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