecting, I just don't understand the economics behind that. So I was hoping maybe, as you're talking about L2 fees, you could touch on that. 32:46 Well, it has to do with merge mining. So previously, the way merge mining were, I changed merge mining into Blind Merged Mining with BIP301. 32:55 But BIP301, there was only one guy who was ever like a big hater of BIP301. And he later changed his mind. And that was, I think, Jay Berg, right? 33:04 But then he said, Oh, no, actually, Paul's right. Or he said, Paul answered my questions or something. He said something back in 2023. 33:11 So most people, and now basically including everyone, most people think that, yeah, my modification to merge mining, to make it Blind Merged Mining is like, basically kosher, or basically not a big deal. 33:26 And basically, it does what it says it does. And so that's not controversial. BIP300, on the other hand, all these people have an opinion about whether or not it's the messiah, savior of Bitcoin, or like the worst thing ever. 33:40 So just to give you that tiny little bit of context, but the original merge mining was like you'd run a Namecoin node. The Namecoin node, this is Altcoin, created by, co-created by Satoshi, which we've been merge mining on the Bitcoin network since 2011, basically continuously. 33:59 And the Namecoin node would build a Namecoin block, but it was such the Namecoin block was allowed to be built in basically a way that it contained a real BTC block header in it. 34:13 So I don't know how accessible this explanation is. But basically, you had to run the Namecoin node, not the BTC node. But if you ran the Namecoin node, it would give you two blocks for the price of one. 34:26 So it was a different full node software. And it had to be able to find the Bitcoin full node software. But it wasn't any additional work thermodynamically. So it didn't have to do any extra stuff. 34:37 Because as soon as you found the Bitcoin header, like the 80 bytes that matched the BTC block, you also found the Namecoin block for free. And that's the old merge mining, where it's the one individual miner who is now you can see in that case, it's, it should be quite obvious. 34:57 Hopefully it makes sense to you. In that case, the miner is running both nodes, they assemble both blocks, they pay all the transaction fees to themselves in Namecoin NMC, and in Bitcoin BTC. So in that case, they get it all. And hopefully that part is pretty clear. 35:15 Yeah, I get the, like the traditional merge mining when you're running both, you know, both both daemons, and you're actually doing work on both networks. But with the blind, I like the idea of it, I just don't understand what the incentive would be for a Drivechain to to, I mean, with the fees that they've collected, and they're, they're now rolling into the, you know, into the hash to put on the L1. 35:45 Why would they, why would they give all the fees? Like, why wouldn't I give half the fees and maybe give half the fees back to the network itself, because the network is still doing their own work. The L1 miners are not doing anything for the drivechain. So you still have to have an incentive for the L2. 36:00 But not quite. But you are right. And I had this old thing, like, I had, like, I think it was called like, F minus C, or maybe something, there was a C in the original Blind Merged Mining post January 2017. You can look it up the original post where I explain it. And I when I was rereading it, I was like, this is terrible explanation. So unfortunately, the way I wrote the original Blind Merged Mining post in 2017 was like this weird kind of like, I don't know, I was just like, 36:30 talking about issues of the day. And it like, it's a really bizarre explanation. But I think the text of BIP301 is a lot clearer, because I deleted all that and just says, this is what happens. This, this, this, this, and it's much shorter. But anyway, okay, so the reason is this. Well, now I'm torn, because I wanted to explain that part about the C, but I'll get back to it later minus C. Okay, I'm gonna just ignore that. I'm gonna explain how it works. Okay. 36:57 So the L2, in order for the L2 block to meet its version of the difficulty requirement. Okay, so I know this is a weird, this is gonna be a weird sentence. But imagine the L2 blockchain. So like, imagine, you know, Thunder or these other L2s, BitNames or whatever, or the zSide, which is the privacy L2. You imagine this is its own blockchain, and it has blocks, and it has nodes, and the nodes are going to 37:27 check each block to make sure that each block follows all the rules. So you can't steal someone else's money. You can't like, you know, if the script interpreter throws false or something, that's not allowed. So these are the L2 blocks. Just ignore the L1 blocks for a minute. And you have these L2 blocks, they come in the L2 software is going to check each of them to make sure that they are right. And one of the things it is going to check is if it meets 37:58 the equivalent of the difficulty requirement, and like the longest chain rule, and like that, that type of thing. And I say the equivalent of because there's no hashing of the block over there, or the only thing there is, is like the Merkle root into the Coinbase transaction on L1. So it's kind of confusing, I know, but it's, but the version of the L2 block, in the L2 world, like in L1 world, you got to, the block has to have an 38:27 enough proof of work, does it have enough zeros, you have to have hashed on it enough times. But that equivalent check over in the L2 world is, basically is the hash of the L2 block in the L1 Coinbase in a very, very specific spot. So there's only one way of getting to that spot. And there's basically like 32 magic bytes. And this is what I call H star. And this is basically the hash of the L2 block. 38:55 And so the question is, if you need the L1 miners have a total monopoly on that, because it's in the L1 Coinbase. So you need them. Without them, you cannot find the L2 block. But the blind part just says, let's separate the node cost out. And basically, it says, and the original language was better, because they had this bribe language, which I really thought was a great language, but I kind of, I don't know, removed it for some reason. But there's the bribe, and then there's the accept the bribe. 39:25 So the bribe is basically someone pays the miners on L1 in an L normal L1 transaction somewhere else in the body of the block, they say, I'll pay you this, this bucket of coins. If you set the 32 bytes, H star to what I want you to set it to. And then the miner just says, Sure, why not? 39:48 And the way BIP301 works is the miners can basically only take one of those bribes. So it becomes like a bidding situation. And then it's like auctioning off a briefcase where you have a million dollars in the briefcase, and then the people just bid until it gets to nine, it could, it could not go to a million dollars. But basically, it would, because as long as 40:06 my question about the bribing, and the you just mentioned something I am a little confused about, you said only one bribe per block, is that one per Drivechain? Or is that for the entire? 40:19 per L1 block per Drivechain also, so there's like, it could be 256 or something. 40:25 Correct. So what I'm saying is that are the Drivechains competing with each other? 40:30 No, only the block within its category. So the there's like, it breaks the L1 coinbase into like a special structure. And then there's like, here's where all the Blind Merged Mining parts are. And then here's like slot one, slot two, slot three, slot four, slot five. So like zSide would be like in slot five or something. And it's only competing with the candidate blocks. 40:54 Okay, so every, every, every all 256 Drivechains can be submitted into the same block? Is that correct? 41:04 Yeah, the same L1 block, and then they all advance at the same time. And you notice if you check our block explorer, they all have this, every L2 block has the exact same timestamp as an L1 block. So usually, when one L1 block is found, they all have the exact same timestamp. That is because you literally find them all at the exact same moment. 41:25 So then just, just to wrap up that, because I do have one really other quick question. But just to wrap this up, so then just in terms of like the math behind it, because 256 possible L2s does not fill the L1 block. So what I'm suggesting is that you're going to be, you know, looking at a lot of, I guess, non competing space, because you're only gonna be dealing with like regular L1 transactions, which are not going to have 41:55 very high fees. So in my, in my view, the 256 sidechains won't really need to compete very, very much in terms of the fees to win, unless they're competing against each other. So the other part of the idea is this each, imagine there's only one sidechain, just to simplify it for a moment. And then let's just call it, but as long as there's two different people running a full node, 42:25 of the L2 sidechain, and actually, this requirement is really not a very, even though it's first of all, it's a very easy bar to clear. But second of all, it's kind of like how would a blockchain even work if there was only one full node, it's like very unclear, like what exactly would be happening there. But anyway, someone has to be running the full nodes. 42:48 And as long as there's two rivalrous people running the full nodes, each of the what each of those people does is they their software is automatically they turn on like virtual mining or Blind Merged Mining, like they kind of like turn it on. And they have like the thing like refresh occasionally. 43:05 They are assembling a block that pays themselves the so you can call them A and B, Mr. A and Mrs. B, or whatever, Alice and Bob, they are each those are both people who Alice's when Alice's full node is saying, Oh, I collect all these fees, I collect all these transactions into the L2 block into the L2 coinbase, Alice pays Alice, and then Bob is doing the same thing. 43:31 But in the L2 coinbase, Bob is paying Bob, Alice and Bob, both also have L1 coins on L1. So they since they're the same person, they're the bridge, they since it's the same human being, it's like this is the bridge back that the information like kind of flows through. 43:49 So Alice says, Listen, this L2 block is worth whatever $1,000 worth of fees or a million dollars or a billion dollars, whatever doesn't matter. Let's just say it's 1000 is L2. But I'm getting right now, if I get my h star in the L1, if I get that it's worth $1,000 to me of L2 coins. 44:08 You know, I'll pay $990 on L1. And I eke out a tiny little ROI. Now this ROI should be commensurate. This is the C point before this minus C, it was like fees minus C or V minus C, I think it was V minus C, because it was value of the block minus the cost. 44:30 The cost is, first of all, running the full node might be expensive. And maybe not a lot of people want to do it. So first of all, they got to pay for that. Although you're only running it for like 10 minutes. So you have to like amortize that. So that should be pretty low in theory. But so you have that might be the cost. 44:48 But then also the L2 coins are a little bit flakier than the L1 coins. The L1 coins are like the real deal, unencumbered coins was the L2 coins might be, you know, you never know. So it might not be 100% literally. But the point is, it is an auction where it's like a briefcase that has a million dollars worth of cash, or $1,000 worth of cash in our case. 45:13 And so, and then, as long as there's two people bidding, it's not incentive compatible to just imagine that someone is going to say, oh, I'll give $500 for it. Meanwhile, the right next to you is a full node that could say, well, listen, I have the exact same mempool. I have the exact same next candidate block that's paying $1,000. And over on L1, they're selling basically access to create it for $500, $501. 45:41 So that would basically just not happen, I think, in equilibrium. 46:12 So you could have like a single node that would do all the work for the L2 and then report it back to the L1. But I just have one other question if you could maybe, I think it's a quick answer, but just for like a new proposal for an L2, I just wanted to confirm that it does in fact require a coinbase from the L1. 46:38 And I think practically speaking that that would almost require the cooperation of a mining pool on the L1. And I just wanted to get some clarification on that. 46:49 You're referring to creating a new... 46:51 A new sidechain. 46:53 Yes. So part of the idea behind that is that, you know, you would want them to be aware of what they have allowed. Of course, it doesn't really cost them much to support a new L2. But yeah, you don't want people just kind of like spamming the system. 47:12 So the idea of how the timeline would work would be something like people come up with this L2, people discuss it amongst themselves, maybe they code it, they make the example of it, they're kind of ready, they test it, they're ready to kind of give it a try. 47:27 Then what they would do is they would kind of like, there's a, you know, you could, there are a lot of ways of in a totally decentralized way bringing to everyone's attention. So I don't know if these are necessary or not. But you could like you make like a project site for the new L2. And then you say, here's the software. 47:43 And then you could maybe broadcast like a high value OP_RETURN or something. This is in the extreme case where, you know, we all live in bunkers because the government has tried to destroy all cryptocurrency research and, and all cryptocurrency advocates. 47:58 But yeah, you would like broadcast this high value OP_RETURN to just like let everyone know, oh, listen, there's this new L2. And then basically, the idea is, it doesn't cost miners that much, you know, basically only toss their attention to support the L2. 48:15 And so if they, you know, if they give it their attention, then they should give it a try with the slot. And the slots are not, you know, they're not really scarce in any real sense. So, 48:27 so it comes down to like a bribe in the op returns, what you're saying, I was just curious as to like, how is the actual procedure to to make the proposal? How would that work? 48:36 It depends on if you because again, what I would think the equilibrium would actually be is, but I've been wrong before. But what I would think the equilibrium would actually be is the large miners would be making so much money from L2s that they would, it's kind of like a marathon has like, you know, Mara research or something. And they do stuff like 48:58 I forgot it already, but Enduro, right, stuff like that. And so I would think they would actually be like, kind of like have their finger on the pulse of it a little bit, and they would even be paying for a lot of it. But in the bunker world, where we're all trapped underground, and, you know, the Terminator robots are trying to kill us all on the surface, that would be like how you would get their attention. 49:24 If they if they weren't already paying attention. So that was like the time. 49:29 Yeah, no, that that's exactly what I wanted to know. So I appreciate your, you know, your time, giving making time to engage with the community, you know, in real in real time like this, because this is this is important. But also like if you want if I wanted to join like the community, I'm not on telegram. Is there any other communities out there like discord or anything like that? 49:50 Yeah, we actually have made a few but we they're like, we just like made them and they're kind of hollow right now but we will be beefing them up and then there will be more but yet we're most active on telegram right now but we will we'll get back to you with that stuff. We're starting on kind of all that up like this week. So 50:11 I appreciate it again. Thanks again for your time. 50:14 Thanks. 50:19 So I had an easy question and then I have a more in depth question on the BitAssets Layer 2 namespace. Um, let's assume that BIP300 gets activated feature on Bitcoin. 50:36 Will you be able to bring the compatible layer to like from that our mind or created or the different ordinals or whatever, whatever sidechains. 50:52 I didn't know where you were going with this. But now I think I figured out. Okay, so this is okay. There's a couple things that I think everyone in the audience might find interesting, which is, first of all, just talking about doing the R&D on the software, just like making software. 51:09 Like if we change the BitAssets software, we make it easier to use, like it has a better user experience, or we change the colors. 51:18 Or we add more multisig or we add whatever we add more features, any chain that activates BIP300, you know, they can just start using like the latest version of all of the L2s. 51:31 So like, let's say Litecoin activates BIP300. Let's say like, okay, let's say eCash shows up. And we do R&D on the L2s. We've been using them for like a year or whatever, 90, you know, whatever days or a year and a half, whatever, what have you. 51:47 And now like we kind of worked out a bunch of bugs or something, and then Litecoin activates BIP300. Later, like they just can grab the whole suite, you know, they can just grab all the L2s latest version of the software, and kind of start using them if they want. 52:06 Now, what you asked was a kind of even more interesting question, which is basically something like if you had the whole BitAssets history of like people making assets, and you had some kind of like, you know, like a snapshot, like a UTXO asset snapshot. 52:22 Can you make it so that when you turn on the BitAssets sidechain in BTC world or on Litecoin or wherever, you know, on Dogecoin or whatever, whenever people activate BIP300, when they get around to it, which they almost certainly will, because all the smartest people are huge BIP300 fans, and it is just a counter to 13,000. 52:43 And so I think, I actually think it's kind of likely that, that over time, people will just like really, it'll be like BIP39, I think, at one point. But the point is, when, when years down the road, a different chain, for example, BTC activates BIP300. 53:03 Can they just like, say, okay, all the assets created until now, which now would be like, let's just say now is hypothetically like the year 2029. And it's like, February 3, or something. 53:18 So that's when they activate, but they could just say, Well, wait a minute, let's have the exact same chain of assets. I'm pretty sure that is possible. I don't see why it wouldn't be, it might be a little weird, you might have to like build in like a weird, like, 53:30 like, would they might be like, would they be burned on one chain and go to the other? 53:35 Well, they would exist on both. And then it would kind of be like hard forking the L2, so that you have the same assets with like Litecoin as the base and eCash as the base and BTC as it would be like three, it would split into three. 53:51 Which is, which is a very interesting possibility to think about. And that's also true for the names. So any independent asset, like the BitNames, I think you shouldn't be able to do it for a BitAssets and BitNames. 54:08 So wacky idea. 54:10 And then that brings up a second question that, let's say, the mining or the creation of a BitAsset, or sorry, a BitName, or a BitAsset, or you know, any of these other real world assets, whatever you want to call it. 54:26 They're very similar to either one. 54:28 They benefit the like, yeah, they benefit the layer one, the fees of the creation of that asset comes to the layer one eCash. But what about if it was created on another layer one? Would that be sort of stealing those fees from eCash? Or that's like another problem down the road? 54:50 Well, now you have to walk me through exactly what scenario you're trying to talk about. So it's like, eCash shows up, we activate BitAssets on eCash, someone creates like a funny asset, like, I don't know, SpaceX stock or something, the asset, and then people are trading it. 55:11 And then people are trading it. They're earning fees. Now there's like maybe a million, like Elon creates like Elon coin or something, but on BitAssets. And hypothetically, and so then people have been playing with it for a year. So now there's like, you know, 73,000 people worldwide that own like different amounts of Elon coin. This is on eCash. 55:34 Elon coin on BitAssets on eCash. 55:38 Say that five times fast. 55:41 But then, now, BTC activates BIP300. It imports the it adds BitAssets, it adds a version of BitAssets that like imports the snapshot history. So now, yeah, I'm not sure exactly if you're saying you would replay literally every transaction that happened on bit as I don't think you would do that, because you wouldn't have the same deposits and withdrawals. 56:05 But you could say the 73 million 73,000 people that each own different amounts of Elon coin on BitAssets on BTC, those people would still have their Elon coin. And then when they make transactions, it would be on that L2, and they would go to the L1 miners of BTC over there. And they history could diverge. So I don't know if I'm getting any closer than answering your question. 56:33 I think maybe I misunderstood. I think I misunderstood that the creation of the asset on that sidechain doesn't. Um, what, what, what, what does that you use? Does that use? Does it use coins on that sidechain or on the? 56:53 Yeah, but the way I have it set up, you can do L2 with any ideas, good or bad. But the way I have it set up now is for BitAssets, you have to pay transaction fees in the underlying currency in order to use it. So for example, eCash shows up BitAssets activates and as the L2 Drivechain of eCash, then you spend you have to deposit some coins and eCash over there, like whatever a few. 57:23 And then you make more assets. You know, you spend like as a transaction fee, you spend like 10 cents or 50 cents worth of eCash, and then you make like 100 million Elon coin, or whatever. And it's just like a whole dot like a pump that phone over there or whatever. 57:40 Okay, yeah, I see. And then my other question, the deep, more detailed one was, um, well, I asked Andrew, he's the creator of the spaces protocol, which is a decentralized namespace that exists today. 57:58 On Bitcoin. He said that I asked him about that assets. And he said, he looked at it. He's not excited that it relies on the sidechain, or that existing DNS namespaces seems to be reserved for existing holders, but he does like that people are discussing this. 58:21 I think you might have been talking about BitNames, because BitNames, I have the ICANN reservation. And that's very important, I think. Because that we need to do that, because we have to somehow, basically, that's also an attempt to like hard fork the ICANN database. So it's like a situation where Google owns google.com. 58:45 And, you know, they're not going to appreciate it. If we try to say, oh, let's all like, hey, there's this new thing, and it's better. But they're gonna have to be like, oh, I have to buy google.com again, or I have to buy, they're not, that's just not going to work for them. And they're just going to shrug. And they're just gonna say, well, this is a stupid idea. And it's so stupid. I'm not even gonna give it any more of my attention. 59:03 So we have to protect the existing property rights to names, I think. I think that's a really, really good idea. It's part of my idea. And I think that's very, very strong part of the idea is, is keeping, that's what will make people think, you know, we can tell people, listen, this google.com is going to be waiting for you over in our thing, for as long as you want. You can wait a long time, and it'll be waiting for you over there. 59:29 And this is important, because we want people to like be able to slowly research the issue. And then they'll see why the BitNames, BitNames is superior to ICANN. But ICANN has a very, very, very powerful network effect, which, you know, we should all respect. 59:46 And, you know, they created all this stuff. But you know, BitNames, like doesn't require you to like pay annual fees. You know, it doesn't require you to pay. Well, I guess this is it doesn't really happen anymore. But they used to have to like, pay to have like HTTPS and stuff like weird stuff like that. But more importantly, like, with, you know, Satoshi had to register the Bitcoin domains, like, you know, he had to somehow pay for that with fiat. But with this, you pay with crypto, you can pay anonymously, you can put stuff in multisig. 1:00:17 Transactions, you can have complicated ownership conditions, and you have a total property, right? Like one thing is that the government can seize the name sometimes, don't you remember, like you'd visit like, I don't remember what it was like Napster and like other stuff. And it would be like, you know, whatever FBI, this site has been seized, they have like the big seized thing. And they did that for Silk Road as well. They're like this hidden site that's been seized, they have like a thing, the notice they put up. 1:00:44 But it's not possible to see someone's without the private key. Of course, you could always arrest the person hold a gun to their head and say, give me the private key, or I'll kill you now. And that would be probably pretty persuasive. But if they can't do that, then, you know, they can't actually seize the site. And this is a springboard into everything because like we live in a world already where you have multiple different accounts, like big people, they have, here's my Twitter, here's my YouTube. 1:01:11 Here's my TikTok, here's my Instagram, here's whatever, you know, down the line. And so we already live in a world we have to have like link tree and you have to have all this stuff. And so I think that we want to, you know, if we can bring people into a new world, we want to try to do that. But we're not going to be able to do that. If we don't respect google.com, facebook.com, all the other random people who didn't have time to look into our weird project. 1:01:39 And they're registering their new thing that they think is going to be the next big thing. 1:01:46 Or whatever. So we have to respect the ICANN property, right? I think that's a very, very important idea that necessary. 1:01:54 So I guess maybe just one more question is that on the BitAssets, I'm sorry, BitNames that I'm sorry, I lost my train of thought. Give it another question. 1:02:12 Okay, it happens. 1:02:14 Oh, yeah, yeah. If we have compatibility between all these different naming systems, it's not necessary to have it right out of the gate. I think that's it. Would you say like, like, but some kind of compatibility between Namecoin, BitNames, spaces, the other one is like handshake domains. 1:02:38 A lot of these are good. And I applaud the effort. But I think we can't get in the business of supporting too many of them, unfortunately. And I think everyone who got involved, my guess is that BitNames is in the same situation as handshake, where everyone who gets involved knows that you are trying an experimental new thing that might not work, and probably won't work, you know, because most new ideas fail, most startups fail. 1:03:04 So I think we have my thinking on it, but I'm open to being persuaded of something else. But my thinking on it is, wait, it's mandatory to respect the ICANN names. 1:03:17 We also want to have everything in the BitNames system. That's new. And that the other stuff is maybe like, how big is, is handshake really like, even though I've been aware of it for a long time, and I know some people in the real world who are big fans of it, I personally have never ever actually used it to like, visit a website, as far as I know. 1:03:40 I don't have like the browser extension, or however, I only have very little familiarity with even how it works, even though I know some people in the real world who are into it. So I think we got to, we got to make sure that we cut all those things. But hopefully those people, anyone excited about new domain name systems would, would pile into this one, as well, or at least give it a little bit of attention. 1:04:03 I would definitely be open if I learned like, there's this huge community of like, secret Tor websites all being run by handshake, then maybe I would think, okay, we can just support that also. But my current thinking is that it would be just ICANN and just new BitNames, new BitNames. But it's possible we could support like all of them also, like it depends on how difficult it is. 1:04:28 And then I guess the tangent also on that is that there's people working on decentralized identity, making things like PGP compatible with Nostr secret, the Nostr private keys. But I guess those could be also just a side change. So Nostr... 1:04:50 Even better, I think, actually, it's a very good question. My view is that BitNames could drive the whole thing. So your BitName, like I was saying, with Linktree, you have this one BitName, and the BitName could have like, you know, IP4 address, it could have a, your Nostr public key, it could have the reusable payment code, it could have your reusable zSide privacy address, all 100% of these things, you can have your phone number, it could have your like a hash of your medical information. 1:05:20 It could have basically everything could be behind the name. And it could just be like a JSON kind of lookup situation, where it's just like they're all like basically TXT records or something like that. There'd be like these records, and you would just update them behind. So you'd own the name, you'd buy the name first, you buy Justin, it automatically gives you like, you know, like a public key and like a number, I have like a phone number type thing in there now where it's like an eight digit phone number. 1:05:48 So this is also so that you can give people your number at a bar is kind of what I was thinking, because there's a lot of people named Muhammad and stuff. There's a lot of stuff you got to think about when you do this name thing, it's kind of a tough nut to crack. But, you know, you buy the name first. And so you own like Justin dot bit, or Justin dot whatever, because the way I set it up is as long as it's not an ICANN name, it clicks over to the new system. So the Justin dot anarchy or whatever you want to do. 1:06:18 Justin dot faith. And so you'd own that and you'd have a number, a digit number for the name. And then from there, you could set up anything you put the PGP key there, you could put an roster there, you could put just whatever you want there, but everything that a telegram screen name, your x screen name, your Instagram, so that no way it would be like a link tree type of a situation. That's the idea. 1:06:48 Okay, so we had other people who tried to come up, and then they politely didn't say anything. So what about show Mari came up earlier. 1:07:10 Oh, sorry, I have one more short question. And then this will be my last one, if you don't mind. Um, is there a limit? Like, can you have you've mentioned before, you can have a layer two, and you can have a layer three with a Drivechain based on the layer two? Is there like a limit there to like, can you only have layer eight or you're not? 1:07:34 No, but it does become progressively more bizarre, because as you cut it up, you run into the security budget problem, where it's like, how easy is it to just rewrite? It depends on how much how much fees are on the whole, the whole thing. So chopping it up is not great. And then there's 256 layer twos from layer one to layer two is 256. But you could add more, but actually, there is some limit, like in a practical sense. 1:08:04 Because you like the human level of attention, how much attention can you give to these chains, and in particular, whether or not like they are malfunctioning, and in particular, whether or not the withdrawals coming back, there's only one withdrawal bundle every few months coming back. But if there's going to be like 8000, and they all malfunction at once, it, you know, I don't know how the system would survive that it might, because they're all very slow on purpose. 1:08:34 So but yeah, the 256, but just in practice, I just don't think there'll be so many, but maybe I'm wrong about that. 1:08:41 Where do you see, like an everyday, like a coffee purchase? Where do you see that happening on layer two? 1:08:53 I think layer two, because I have already published, you can read my post on that called thunder. And actually, you can look at the tests that we did for our performance contest last year. And it's possible with like the because the the thunder, the way I imagine that it'd be like 14 or 15 different L2s, they're mostly the same software, but they're just like, this is the L2 that you use in like North America. 1:09:20 So it'd be like, US, Canada, Mexico, and then there'd be like a different L2 that you use in like Southeast Asia, you know, it'd be like, I'm not sure exactly how it all shake out, but then there would be like, you know, Western Europe, and then there might be like Eastern Central Europe. 1:09:39 You know, Eurasia, something like that type of thing, Middle East, you know, and then they would be like geographically distributed. And there might be like an Oceania one or something like that. So if you do that, you can get to like something like, maybe you can get to like, I have the exact math like on the site and on the GitHub tests. 1:10:05 And then various blog posts, but you can get to something like 50% of the Earth's transaction rate. 1:10:12 And that comes out to like 3 trillion transactions per year or something, something like that. So, so you can already hit that. And that's just what the software we have now. 1:10:23 I'm certain that you could massively improve that if you threw a little bit of time and effort into it. And of course, you could always have like 28 L2s instead of. So I don't I think at first it would be expanding horizontally to fill the 1:10:37 you just reuse the L2. And of course, at first, there would just be one of these large block L2s, there'd be small block L1 large block L2, eventually the large block L2 would fill up and people would say, Well, we need a second one. 1:10:51 And the people who switch the second one. 1:10:54 There would be like the most desperate new people like the poor people 1:10:58 of the of all the existing users. And so then that would kind of just naturally cleave off a new group because there'd be all these people who say, Well, it's getting too expensive. So use such and such net. This is exactly what has happened, by the way, with Ethereum, whereas like 1:11:17 you had Ethereum and then people were like, Well, what was the first like the early ones you had like, whatever polka dot or whatever that stuff was called. But the point is, you had EVM and then you had other stuff avalanche, whatever other EVM type stuff was being made. This was basically just 1:11:39 this was basically just additional EVM block space. So this is kind of exactly what I'm describing, where I'm not sure like how important do you think it was like that Solana has all these inventions or whatever, versus just it had more EVM block space. And that's kind of what I'm talking about is you'd have one large block 1:12:00 L2. That's an analogous case to Ethereum to BTC ratio. It would fill up then there'd be like a Solana type thunder, you know, there'd be like Solana giant thunder, and then there'd be like a bunch of other smaller ones, there'd be base and there'd be whatever Tron and all that other stuff. 1:12:24 Whose name I can't even remember at this point, but there you know, there were many of those little EVM chains in between. Can't remember their names, but, but they were there. And so that's what I'm talking about. All right, Justin, you already said you had the last question like two or three times. Now we have to go to another person. 1:12:46 Really quick. I did have one other concern as you're, you know, just being very open about all the all the upcoming plans. What are you guys expecting in terms of infrastructure for eCash, like API access for builders specifically looking to build on top of the network? What are your plans there? 1:13:08 Well, of course, we have some existing software that you can try. 1:13:13 I downloaded the BIT window, I think it was called. 1:13:18 Yes, and that BIT window will download the L2s if you go to the sidechains tab. And then those are the full nodes themselves. So those RPCs, that kind of would be, that would be either what you would use or someone would maybe turn those into. 1:13:34 Okay, that's my question. Are you like LayerTwo Labs? Are you taking responsibility for providing any sort of infrastructure for builders on specifically the L2s that you're deploying? So not like new proposals, but like Thunder? If I wanted to build on top of Thunder, where would I go to get like documentation on how to do that? 1:13:57 Yeah, we will be putting that type of stuff out. So stay tuned, I suppose. But of course, you can download it now and you can you know, there's a 1:14:11 I see, I see how it would work. But again, like if someone would have to do that, and that would be a tremendous, you know, undertaking. Infrastructure is costly. You know, it's not a one time cost, it's ongoing. So I just you know, this is this is a big deal, I think, in general. So I just I just was wondering if you guys had, you know, spent time working that out in terms of how you would provide infrastructure once once the network was live. 1:14:39 By infrastructure, you mean like the full node? 1:14:41 Specifically, like API. So I'm thinking like, with Ethereum, they had Infura, when it first launched, and Infura was free. And every builder that wanted to experiment could just, you know, get an API key, and then just connect to their, their, their infrastructure. So from a builder's perspective, not like from a node, because nodes don't do that. That's not how you build web apps and things like that. You need like indexers and things like that. 1:15:11 You need things on top of the node. So I wasn't sure if those things were being built, or if they were, you know, planned, or what the situation was, but someone has to, at some point provide, you know, tools and infrastructure, if you're going to actually want to build applications on top of these L2s. 1:15:30 Yeah, absolutely. You're 100% right. Of course, you understand that under the hood, what Infura was, is just, they ran the full node, and then they exposed, you know, they basically said, we will talk, we will run a full node. 1:15:44 So that's, you understand that right now, we specialize just in making the full node work as well as it can work. And there's, there's going to be an infinite road, if I'm right, there's going to be an infinitely long road of people who either run the node themselves, or they run the node on behalf of someone else, like you could start the Infura, you probably wouldn't need an Infura right now, because the full node cost is so cheap, actually. 1:16:08 So let me give you like a specific example, like for a mobile wallet, for this eCash community, you would need, you know, the ability to be able to connect to, you know, remotely, you know, to these individual L2s, like I'm thinking like a multi chain wallet specifically. 1:16:31 So like, if you had a, you know, a wallet that you would download from the App Store, you would expect it to be able to connect to Thunder and zSide and these, you know, initial L2s, you know, right out of the gate. And I think that should happen, you know, there should be a mobile wallet that is very, you know, accessible to the average person, they shouldn't have to download Bitwindow to have their first experience, in my opinion, their first experience should be, you know, 1:16:57 No, you're, you're 100% correct. 1:17:00 I'm just, I'm just thinking like, how do you get, how do you facilitate getting a mobile wallet to manage, you know, these multiple L2s? And that's what I'm thinking of. 1:17:10 It's kind of rudimentary, but we have this one called Red Wallet. And it's, but yeah, you're right. But we, you know, like, we're doing all this work at each different layer. So we want to specialize in the full node layer. Do you understand what I mean? Because if we do our job really, really well, then it's very, very easy. 1:17:31 We're talking like, one day or less for someone to start up eCash and FIRA or something, because they know that we are doing our job to make the full node software work. So they can just grab it from us. And then they can, they can, they can specialize in that leg of the of the but there will be the stack will be I think, in the long run, the stack is like infinitely high. 1:17:57 So in the long run, you have like, you know, electrical cables in the ground, you have power plants, and you have like data connections, and you have, you know, session connections, and then you have application, but then you have applications on applications. 1:18:11 So eventually, there'll be people after you build the, after you build the multi chain wallet, there'll be someone else who's just like, Okay, listen, I want to build like a game or something. And I just want to use the multi coin wallet. So eventually, the stack will just, you know, it'll go up and up and up forever. 1:18:30 Specifically, we are for you is because I think it's important as to who runs that infrastructure as well. You know, with with inferior, it was it was, it was a consensus, you know, Joe, Joe, Joe, Lupin's company, and he was just, you know, infinitely funded. So, you know, there's no issue of like, you know, runway or anything like that, you know, it was just it just happened. It worked like it was no issues. 1:18:54 And I think that's important, like, you know, for, you know, again, first impression, when you're trying to attract new builders to this new community, you just want it to work, you want friction to be at its absolute lowest. And if you just have like, volunteers running your infrastructure, I've seen what happens with that. That's like, you know, Bitcoin cash community, where it's just like, it's all volunteers, and it's not reliable. And it's very frustrating for the builders. So it's nice when you have like a central, you know, infrastructure. 1:19:23 You know, organization that takes responsibility, maybe there'll be like a service level agreement, you know, something that there's someone taking responsibility and brings confidence to the people that want to now invest their time and energy to build on top of this. So I'm just, you know, throwing out some of the things I completely agree. No, I think you're 100% right, you know, cause issues in the path of the networks. 1:19:44 Yeah, I 100% agree. And it does help when someone does like a trusted brand that takes responsibility for that. I think that's very, very, very important. In the case of infura. I think it had many extremely negative side effects also, because it was like, if you're all just pay for everything. So then you had a situation where no one is running full nodes. And then you're in a political situation where very few people cared about how expensive the full node got. 1:20:14 And that shifted the whole Ethereum community, it may have doomed the whole Ethereum community in the sense of it then invited the creation of like Solana, and all this other stuff where they said, Well, okay, we you guys don't care about how expensive the Ethereum node is. Now, we double don't care in Solana, like we did, we care even less. And now we have even more block space. So it kind of created a little bit of a race to the bottom. 1:20:41 Yeah, you're 100% correct. You just said that there were pros and cons, for sure. I think we should, you know, just revisit the pros and try to minimize, you know, the cons. But just the win for infura was that they attracted like, the bulk share of the development community, the builders. So you know, when it comes to building, EVM has the, you know, I'm comparing it to like UTXO, EVM has all the builders, 1:21:10 because they had the infrastructure that just worked. But there were side effects, of course. Yeah, you're right. 1:21:17 But yeah, I think you're very right to call attention to that. So thanks. Okay, Mr. fall at D. 1:21:30 Who's whose icon is a giant B, which is interesting, if you think about that. 1:21:35 So I can is a huge B, but his screen name is fall at D. 1:21:43 Hello. 1:21:48 But I cannot hear him. He is muted. 1:21:52 Strong silent type. 1:21:58 Don't hear him, but maybe we'll get back to him. 1:22:04 Anyone else? 1:22:16 I mean, we can talk, we can keep talking about infura. I think the infura thing is very, 1:22:19 very, very interesting. Because yes, it attracted those builders. 1:22:26 Shamar is 100% right. It created an environment that was very different from Bitcoin. 1:22:34 I don't know, it's gonna take like a team of historians to rip it all apart to figure out like 1:22:40 exactly what happened. Because Ethereum has more fee paying users than BTC. So 1:22:48 they have achieved a level of product market fit that is arguably, 1:22:52 objectively superior. If you go to like crypto fees.info, the website, 1:22:58 they have more users. And the EVM was clearly something that people like, 1:23:03 because all these different chains, they were totally different from each other at first, 1:23:06 but then they all became EVM compatible. This became a phrase that everyone used. 1:23:14 But then the question is this, if not a lot of people are caring about how expensive it is to 1:23:18 run a full node, it creates huge amounts of political pressure to just keep piling everything 1:23:24 in. And then it's unclear how you get back from that. Like even maybe that's not so bad, 1:23:31 but you are painting yourself into a corner. And so you have to think very carefully about, 1:23:38 I think it's smart to try really to fight really hard to keep the full node costs down. 1:23:46 Which in that way, I agree with people like Luke Dashjr. and the small blockers. 1:23:51 Because it's very easy to have a crutch and just say, we don't need to, you know, 1:23:58 everything will be fine. It's very easy to do that. And then, it's kind of like a Mickey Mouse 1:24:05 when he programs the broom to carry the water. And then you might find yourself really in trouble. 1:24:13 And now you may regret what has happened. And I think someone in the ecosystem should 1:24:23 always be fighting to keep the node really easy to run, really cheap. At the same time, 1:24:29 one thing I really always disagreed with Luke about, Luke never seemed to buy this idea of 1:24:35 ramping things up. I disagreed with this for years. I remember, I think it's scaling Bitcoin 1:24:40 One, I was talking to him about this. And it goes something like this, where it was like, okay, Luke, 1:24:47 sure, we want everyone to run a full node. But what about the people who just heard about Bitcoin, 1:24:52 yesterday? We're going to ask them to run a full node immediately? Can't we ramp them up? 1:24:57 You know what I mean? Maybe they can have Bitcoin Lite, they can have Bitcoin SPV, 1:25:03 they could have whatever, like the Infero type thing at first. And of course, many users are 1:25:10 very different. So, people have different needs. And so, does everyone really need, 1:25:19 is it one size fits all? And shouldn't we have the easy node, the SPV? So, I was always a huge 1:25:27 fan of SPV. I'm very pro SPV. Ironically, though, the other people who are pro SPV were the large 1:25:34 blockers. And I thought they consistently misinterpreted SPV. And I wrote a tiny essay 1:25:39 about that. Where SPV, it allows you to safely free ride off of someone else's full node, 1:25:46 just like Infero. But the problem with this is similar to what I mentioned is, 1:25:52 when it's too easy to free ride, now you might like you're blind, you have the Novocain 1:25:58 is blocking you from the blinding you to the reality of what's really happening. 1:26:03 And that I think is dangerous. So, the fact that SPV works so well, 1:26:09 that kind of means you should like pay it forward. And you should be like, 1:26:14 helping finance full node, you know, development or something, you should be kind of cutting back 1:26:18 across to say, well, I'm so good, you know, it's like the, you know, you're a super poor, 1:26:25 you're like a poor orphan, and they let them give you the scholarship to go to the private school, 1:26:29 and then you hit it rich, you should go back and pay more money back into the, 1:26:34 back into the thing you were, donate back to the school that you were free riding off of, 1:26:38 you should be, you should not be just hitting the gas and saying, this is like what you're 1:26:42 the Bitcoin SV people say is they just say, Oh, just everything can just be SPV. 1:26:47 And it's, that's not true. You can't, everyone can't be a free rider. So, 1:26:55 but yes, I don't know. Anyone else got anything they want to say I can use this time to read. 1:27:02 And I like Sergio. Sergio is great. 1:27:04 Sergio is great. There's a very important philosophical disagreement between me and 1:27:12 other Bitcoiners, which is that I don't think they realize, like, I don't think these other 1:27:20 Bitcoiners realize how screwed up everything is in BTC. And so a lot of people think, 1:27:25 Oh, everything's fine. We'll activate some softworks next year. We have more people requesting. 1:27:31 Let me see where we go. Everyone's saying, Oh, everything's like fine. And, you know, 1:27:36 software activation isn't broken or just everything, everything's going great. We 1:27:40 have a lot of adoption and, but I've been around a long time and I got a lot of 1:27:47 friends who are insiders. Okay. Now we have a new de-gen, 1:27:53 de-gentralized. That's a funny name. Yeah. Yeah. It's a modern update from 1:27:58 decentralized to get with the times, you know, yeah, I used to be decentralized, 1:28:05 but then everyone became retarded. So I had to log in. But basically I was going to ask, 1:28:10 so you're duplicating all the UTXOs, which means all of our ordinals are getting duplicated too. 1:28:14 And there's nothing you can really do about that if I started indexer. Right. 1:28:17 So couldn't I just like with your small blocks, couldn't I just fuck your life up, Paul, 1:28:22 by just like incentivizing ordinals, no matter how many fees you add on top of it, 1:28:26 because that's where all the Bitcoin users are is all these people down here don't use Bitcoin 1:28:29 anymore. They're all faking it. They're all in Solana. They're all fucking retards, you know, 1:28:33 but us ordinals people, we use Bitcoin every single day, all day long. And you're not going 1:28:36 to be able to stop us when you duplicate our ordinals onto your chain. So what do you get? 1:28:39 What's your plan for that? Well, I think you may have misunderstood. I'm pro ordinals and I'm pro 1:28:45 usage of the chain and I'm pro anyone who pays transaction fees. So I always said this about 1:28:50 the ordinal people, which are that, thank God we have some users. I was saying, well, at least 1:28:57 someone's using the chain. And in fact, the ordinal people, they finally, they were like the dose of 1:29:03 reality. You know, I was watching recently this like the Scientology documentary where like this 1:29:09 crazy lady is like in a cult, of course, Scientology. No, I mean, no offense to the 1:29:13 Scientologist people, but I was watching this documentary or whatever. But this lady is 1:29:20 there and she has like a tiny baby and she's pregnant or something. And she's like working 1:29:25 like 30 hour days or something, or it's like 30 hours of work, three hours of sleep, like scrubbing. 1:29:32 She's cleaning or doing something crazy because you're in a cult and you're brainwashed. 1:29:36 And then finally, she looks at her baby and she realizes, oh, I have to get out of here. And she 1:29:40 plans her heroic escape. And what does that have to do with what we're talking about? Well, I'm glad 1:29:45 you asked. The ordinal's people shined a light on how like broken everything was with like lightning 1:29:51 network and stuff. Because the ordinal's people started to use the chain, the fees go, the fee 1:29:55 rate went up a little bit. And then it's like enlightening if the fee rate is too high, you 1:29:59 have to do uncooperative close. Or even if people just disagree on what the fee rate is, it's 1:30:04 uncooperative close. And then all the lightning people got angry at the ordinal's people. But I 1:30:08 was like, no, this, the ordinal's people, they've shined a light. So they're like the baby in this 1:30:14 metaphor or something. They like, they like woke everyone up to like, how stupid all this stupid 1:30:20 lightning crap is. It doesn't work at all. And it's the tiniest little bit of usage of L1. Now, 1:30:26 the small blocks are first of the plan to shrink the eCash, make eCash should be basically 1:30:31 identical to L1. But I was thinking the long run equilibrium block size would be smaller. 1:30:40 Mm hmm. That's the plan. And that's just to like encourage people to because I think in the real 1:30:46 world, in a realistic scenario, most people would transact on L2 and not even leave L2. And they 1:30:52 don't even, people would maybe have their retirement savings on L1. But if that's the 1:30:57 level of usage you're talking about, the current L1 usage is like, you know, it's like whatever, 1:31:03 like 2,500 transactions every 10 minutes or something. And that's just a lot. It's honestly 1:31:09 a lot. So we just don't need that. I think it maxes out at 4,000 right now. So that's kind of 1:31:13 the issue is that 4,000 is nothing. You can get a BRC 20 mint that has 200,000 mints. And next 1:31:18 thing you know, the fee rate is 20 X for an hour for no good reason at all. Other than 300 Chinese 1:31:23 degens submitted 2000 transactions a pop, you know, 300 people made that happen. That was it. 1:31:28 Right. So I think what's with this situation, like you probably need a way to like be ordinals 1:31:34 aware from day one and then force those people to like get onto a Drivechain or something. Right. 1:31:38 Like that would make sense to me, but we're going to have all of our ordinals day one, 1:31:43 like you're duplicating all my Bitcoin puppets, everything. So there is going to be plenty of 1:31:47 incentive for ordinals people to come give you a headache and do things you don't want. 1:31:51 I mean, you say give a headache, but that's just, you guys are fee paying users. You guys 1:31:55 are customers as far as I'm concerned. Yeah, that's fair. Your other users are going to be 1:32:02 like, what the hell? Like these dumbasses down below, like Mr. Hoddle, who wants to come up here 1:32:08 and argue, but he can't because Vlad blocked him. These kinds of people are going to give 1:32:11 you a headache, even though they're not using your chain simply because you airdropped them 1:32:15 some eCash, you know, because of us. I invited Mr. Hoddle. I tagged him. I think he's blocked 1:32:21 by the co-host so he can't. Vlad, are you able to unblock Mr. Hoddle? I'll just tag Vlad on co-host 1:32:28 for like 10 minutes and it'll let him up. You can re-block him after this. I had a question 1:32:33 about your eCash. For your client, like your client that's going to come out whenever you 1:32:39 launch the hard fork for eCash, are you going to build the poker client in eCash core, like 1:32:48 the remnants of the poker client were in Satoshi's original core implementation? I just 1:32:53 wanted to know if you're going to have that implemented. 1:32:58 Great question. It's kind of a silly question, but also not a silly question because I was 1:33:03 always struck, me in particular, I don't think a lot of other people cared that much, but I was 1:33:08 always struck when I looked at the old stuff Satoshi was doing. It really seemed to me like 1:33:15 Satoshi was very concerned that the coin would not be useful for anything. He was building 1:33:24 poker and he had an eBay type thing and he had a reputation score with user review. He had all this 1:33:32 wacky stuff. Well, think about it. Around that same time, that's when all the poker stars and 1:33:38 all that shit, they were in the spotlight for offshore gambling and internet gambling with 1:33:44 poker and recently being made illegal. So I can see why he may have at least thought to put that 1:33:52 in there. But I was just curious if that's something that you were going to have in eCash. 1:33:56 I mean, if he actually thought that, that was ingenious. And in fact, there's a disproportionate 1:34:01 number of the OG Bitcoiners are like poker players because there's like Black Thursday or whatever. 1:34:08 I don't remember the details, but like 2008 or something, the government, the US government 1:34:13 closed down all the payment rails for all the poker sites. Yeah. A lot of early Bitcoiners 1:34:20 were fucked from playing online poker because of all the shit that was going on. So you can 1:34:26 imagine how that could orange pill a poker player in that type of situation. So maybe Satoshi was 1:34:32 aware. If so, it just speaks to the eternal genius of Satoshi that he was like, oh, we can market it 1:34:37 to the libertarian community. We can market it to like the Ron Paul revolution as digital gold, 1:34:43 and we can market it to the poker. If so, then he was just truly just as one more category of 1:34:48 genius to Satoshi. I think one thing that is interesting to just comment on is the casino 1:34:57 or the degen or whatever, all that stuff is reliably a huge source of money. So there was 1:35:03 Satoshi Dice back in the day, and Satoshi Dice was responsible single-handedly for more than half 1:35:11 of all the, there was a point in which it was remote transactions and most of the transaction 1:35:17 fee, total fee revenues paid to Bitcoin miners. Some of these people lost so much Bitcoin on 1:35:23 Satoshi Dice. Just, oh man, be fine. I'm glad I'm not one of those people. I came a little bit after 1:35:29 that. Yeah, so there is this anchor thing, and apparently there was casino.bitcoin.com, 1:35:36 which was apparently making hand over fist, huge amounts of money. And it was run by libertarian 1:35:42 Roger Ver, who was like, I'm not getting any permits or whatever. And then they sold it to 1:35:46 the new, or some of the administration of the site got shifted around. I think probably still 1:35:52 owns the domain, but the administration of this, and they were like, oh, we don't want to 1:35:58 operate a casino without a license. But some of this stuff is just reliably very, very, very 1:36:06 likely to pull in fee-paying users. I'm not sure how else to phrase it. 1:36:11 So I think that's worth reflecting on that. It's like you play SimCity, and 1:36:17 if you play the newer SimCities, they'll let you put in a toxic waste dump or a prison or a casino. 1:36:24 You can put in all these vices, and it will make you money, but it makes the, 1:36:27 no one want to live near the area. Yeah, it makes the area shitty. 1:36:31 Yeah, exactly. Yeah. So that's kind of like, I always thought that was funny. I always really 1:36:34 liked those games. So it's kind of like, if you've got nothing, you can go for that. 1:36:40 I wonder about that. My guess is that today, between GitHub and LLMs and everything, 1:36:46 it would probably not be that much work to round off the poker game. And of course, 1:36:53 I have lots of friends who- Are you a poker player, Paul? 1:36:55 I have lots of friends who, they love to play just casual poker online or- 1:37:00 Actually, yeah, we have a nightly game. It's funny just because we play nightly, 1:37:05 and we have lightning-based escrow that we pay into. And when we're done, the game pays out 1:37:13 via lightning. So it's pretty fun. Yeah. So I don't know. Was it just one more 1:37:20 aspect of the genius of Satoshi that he had his finger on that pulse or whatever you want 1:37:25 to call it? There's something there for sure. Yeah, there's something there. That's a good way 1:37:31 of phrasing it. I don't think Vlad's going to unblock Mr. Hoddle so you can get him on stage. 1:37:35 Maybe I should switch. Okay, because the reason- He commented that he left already anyways. 1:37:40 Okay. He didn't have anything valuable to say anyways. I was trolling. 1:37:43 Well, you know he definitely did not. No, Mr. Hoddle had nothing valuable to say, 1:37:46 and he's too busy at his prayer or something. That would have been funny. 1:37:49 This is Paul Space and Paul- He would have had nothing valuable to say, 1:37:53 but it would have been funny. And that's the whole point of Let the Haters. But yeah, I agree. 1:37:57 And I forgot that about the co-host thing, and we could have swapped. But the reason why is, 1:38:02 for some reason, it hasn't happened lately, but my phone will reliably- I don't know, 1:38:07 something happens with the spaces, and the app crashes. And if I'm the only host, 1:38:11 and I don't have a co-host, the whole space will just go down. But if there's a co-host, 1:38:15 it just switches to them, and then I can join back in. But it hasn't happened in a while. I 1:38:18 guess they fixed the software a little bit. Whatever, you know? 1:38:25 Yeah, so I guess just to go back to the- I know you're not really smallblock or whatever. I get 1:38:29 the whole take. But I'm just saying, so is there not a balance between- Let's say the poker 1:38:34 example, right? There's obviously a use case. Maybe there's a gambling Drivechain that could 1:38:39 make sense. But also, now you have to support a whole new drivechain. Maybe that doesn't 1:38:43 make sense. And maybe just people want to use the L1 because it's already supported, 1:38:46 and you don't have to have more infra. Is that how this works with the Drivechains? If I start a 1:38:51 Drivechain, I need to run a whole new full node, and I need to have it all customized. It's 1:38:55 basically a new Qt wallet, right? Yeah, the Drivechain is a new full node, 1:39:00 new wallet. The thing is, though, the Drivechain is supposed to be a solution to the problem of 1:39:08 disagreement. And we've seen the problem of disagreement rear its ugly head a lot. 1:39:15 So the first big disagreement- Well, honestly, there were many. But I don't know how much 1:39:19 history you want to- I'm going to try to go super fast here. First, there was Bitcoin, 1:39:24 but then there was Namecoin, which people said, should there be- 1:39:29 a chain for doing DNS? And some people said yes, some people said no. And this is when Namecoin 1:39:34 was invented and merge mining was invented. And then there was Litecoin, which said, oh, 1:39:37 can we have the blocks be faster? And then people were like, that kind of doesn't really achieve 1:39:42 anything. And Litecoin was created. Then we had the block size war, which was like, should the 1:39:47 blocks be small or large? And we also had Ethereum type of a thing. Should there be 1:39:54 Turing complete scripts or whatever? I'm not sure how you would want to phrase that one. 1:39:57 And then there was privacy. So there was originally Zerocoin was a Bitcoin privacy 1:40:04 project on BTC that became Zcash, the altcoin. Even after Bitcoin Cash split off of BTC, 1:40:12 then they immediately started disagreeing again. And you had Bitcoin SV split off from BCH. 1:40:19 And you had Omari's dumb ass make eCash off of BCH too. 1:40:23 Yes, exactly. So that's what I was getting at is actually this problem of disagreement is, 1:40:28 I think, really big. And so the idea is you would use the Drivechain L2 when the alternative is 1:40:38 this falling out or this horrendous disagreement on a big scale. So that's the idea where this 1:40:45 is supposed to be a huge improvement over that, which I hope that it is. 1:40:49 Oh, it's kind of the opposite of how I'm thinking, man, because I'm thinking drive 1:40:52 chain first. And then if the Drivechain is very successful long term, then that justifies 1:40:56 putting some of that reasoning into the L1 as well. Not the opposite. You don't want to start 1:41:02 it on L1 and then argue about it, in my mind, and then become a drivechain. Because, I mean, 1:41:07 maybe you do, I guess. I don't know. It just feels a little... 1:41:10 The arguments, they're sort of free. They just spawn. They come out of the mists. And people 1:41:18 always have these arguments and disagreements. And so... 1:41:24 If let's say a Drivechain, the most useful Drivechain is big block drivechain. Let's 1:41:27 just say that for example. At what point is that not proof that the L1 needs to be 1:41:33 more like that Drivechain? Where's the data going to show you that? 1:41:36 Well, sometimes it is a case of different strokes for different folks. People want 1:41:41 mutually incompatible things. So there's no sense in which one would be permanently better 1:41:47 than the other. For example, when you want the large block... 1:41:52 If you want abundant block space and cheap fees, but then you have expensive nodes. 1:41:58 So it's kind of like a trade-off. And maybe some use cases are better 1:42:03 on one chain and some use cases are better on a different chain. And there's no... 1:42:08 I think there's a completely different sense in which you're absolutely right. 1:42:12 There's actually at least three different senses, if I can maybe explain what I'm 1:42:17 trying to think about right now, which is sometimes there's different strokes for different 1:42:21 folks. If you have Zcash privacy, that would be hard to justify to the 21 million infinity 1:42:29 divided by 21 million crowd, because it makes it harder to tell that you actually have 21 1:42:34 million coins. So sometimes it's incompatible. There's another case in which, yeah, you could 1:42:41 use one for R&D and experimental features, like we have Bitcoin Inquisition, or we have 1:42:49 Litecoin did SegWit before BTC did SegWit. And so then people said, well, hey, listen, 1:42:54 there really can't be some kind of catastrophic bug in SegWit because it's been on Litecoin. 1:43:01 So there's one sense in which it's like a staging ground or an R&D lab. You could say, 1:43:07 we can do this on L2 with real money. And then we can, after it's been proven to work, 1:43:14 proven to be safe or popular, it's less controversial to bring it to L1. 1:43:21 There's a third and completely different sense, which is what has happened currently in the BTC 1:43:25 world, which is that we've evolved into a cultural stasis. And everyone is afraid to stick their neck 1:43:32 out and do anything unconventional because everyone who does is shouted down by people 1:43:37 like Mr. Hoddle, but he's hardly the only one. And the whole thing has become a self-reinforcing 1:43:44 death spiral of stasis and basically conformity and peer pressure, fear, lack of creativity. 1:43:54 So that's a completely different thing that I think that happens periodically to just about 1:44:00 every group, like every organization is sort of evolving towards decay and inefficiency 1:44:09 all the time. And that's part of the issue we have right now is that no one... 1:44:13 You've thought about this a lot, right? So let's say we have BIPs on Bitcoin. We also 1:44:17 obviously going to have BIPs on eCash, but what's the system for data mining this argument? 1:44:23 This argument in a sense that like BIPs are sort of a long waving conversation and we can see all 1:44:30 the historical input and output. There has to be a system in my mind that's the BIPs for drive 1:44:35 chains to L1 in a sense, right? The Drivechain can prove something, but then it's still a political 1:44:40 uphill battle against entrenched benefits of whoever has the money, whoever has the balance, 1:44:44 that kind of thing. And I think that's what's happening with Bitcoin more than it's just this 1:44:49 evolution thing. I think it's we're being pushed into this corner of no ability to develop the 1:44:53 chain so that the Wall Streeters get a time to catch up. That's basically what I think is 1:44:57 happening. And everything else is just detailed noise. So isn't that same thing going to happen 1:45:02 in this situation where there's not really a... There's not a funnel for BIPs other than arguing 1:45:08 about it with humans and stuff all day long, which is the same issue we have on Bitcoin. 1:45:11 The only difference here is I can run off and segregate myself in the corner and do something 1:45:15 regardless of anyone telling me no. And it's not its own island anymore like it used to be 1:45:20 with altcoins, where you would fork Bitcoin and it would just be its own island. I forked Bitcoin 1:45:24 in 2019 with some friends of mine. One of our devs passed away. It's still working today, right? It 1:45:28 doesn't matter. Nobody uses it. Nobody mines it. It still works. But I'm off on an island on my own 1:45:33 where nobody gives a shit about this chain. So obviously Drivechains do help solve and start 1:45:37 solving that problem. But let's say I prove something on my drivechain. What is now the 1:45:42 pathway for me to take my evidence of the Drivechain being a best performing market asset because 1:45:47 of this feature and now go to the L1 and say, we want to help progress eCash or whatever. And we 1:45:53 think we should add this to the L1. What's the solution for everyone being retarded in that 1:45:57 situation? Well, it's difficult to have a solution for everyone being retarded. I think in part what 1:46:05 I was talking about with the cult is we are doing it to ourselves in addition to maybe other people 1:46:12 doing it to us. So I think it's all, everyone's doing it, including people are doing it to 1:46:18 themselves because people want to fight it. Now, for example, it used to be uncontroversial to do 1:46:22 soft fork activation. We used to do many of them, very, very many of them, multiple per year. 1:46:28 And there was no controversy over it before the SegWit blockade. But now that it's become scarce, 1:46:34 now everyone wants to fight over, oh, who gets to do it next? So that now that you can only do one 1:46:39 every five years, it becomes more prestigious. Whoever can get theirs across. And this leads 1:46:44 to enormous amounts of bickering and infighting among the different soft fork devs. And so they 1:46:54 are kind of like doing the work of the stasis death cult, maybe without realizing it. And 1:47:01 similarly, there's all kinds of people who are saying like, you know, they don't, they don't 1:47:05 realize what the real problem is. So they just think, oh, you know, the problem is that actually 1:47:10 none of the soft forks proposed are good, good enough. And if we just keep tinkering with it, 1:47:16 and again, this is actually carrying water for the stasis cult. So I think 1:47:21 if I had my way, like a trustworthy person, like a good rule of thumb would be, 1:47:25 is this person going to like, like, it's kind of a bizarre thing to say, but this is the only way of 1:47:30 making any sense of the situation is like, the jigsaw killer is strapped a device to your head 1:47:34 that's going to like rip off your head and kill you if you if no soft forks activated in 12 months. 1:47:39 So if that I listen to whatever that guy has to say, everyone else is accidentally serving the 1:47:46 stasis death cult, they don't they may not even realize that they are. But I think that would be 1:47:52 But I think that would be I would listen to whoever that guy is, you know, they've got like, 1:47:56 the, you know, the vest strapped to them, it's kind of like, because everyone else, 1:48:01 it's very suspicious that they all just kind of shrug and move on with a kind of, 1:48:06 and then you have many people, Udi, he was saying, Oh, when OP_CAT activates later this 1:48:12 year, with no controversy, I'll be accepting everyone's apology. He said that in 2024, 1:48:17 like at the beginning, he blocked the entire ordinal space. But yeah, good. 1:48:21 And then we also had Moon Settler, he was doing like lnhance. And I asked him, 1:48:27 I think it was the beginning of 2024. I asked him, I said, Well, what if we're still having 1:48:30 this conversation 12 months from now? And he was like, Oh, that's such a horrible thought. 1:48:36 I don't know what I would do. I would probably just quit Bitcoin. So that's exactly what happened 1:48:39 with him. So you have a long list of people who think they understand the problem. But unless 1:48:45 they're wearing the head ripping off device in 12 months, I'm not really not interested in what 1:48:50 they have to say, because I don't think that they realize like, 1:48:52 as someone who's been wearing the head ripping device for 14 and a half years, 1:48:55 these people aren't going to listen to that guy. But I feel your point. But what I guess 1:48:59 I'm getting at is like, I think you're almost there. And but I also think you're kind of still 1:49:04 not going to hit the mark necessarily. Because like, if you look at meta protocols, 1:49:07 as a good example, like you have the BRC 20 system, it's dogshit, right? We all know it's 1:49:10 dogshit. Then you have these other meta protocols that keep coming out on Bitcoin that are also 1:49:13 dogshit. But they're at least forcing the L1 to adapt, right? They're forcing it. They're 1:49:19 forcing the conversation. There's no political bullshit. It's just, are people going to pay 1:49:23 the fees? And if they pay the fees, the data goes on to the chain and nobody else can say 1:49:26 or do anything about it since it's a third party software that you can't stop us from using, 1:49:30 you know? With your system, it almost seems like you're kind of leaning into the problem, 1:49:34 but you're trying to like also address the problem. But you're going to let these people 1:49:38 start these drivechains. And then we're going to get back to the exact same problem we have 1:49:42 in Bitcoin, where there's not really a cross-chain BIP thing, you know, like a Drivechain to main 1:49:47 chain BIP system. And I think that's what we need. Even though the BIP system isn't even that good 1:49:51 at all in the first place, you can't just leave it to politics. Because like the problem you're 1:49:55 going to face, from what I understand, is that you're too honest with your understanding of 1:50:00 the things. You're not playing the politics as much as everyone else is playing the politics. 1:50:03 You're up against people who are playing politics all day long. So it's not necessarily a 1:50:08 technological argument. It's more like how do you organize humans so that this political 1:50:13 gerrymandering bullshit doesn't happen every time we have to have a serious conversation? 1:50:17 Because you're seeing it everywhere in every chain, all these L2s, all the meta protocols, 1:50:21 it's all the exact same thing playing out. Like people just want to make money and they're willing 1:50:25 to throw everything else to the side and say whatever they need to say to make some money. 1:50:29 Which means that like this whole like, oh, let's just go with the trusted guy. It doesn't really 1:50:33 work in this situation. Because when it starts playing out and it takes too long, we get stupid 1:50:38 shit like Lightning from our thought leaders. We get stupid shit like SegWit from our thought 1:50:41 leaders so we could support Lightning. And then we waste six years of development getting nowhere. 1:50:46 And that is the problem. Like you have to figure out a way with the Drivechain system. 1:50:49 Once there's a number one Drivechain, that thing has to be held up high and say, look, 1:50:54 this is proof of people paying for fees. We think that if we add these things to the L1, 1:50:59 we're going to get more fee paying users. And that's all that should matter. All these 1:51:03 fucking, everyone with an opinion on Twitter, irrelevant, completely irrelevant. Everyone down 1:51:08 here, listeners, me included, we're all irrelevant. We need to get away from talking to people 1:51:13 and saying what people think on the internet. This is not going to get us anywhere. We need data 1:51:17 and we need to prove that transactions are being paid by people, which is the only way we should be 1:51:22 developing the software going forward is that people are willing to pay more fees. 1:51:26 We should do that thing to make sure that the fees are going to the miners and et cetera, 1:51:30 et cetera, because otherwise we're going to get to the point where these guys are going to say, 1:51:34 well, we're the political leaders around here and we're going to inflate the supply of Bitcoin 1:51:37 so that we can pay the miners or whatever else they're going to say. But they're just 1:51:40 going to put that down our throats and we're not going to have any mechanisms to fight it. 1:51:44 And I think the thing you could be doing right now is going down that rabbit hole of how do we 1:51:48 solve these cross chain political problems? Because that's the number one problem you're 1:51:52 going to face is these political infighting bullshit. Okay, great. So I liked a lot of that. 1:51:59 So first of all, I agree that the L1 fees, total L1 fee amount, that should be like 1:52:06 partly like the North Star of the anyone, like for Bitcoin Core, they should just be like 1:52:13 everything in Bitcoin Core should revolve around making the exchange rate very high and also making 1:52:20 the total L1 fee revenues very high. So I agree with that. I'm also a huge proponent of prediction 1:52:27 markets. So I agree with you about conversations often overrated and you have a lot of people with 1:52:32 no skin in the game just saying whatever they want or just like performing for the camera. 1:52:36 And that's a huge waste of time or worse. So I agree with all that. One thing that I'm curious 1:52:42 about is why is it important for you? Someone builds the L2 and it works really, really well. 1:52:47 You can deposit to the L2 and withdraw, you have the same coin. So why is it so important to you 1:52:53 that the feature come back to L1? Maybe there would be... It's not always important, but sometimes 1:52:58 it's going to be the conver... like let's say it's scaling arguments, right? Like there's going to be 1:53:02 a point where you even hit a bottleneck and you have to like weigh your community's input, right? 1:53:07 And that's what happened with us. We had... obviously Bitcoin is not scalable. Did you 1:53:12 rug? Did he rug? Hello? Hello? Oh, I can see you. It just wasn't saying... So basically, 1:53:18 obviously Bitcoin is not scaled enough. If me, one user can send a thousand dollars of 1:53:23 transactions and I can make everyone else pay 10x the fee rate just because I wasted a thousand 1:53:28 measly dollars, right? Clearly that is not a good system where the auctioning, the RBFing of every 1:53:33 transaction in a small, you know, transaction hard-coded thing, 4,000 is the max you can really 1:53:39 get in a block based on data size, right? And then on top of that, you have some blocks going up for 1:53:43 two hours at a time. So in this situation, clearly we need to be having conversations to address this 1:53:48 situation. But we've gotten to this, like you were saying, like stasis effect where that is 1:53:52 somehow not a problem. It's not a problem that users are waiting two hours to get a transaction 1:53:58 approved. Like that is insane to me that we have made that a thing. So like there needs to be a 1:54:02 way to address that without this political side of it to say, look, there is mathematical proof 1:54:08 that the L2 could lend 50 or 10 or 20% of the fee payers back to L1, which gives everybody a better, 1:54:15 you know, technological playing ground to work within. And here's the reasoning for it. Here's 1:54:19 the data for it. It's not just because Paul said so, right? Because like, if we don't have systems 1:54:24 like that, all you're ever going to get is Lightning Networks in the future. You're never 1:54:27 going to get anything other than the bankers are buying their way in. That's all you're ever going 1:54:31 to get. And that's all Lightning Network has been since day one is a way for us to cuck to the 1:54:35 banks, okay? So if you can understand that, then why would it not keep happening with new solutions 1:54:40 down the road? Like I think Drivechains are a decently good idea. I do think we start getting 1:54:47 into the realm of let's not scale the L1 because we have L2s. And I really don't like this, like 1:54:52 going all in to the one side of the game, whether L1 or L2 is not good. We need to have a balanced 1:54:58 system where one side is helping balance out the other side and vice versa, right? We don't need to 1:55:03 scale BSV style, but we also need to recognize that two hour block fucking going, like it just 1:55:09 can't be happening. There needs to be a better DAA, go to LWMA, whatever you need to do. But the 1:55:14 point is, is these things are important for users. We are losing to Solana because users can get 1:55:19 onboarded to Solana in a single app. They can have finality in 10 seconds. And the dumb fucks in this 1:55:25 space are cool with that. They think that's okay. Fuck Solana. They're all scammers, shit pointers, 1:55:29 whatever. Solana is the way people onboard to crypto nowadays. How is that okay by anybody in 1:55:35 this space? I do not understand. But the point is, is the reason we got here is because there's no 1:55:39 technical solutions to any of this. It's all just Twitter based bullshit like this. So if you're 1:55:44 going to deal with this problem, you're going to see a lot of these things coming and hitting you 1:55:47 in the face. And you're going to say, man, it's okay. We just got to like, you know, deal with it. 1:55:52 But I don't think that's true. I think there's a way to have a BIP style system that says, hey, 1:55:56 look at all the data on this drivechain. There's a good theory that based on, you know, 5%, 1% of 1:56:03 these transactions would come to the L1, which would increase revenues for miners XYZ percentage. 1:56:08 I think that kind of data is much more helpful than what does Paul think, you know? 1:56:13 Okay, again, I liked a lot of who had to say, I think a lot of it made sense. I think 1:56:20 this project is different from when Vitalik created Ethereum. It was like, what does Vitalik 1:56:26 think? Or even like for many years, I would ask like William Mugayar, remember him? I would be 1:56:32 like, what will you do about such and such? And then he would be like, Vitalik has said he will 1:56:37 solve it. And I was like, no, okay, whatever. So, but this is different than that. And because 1:56:45 first of all, the L1, you know, this project keeps the L1 the same as Bitcoin Core. And then a lot of 1:56:50 the L2s, they have like their own, you know, they have their own fate and their own life. And then 1:56:55 you can add new L2s that have nothing to do with what I want or what I think. So I'm kind of, this 1:57:00 is a new crypto project where you're not really betting on me running it in the future. Well, 1:57:06 let's just say I want to activate Cat on L1 or whatever it is, right? I'm not saying you're 1:57:10 not going to do that or whatever. Let's just assume I want to do something. My Drivechain 1:57:14 is the best drivechain. And I am more popular than Paul in this, you know, eCash scene now. 1:57:19 Can I not use my political influence? And I see this every cycle on every single project, 1:57:24 when there's China versus the West, whatever. They always want to fight for a political influence, 1:57:27 right? So let's say I'm powerful, rich. I'm CZ. I come to start a drivechain. I start Binance 1:57:32 drivechain. How are you going to stop me from putting Cat into the L1? Well, first of all, 1:57:41 I don't think there's a big problem with Cat on L1. I think, okay, there's a couple of different 1:57:47 things because you've hit on like lots of different issues. Now it's almost four o'clock. 1:57:50 I'm going to keep you here all day. You're not going anywhere, Paul. 1:57:53 So one is that I think there is a solution to get to your fundamental problem of politics. I think 1:58:00 there is a different category of solution that does defeat politics to some extent, 1:58:07 which is competition. And competition is variation and selection. And that is what the L2, 1:58:14 the Drivechain idea, tries to introduce a little of. Because you can have, you can say, hey, 1:58:19 here's an L2 that doesn't have OP_CAT. Here's one that's similar, but it does have OP_CAT. 1:58:24 Now people are building on that one. Users are coming to that one. And meanwhile, everyone else 1:58:29 is launching their new L2. They're going to look at that and think, well, how can I get people into 1:58:33 my L2? I guess maybe I should have OP_CAT here. So I think competition does work on keeping people 1:58:42 in line. So I think that's a source of optimism. With respect to OP_CAT specifically, 1:58:50 that's a soft fork on L1. I'm a huge supporter of the soft fork. 1:58:57 Let's give an example. What are you not in favor of, though? 1:58:59 Let's say I want to do 64 megabyte blocks and I'm Calvin Ayer and I'm putting all the money into my Drivechain to convince everyone that I have the most successful drivechain. 1:59:07 And all I'm really doing is market making my own Drivechains, shit coins, you know. 1:59:11 But then I go to the L1 and I say, OK, I'm the most successful drivechain. I have 10, 20 times more users than everyone else. 1:59:16 I've made us millions of dollars in fees. And I think that we should integrate this and that. 1:59:22 And then I buy a bot army to argue with you on Twitter to say, and this is going to cost me fifteen hundred bucks, by the way, to tell you everything I'm saying. 1:59:29 And you're going to feel overwhelmed by the community. And then all of a sudden it's going to be that guy has political momentum over you. 1:59:36 And you're being forced to argue with your community about things you don't agree with, regardless of the technicals. 1:59:41 Right. Like that's what I'm saying. It's like it's going to happen. 1:59:44 It's going to happen. That's exact. It could even just be the exact scenario I just said, where CZ starts a Drivechain and he wants to run your shit into the ground by market making it and taking over consensus type thing. 1:59:54 Right. So that's what I'm getting at. It's like the bit is the starting point, but it's not necessarily the final point, you know. 2:00:01 Part of the idea of the Drivechain and of the L2s is that it's like a pressure release valve and it gives people a little bit of what they want. 2:00:11 So the idea, you know, in the block size war, you know, you had the large blockers who wanted larger block sizes and they couldn't. 2:00:19 They had ways of getting them, but they didn't really understand, like how extension blocks worked and stuff at the time. 2:00:24 They maybe still don't. But it was kind of like the only thing they could do was launch this big campaign in BTC to try to persuade people, which they ultimately were unsuccessful in doing. 2:00:36 And then they launched BCH. But with part of my idea is that, well, now they would have this other thing where it's like if they really disagree with you, they can just launch this L2 and then they can have the block size be whatever they want over there. 2:00:51 And I think this is very helpful in a lot of different ways. One is it stops the community from splitting into hard fork. And the other is it stops annoying people from doing a big political campaign. 2:01:04 And it also stops people from having to listen to the political campaign because they just think, well, we don't have to worry about this because this is so. 2:01:10 So another thing, though, that I think it does is a lot of the people during the block size war, this includes me. 2:01:19 This absolutely includes me. I was saying, listen, whatever you think about what the block size should be. 2:01:25 The hard fork is actually a very dangerous tool. It's ironic that I'm using it now, but this is after 10 years of like patiently waiting. 2:01:33 And trust me, it's important this time. But the hard fork is not like if you do the hard fork, you'll be at a huge disadvantage because you have to launch your own new thing, et cetera, et cetera. 2:01:44 So I was kind of saying. It's smarter to lean against Bitcoin cash or have all this stigma associated with it because it's doing the hard fork and it'll be on the new side, it won't be the old side, won't be the status quo. 2:02:02 So as a result of that. You have extra reasons to hate on the L2 or expect basically to expect it to fail, you have extra reason to hate the new idea, large blocks will fail. 2:02:16 It could have been, you know, ZK-SNARK privacy or could have been something else, ring signatures, whatever it is, you hard fork, you're at a disadvantage. 2:02:24 And but however, in the Drivechain world, I think now people might, you know, hold their tongue a little bit because they might think, OK, such and such says this is a good idea. 2:02:38 Let's just take ring signatures as an example. We live in the current world with no ring signatures. Someone says, oh, ring signatures are the best for L1 and for L2 and for everyone. Everyone's going to love this idea. 2:02:49 Then you have like a Greg Maxwell or whatever on L1 who's saying, let's just not change L1. You know, it's fine. Or Michael Saylor or whatever you want to call it. 2:02:59 And now they have to worry, though, they have to think very carefully about how much they're going to criticize this whole ring signature thing, because what if it goes to the L2 and then it's a big success? 2:03:11 Because they can't stop you from making a new L2 and they can't stop people from using it. And once you're on the L2, you can call the shots however you like. 2:03:21 And when you do that, it might be a big success and then their credibility is going to suffer. 2:03:26 No, I get that. That part makes sense. 2:03:28 I think it actually is kind of a decent way of addressing all three categories of thing. 2:03:33 Like, people may be open minded to the changes because now you're not going to leave the BTC community. You're just going to start a new L2. 2:03:42 This is the expected and encouraged way of disagreeing. 2:03:48 I guess that's not really my point, I guess. I guess my point would be this. I guess since you only have a few minutes to go, I'll get it to the point, like a directly bullshit, right? 2:03:57 So Drivechain, the whole point of you doing this is to prove that we should do this on Bitcoin, right? 2:04:03 Well, I think it's a little more nuanced than that. But I think that on one hand, this is a demonstration of what BTC should do. 2:04:13 On the other hand, this is an insurance policy if BTC is like so screwed up that it won't do it even after the demonstration. 2:04:21 That's what we did in the big block camp. 2:04:23 We got so egotistical and prideful in our technical solution that we had that exact take at first. 2:04:29 And then everybody, except for this dumb fucks like me who came back to Bitcoin because we understood that even if we lost the battle, we didn't lose the war. 2:04:36 The dumb fucks who thought we lost the war that stayed in Bitcoin Cash only, like some of these people up here, that think Bitcoin is dead and Bitcoin is worthless because of one technical mishap or whatever. 2:04:46 That's going to be the same problem you fall into, the fallacy you guys fall into in a community. 2:04:50 So where do we get to the point where, and this gets back to my earlier question about data. 2:04:53 How do we prove, insurance policy or not, let's just throw that out the window for a second. 2:04:57 How do we prove that when Drivechains go live and people start using it, that it's a good example to Bitcoin? 2:05:04 Because I think that's what we all miss out on. 2:05:05 Bitcoin Cash is a great example to Bitcoin in the sense that they don't need Mossad. 2:05:10 They don't need fucking Blockstream to do all this. 2:05:12 They just work on the bullshit themselves and people just use it. 2:05:15 And that's fine. It doesn't need to be as successful as Bitcoin to be a success technically, right? 2:05:19 But that's what you're going to end up doing. 2:05:22 You're going to end up saying, well, fuck it. 2:05:23 We can't convince the Bitcoiners to do this because they're all dumb. 2:05:26 So let's just focus on eCash, insurance policy attitude. 2:05:29 But then I think you lost the war. 2:05:30 You just gave up then. 2:05:31 How do you prove it? 2:05:34 It's difficult to follow the story a little bit because to me, it's very clear that Bitcoin Cash. 2:05:41 Did not make like a successful demonstration or anything that was like inspiring to the regular BTC people, which includes the small blockers, but also like neutral people. 2:05:52 And in fact, I think my opinion of what happened is that the Bitcoin Cash failed so hard that it actually discredited the idea of the hard fork itself like massively. 2:06:05 And it also discredited the idea of like disagreeing with Bitcoin Core. 2:06:09 And it discredited the idea of that. 2:06:14 Like it has today 240 million dollars of 24 hour volume. 2:06:18 It's at nine billion dollar market cap. 2:06:19 How is that a failure? 2:06:20 You're talking about Bitcoin Cash? 2:06:21 I think B, Bitcoin Cash and the BTC Lightning Network have achieved similar amounts of success. 2:06:27 They work to some extent, but they are not like the big grand slam. 2:06:35 Bitcoin Cash gets like a thousand X more daily volume than Lightning. 2:06:38 And wrapped Bitcoin on ETH gets 10 X more volume than Lightning Network. 2:06:44 So I don't know. 2:06:45 Yeah, but of course, if you go to the Las Vegas conference, you can. 2:06:51 And I've met all these people and I tell them all the lightning doesn't work and it's fake, a fake idea. 2:06:55 And it's just the Theranos and it's in a death spiral. 2:06:58 It's the Panopticon of digital surveillance is what it is. 2:07:01 What they'll tell you is they'll say, well, hey, listen, I used me and my friend used it last week. 2:07:05 And it worked just fine. 2:07:07 So that's what I know. 2:07:09 I know. 2:07:10 But that's my point is when I say Lightning Network doesn't work or when I say Bitcoin Cash is a failure. 2:07:18 I don't mean like it's 100 percent literally a failure every day and every endeavor. 2:07:25 It's a completely successful software project in the fact that it has users and it has actual software that people run. 2:07:33 So that that's not what I mean. 2:07:35 But I mean, is Bitcoin Cash held itself up? 2:07:38 You know, you know what I'm talking about. 2:07:40 This is the thing. 2:07:41 I'm trying to get to the point that, like, how are you not Bitcoin Cash people? 2:07:45 The Lightning Network people and the Bitcoin Cash people in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018. 2:07:55 All those people said my thing is how we're going to scale Bitcoin to the world. 2:08:01 And that's not true. 2:08:03 I mean, I agree. 2:08:04 There's a lot more nuance. 2:08:06 There's only like 50 percent of it at best. 2:08:08 You know, I agree. 2:08:10 Enormous amount of nuance. 2:08:12 So it's like, well, I guess the point is, is all this. 2:08:14 So I can let you go. 2:08:15 But how are you going to avoid all of this happening to eCash and stick with the plan of trying to help Bitcoin get better? 2:08:20 Because if from my understanding, insurance policy take or not, the only reason you would ever do something like this is to prove what you've been talking about, you know. 2:08:28 So, like, with that being the case, how would you how do you keep yourself in line with those goals versus becoming just eCash? 2:08:35 Like you don't want to be that. 2:08:36 That would, in your words, would become a failure just like Bitcoin Cash. 2:08:39 Right. In that situation. 2:08:40 Exactly. 2:08:41 Now, if it's not if eCash is around and it is not the number one coin on coin market cap or it is not like something that's generally accepted as like the, you know, the pre staging ground, like for the number one coin, which would be like BTC, I guess. 2:09:02 Those are the only two scenarios I would consider to be a success or a third scenario that I would consider to be a success would be it. 2:09:09 It works. 2:09:11 You know, it works so well that there's like this huge cultural revolution in BTC and people finally they come around to my way of thinking on a lot of different things like we should do this off works more frequently. 2:09:21 They don't really have any risk. 2:09:24 We need to prioritize transaction fees paid, which is a real measurable thing and not all this other whatever. 2:09:31 And we need to get rid of the. 2:09:34 The naive ossificationists who they don't really know what they're talking about and have no way of sustainably ossifying anyway. 2:09:40 They don't even know what they're talking about. 2:09:42 So if we cause a huge cultural revolution in BTC and we say BTC, that would be a success if this project is like the official pre BTC in the timeline or if it replaces BTC, those would be everything else would basically not be a success in my view. 2:09:59 Although, of course, you know, the view could change, I suppose, but I think probably there's only one winning coin. 2:10:06 There's only one QWERTY keyboard. 2:10:07 How many years do you think that one winning coin is kind of going to take the forefront, though? 2:10:12 Like right now, Bitcoin's the one winning coin, right? 2:10:14 Yeah, I think like two years. 2:10:16 I would think I would then I would wonder, like, am I just kidding myself? 2:10:21 But I think you've seen just from the announcement. 2:10:23 We're only like into week three of my announcement and already an enormous number of things have shifted. 2:10:31 And we barely even got started. 2:10:32 And this is just the announcement of the fork, let alone the fork itself, when you have people actually being able to put their money where their mouth is. 2:10:38 But I want to reiterate what I said about I was trying to follow your story. 2:10:42 Your story seemed to be something like Bitcoin Cash tried this before, but it failed to inspire BTC. 2:10:49 I'm telling you that my version of the story was that BCH like kind of was not a great idea and not great execution. 2:10:59 It only further enshrined the mistaken errors in BTC. 2:11:04 And it gave them more credibility. 2:11:06 The problem is splitting, right? 2:11:07 Like the way you're splitting right now in a non-dramatic way, that makes sense. 2:11:10 But when we did the Bitcoin Cash split and like even me, I can admit to being a dumbass at the day. 2:11:16 I still believe in big blocks, not necessarily BSV style big blocks, but eight megabytes would have no problem today. 2:11:21 And anyone who says otherwise is a fucking retard. 2:11:23 But the point is, is that I understand that there's way more than the technicals. 2:11:26 There's way more than the block size. 2:11:28 Block speed matters. 2:11:29 All this other shit matters. 2:11:30 Taproot, everything. 2:11:31 Transaction weights matter. 2:11:33 Everything matters, right? 2:11:34 But I think what we did wrong in the big blocks is we let them push us out. 2:11:37 We let them make us the bad guys when all we wanted to do was have discussions about things. 2:11:43 And then they forced us to make decisions and pick a side and fucking political this, political that. 2:11:48 And I think that was the biggest sin of the Bitcoin Cash community was falling into that corner, segregating themselves off of Bitcoin community, becoming their own thing and never coming back to Bitcoin. 2:12:00 Like the reason I'm in ordinals as a quote big blocker is to force the fucking conversation again, is to make people use Bitcoin again and actually want to transact on the chain again. 2:12:10 Everybody that doesn't want that is not a Bitcoiner. 2:12:13 They are a statist fucking retard, right? 2:12:15 So that's I think that's the point is that like they fucked up. 2:12:19 They lost. They lost the goal, man. 2:12:21 The Bitcoin Cash people, they have their own goal. 2:12:23 But the only goal is to be right now. 2:12:25 It's not even to be to show the way to the people or to better Bitcoin or any of that. 2:12:29 It's just to be fucking right on Twitter these days. 2:12:31 And that sucks, you know? 2:12:32 So like as a person who was there from day one, I fought on the big block side the whole time. 2:12:36 I kicked Amari's dumb ass out of Bitcoin Cash. 2:12:38 I had my life threatened multiple times in telegrams over having a take. 2:12:41 You know, like it's just like that's the thing that it brings everything down. 2:12:45 And like we need to get away from all of that. 2:12:47 We need to probably block everyone that has a negative take on Twitter. 2:12:49 And you need to figure out a way or even just think about it. 2:12:52 Don't even figure out a way, but just always have it in the back of your head that we need more data. 2:12:55 We need more proof of the things that our people are saying and not just hearsay. 2:12:59 And it can't just be like, well, look at the tech. 2:13:02 Look at the transaction data. 2:13:03 That's enough. 2:13:04 It has to be more nuanced with research and, you know, guesstimates and things like that. 2:13:09 That say like, hey, if this were to happen on L1, we would get 30 percent increased security because the fee rates would rise. 2:13:15 That kind of conversation is never happening anymore. 2:13:18 It's always I like Adam back. 2:13:20 I think he's Satoshi, you know, and we can't we can't have this. 2:13:23 This is not a way to go about fixing things ever. 2:13:26 So if it would be the best thing you can do out of drivetrains, in my opinion, is have some sort of protocols that help avoid the politics. 2:13:33 That's what I'm saying. 2:13:34 Yeah, I agree. 2:13:36 And thanks for your. 2:13:38 Points, I'm going to have to end it now, but I think I want to come I want to sneak in some last words because, OK, 2:13:45 the most important bizarre thing about the block size war is that if you guys, the large blockers, had done the mandatory extension block with J.J. 2:13:53 from purse you with 83 percent of the hash rate, you would have won and you would have kicked out and it would be a completely different timeline. 2:14:02 And who knows what other weird problems we would have had. 2:14:05 Another thing is it could have, you know, people talked about at the time. 2:14:09 Should the large blockers do Drivechain, which had been proposed but not really fleshed out? 2:14:16 That also you would have easily been able to get that. 2:14:18 So these are these are mysterious because as everyone we told the audience, there's a lot of nuance. 2:14:24 There's an enormous amount of nuance to these points, which there is. 2:14:27 So there's lots and lots of nuance. 2:14:30 I do think part of the story is the large blockers like rushed. 2:14:34 They just assumed they would win. 2:14:36 They rushed and lost and then left everyone in a confused state. 2:14:41 Definitely me, including me. So. 2:14:43 But, yeah, we can talk about this next week or any time. 2:14:48 So thanks very much for everyone. 2:14:51 If you're interested, we have a you know, we have a telegram group. 2:14:57 It's t.me slash DC insiders. 2:14:59 But to deter spam, I set it up so that people have to pay like a tiny amount of money. 2:15:03 I got to fix that and shut that off to George. 2:15:05 Just message and join. Or you can DM me. 2:15:08 I'm P. Sztorc. P. S. Z. T. O. R. C. 2:15:11 I'm on telegram. I'm not truth going on telegram. 2:15:14 You can get me here. We have a telegram group. 2:15:17 I'll be back next week at two. 2:15:20 Thanks a lot. I'll probably be taking notes on. 2:15:23 Random, you know, haters and their their arguments or whatever. 2:15:29 Yeah. Also, Vlad, is he OK? Stop blocking people, you loser. 2:15:32 We need drama up in here. There's no listeners, dude. 2:15:35 What the hell? Yeah, I think he may be FK or asleep. 2:15:40 I'm not sure of the time zones, but yeah, we'll we'll fix that. 2:15:44 It's a work in progress. And I think I'll probably also shift to there also be like, you know, 2:15:50 I'll switch the clubhouse every now and then or I'll switch to whatever. 2:15:53 You know, we'll switch a different time or we can shift it around. 2:15:56 We can switch the change of the format. So that's what we're here for. 2:16:00 So thanks. Thanks a lot, everyone. We will post the recording. 2:16:04 So thanks very much. eCash.com LayerTwoLabs.com. 2:16:09 drivechain.info. These are the sites. 2:16:12 So thanks very much. And see everyone next week. 2:16:17 Thanks to everyone who spoke and listened. So thanks a lot. 2:16:22 Bye, everyone. See you next week.
