0:00 I think I will say a couple sentences and then we'll just go for it, which is that I've known about syscoin for a very long time. 0:14 Ever since in 2014, I designed my prediction market thing, Truthcoin, my peer-to-peer oracle, which is supposed to be a Bitcoin prediction market. 0:22 Thanks to the slow arrival of sidechains, it has still yet to materialize, even though the work is there. 0:30 You can go to bitcoinhivemind.com if you're curious about that particular topic. 0:34 But the point is I wrote this Truthcoin paper in January 2014 or something. 0:40 And there were only a few people who were smart enough to immediately pick up on how great it was. 0:46 Two of them ended up joining Ethereum, or even as very early Ethereum people. 0:52 And they took the project to Ethereum, basically, where it became sort of Augur and Gnosis. 0:58 And even it became the answer to – people would ask Vitalik, well, what is Ethereum for? 1:04 And he would say, oh, he said nothing for a while. And then after my paper, he said, oh, well, prediction markets. 1:10 So it kind of created an awful lot indirectly, and it created the automated market maker. 1:16 But the point of this story is that one of the four was Bitcoin, two of the four ended up being Ethereum. 1:22 There were a bunch of – one was – it was actually five, I suppose, actually quite a few. 1:27 But one was this guy, Zach, who did his own interesting project, I think called the MOVO or something. 1:33 But one of them was this Cisco guy. And I don't remember too many of the details. 1:41 It was Sebastian. 1:42 Yeah, it was Sebastian, yeah. And he was very into it. And then I was kind of like, well, that's neat. 1:50 I told him to reach out to you that time, because I really liked the proof of work versus proof of stake piece you did. 1:57 I actually referred a lot of people to that, just because it wastes a lot of time explaining. 2:02 I was just like, just go to Paul's blog here and just read that. And if you have a rebuttal, then let's talk about it after. 2:09 Nice, nice. So yeah, so I had this opinion of Cisco in 2014 that was like, oh, these guys must be on top of something. 2:18 But it has the same problem with all altcoins, which is since it's gone from being a really big problem to a much smaller one over time. 2:26 But the big problem is always just like live by the fork, die by the fork. 2:30 Like we wanted to get everyone in the world on one coin, and so it's not helpful to have people keep launching their own coin. 2:37 But now I guess it doesn't make much of a difference, because Bitcoin is moving very slowly on the whole sidechains project, which is part of the whole point of this space. 2:47 But I think there's never been a better time to be an altcoin than now, I think, actually. 2:55 Because over time, people have gotten – I mean, you can look at the Bitcoin word dropout and the crypto word rise up. 3:03 Almost no one, like on a television show or something, uses the word Bitcoin anymore. 3:09 They just say crypto. And people love USDT. People love – Ethereum has more transaction fees than Bitcoin, and Tron, USDT has more actual payments than others. 3:24 But anyway, I'd love to – I thought maybe I'd research this before doing the space, but then also I didn't have time. 3:32 But also I thought it's probably better if I just don't research it and we'll just have a fun conversation about – 3:39 because probably most of the people who attend this weekly space have absolutely no idea at all what Syscoin is in the slightest. 3:49 So maybe we should just go from there. 3:55 Yeah, for sure. Bradley, you want to give sort of a broad thousand-foot view, I guess? 4:01 Yeah, sure. Sorry about earlier. I had to restart X. I couldn't hear anything. 4:05 But hey, everybody. I'm Bradley with Syscoin Foundation. Jack's here, too. He's the president of Syscoin Foundation. 4:12 Yeah, I can offer a pretty quick thousand-foot view. So, you know, Syscoin is merge-mined with Bitcoin. 4:20 We're chain ID 16. We've been merge-mined with Bitcoin, I think, since 2016. Mainnet since 2014. 4:28 We've been around the block, so to speak. We've been in this space for a while and still innovating. 4:34 So our approach and what we have today with Syscoin is a modular, full-stack blockchain that has its main base as a UTXO chain. 4:50 Right now, we have something like about 20% of Bitcoin's hash rate supporting us. 4:55 We also have an EVM running alongside it, so it's sort of a dual-chain, layer one. 5:02 And we have a functioning layer two in the form of an optimistic roll-up. 5:07 What's currently an optimistic roll-up called Rolux that is mainnet. 5:12 And our view basically is we want to keep that provenance of value that Bitcoin's proof of work provides with real-world inputs. 5:23 You know, we've always been proponents of proof of work, and we feel that the best way to tap into that is through merge mining. 5:32 And, you know, we don't throw proof of stake out with the bathwater, so to speak. 5:38 We feel at the bottom of the stack is where proof of work belongs. Absolutely. 5:45 But, you know, we do have finality on top of our merge mining. 5:50 Right. So some of the concerns brought up pretty early on by people like Luke Dashjr. in regard to merge mining, we have some additional security in place. 6:04 So in order to 51 percent attack Syscoin, basically you would not only need to control, you know, at least that percentage of the miners supporting Syscoin, 6:16 but you would also need to have a super majority of master nodes that are serving multi-quorum chain locks that provide finality on top. 6:26 And the cool thing about that is we can achieve finality in a way where if for some reason it can't be achieved, like it will resolve back down to Nakamoto consensus. 6:39 And it's not a breaking event. So but at any rate, yeah, we're to sum it up, we're a modular full stack ecosystem with Syscoin. 6:51 Before you go a little bit further, Paul's more deeper. I think for his sake, maybe you qualify because as soon as you start to say validators, alarms probably go off in his head. 7:06 So I think you validate the fact that we don't relegate back down to proof of stake. 7:13 And that's a really interesting statement that you can have validators not go down to proof of stake. 7:18 It's because we choose not to enforce this finality. We choose to have it as an option so that under the optimistic scenario, finality is achieved. 7:31 Under the pessimistic scenario, you fall back to longest chain rule. And how we do that is there are some nuances in chain locking. 7:40 And we can show you some nice article around that in a marketing piece we did recently on the method to the madness. 7:47 If you Google that, we can show you that it will fall back to longest chain rule without the risk of falling back to a purely proof of stake model. 7:57 And specifically, you're probably thinking about if you have proof of stake and proof of work together, you have the option of those super majority validators to grind the difficulty down to control the chain. 8:09 And that specific problem is the tradeoff you get when you introduce some validators, you have difficulty grinding. 8:16 And that is something we've solved for as well. 8:21 Yeah, Robin Linus is inventor of a BitVM. He vaguely likes, I don't know to what extent yours is similar, but he vaguely likes the, a lot of people like the idea of proof of work base and then other stuff on top to improve the finality. 8:40 And they push back against unrefined merge mining. And so there has been a lot of commentary about that. And a lot of people like different things. 8:54 So for example, who's that guy, Sonny Ray or whatever, a lot of people have liked the whole, and then they say that that's, I actually kind of find it a little weird and sort of annoying, but it's not a big deal. 9:10 But then they say, oh, we made proof of stake work by putting it on top of proof of work. And I was like, no, not really. 9:16 I mean, proof of work is the thing that works. And then there's like a refinement. But I think that that's smart. I mean, Blind Merged Mining sort of just similar like that, where it's like the L1 coins that were mined with proof of work. 9:30 How can we make it make sense for anyone in the audience, which is that, so I mean, it's cool that this merge mining thing has been around for a while. 9:39 And on top of that, you bought something to make it to have to give the. So is this, I mean, I guess the probably the smart thing to ask would be is like, what problem is this coin supposed to solve? 9:50 And I don't know if the answer is, add more flexibility plus EVM, number one. And then number two is like, increase the reliability of merge mine blocks on BTC. 10:05 Yeah, we have. So the reason why we introduced finality, right? It's not we're trying to create fast blocks and all that dumb stuff. It's for a specific reason. 10:16 And that's when you when you get into, as you know, you guys are probably modular, modular blockchain enthusiasts, like separate the execution off from the base layer, moving the CPU and memory off. 10:26 That's how we scale. We are actually pretty big proponents of the genesis of Bitcoin as well. 10:35 So we actually enforce, we enforce merge mining, which means you can't solo mine sys. You have to merge mine, which meaning you're mining Bitcoin to mine sys. There's no other way. 10:48 It's basically an extension that way. Like you can't go in by itself. So it's not parasitic on the tokenomic side. 10:59 But the reason why we introduced finality was specifically under the modular blockchain design, the data availability component, because at that point, you've introduced the data availability system where you can start to, after finality plus some time, you can remove that data because it's not hashed on the chain. 11:17 But that data availability is critical to scale up the modular stack, you know, the recursive layers, if you will, if it's BIP300, then the chains within the chains, once you have the data availability constraints, you have to have the layer one serving that as sort of your core system. 11:34 And the finality is needed there. Otherwise, there's asymptotic cost that happened on the data itself. And we try to remove that. That's specifically what EIP 4844 of Ethereum or Pearljank sharding of Ethereum was trying to solve with their DA solution, except they fell back into sharding. 11:52 And because they're using proof of stake anyways, it made sense to distribute the trust across all the other nodes. 11:59 Yeah, some censorship concerns there, you know, with sharding, you know, just as an artifact of the architecture itself, you know, if 50% of the nodes are unavailable, then, you know, you have data unavailability, essentially. 12:16 So we, we managed to come up with an approach to DA that sort of keeps the Bitcoin assumption of one honest node is all that's needed. And so we have that it's called we call it proof of data availability, and it's it's functioning on our layer one. 12:31 But, you know, one thing, you know, that that's worth pointing out about our ecosystem is that SIS is the native coin, not not BTC, right? We feel philosophically that Bitcoin's economics really are not ideal for utility. 12:50 And I think the market itself sort of expresses that whenever you look at projects sort of like, like RSK, for example, it hasn't really been utilized much. And of course, there's a contingent of Bitcoiners. 13:05 Like, if you look past the majority of Bitcoiners that, you know, are sort of the archetypal boomer coiner that doesn't really want to be super familiar with Ethereum, Bitcoin's a lot simpler, if you look beyond them, to the Bitcoiners that basically are in the closet with their Ethereum wallet, right? Like, like, why aren't they using RSK, you would think you would think it would have a lot more usage. 13:31 And I think what it really boils down to is people don't want to spend their Bitcoin on gas. 13:39 Maybe, I don't know, we're kind of going a little all over the place here. So the problem that Drivechain is supposed to solve is that we're not supposed to need a new coin. If we don't, we don't need one, you can always bolt one on. But so SIS coin is a different coin. And you have a coin not only because it's L2, and you need some kind of battery to store value and move it around. 14:10 But you also just need something to, you also say that you will change the economics of the coin, like the supply schedule and the, what do you mean by that specifically? 14:23 Yeah, so our SIS is based on the EIP 1559. So it's essentially... 14:31 So the supply will shrink even if the fees are high. 14:34 Correct. And, you know, there's a burning component there, and there's no maximum cap. It's really, really meant for utility. 14:43 And there's also the validators we added to 1559 by the rent paid to the miners and validators is still paid and the validator rent will not go under some value. So it doesn't deflate to zero. The rent paid to the masternodes will deflate only up to a certain point. So there's that static cost. 15:06 But if the burn is, if the revenue on the EVM chain is higher than all the fees plus the static burn deflated maximally, then it does become deflationary during that event. But the fee market also would be susceptible to high costs at that point. People are moving off of the base layer for their transactionality because it will be too costly. 15:31 And the other cool effect of going this route and being merge mined is that we can sort of perpetually incentivize the Bitcoin miners that support Syscoin, ID16, you know, with SIS. 15:46 So even in the future when, you know, halvenings continue on and the block rewards sort of diminish towards nothingness and maybe even potentially fees aren't sufficient at some point in the future, they're getting something. They're getting SIS. And that SIS is incentivizing them to potentially, I mean, at the level of the architecture itself, it's there, right? 16:11 The idea that Bitcoin miners would have something incentivizing them to continue working Bitcoin and to keep the network decentralized. 16:22 Okay. Yeah, I mean, I think actually that decision of ETH to change it around, the ultrasound money is kind of smart and it's part of their plan. 16:33 Ethereum's plan to destroy BTC and replace it and take it over. And so just quietly, without really making too big of a deal about it, change the economics of ETH so that the supply tends to shrink, whereas BTC is going to continue to grow from 19 million to 21 million. 16:51 But I think they're very aggressive on that shrinking as well. It's really, really aggressive to a point where even right now we had events where supply was actually decreasing. And the hardness of coins is also affected now because of proof of stake. That's the two problems we see. 17:06 Yeah, ETH should never have done a full proof of stake L1, but maybe they have information I don't have or whatever. But I think they're just trying to do something different. 17:21 I don't remember the last time I saw CISCOIN on CoinMarketCap. I don't remember what the ranking is, but it must be 320 or something like that. 320. So that's kind of low. And yet you have a shrinking supply, you have all these features. 17:49 And do you have some kind of story for why you think that is or you think it doesn't matter? 17:57 Yeah, there's definitely reasons there. We've taken eight years to develop our infrastructure and we're not thinking of ourselves as let's deflate to zero and holders of CISCOIN will benefit. It's more when AGI within 18 months is coming and there's billions of agents onboarding into crypto because they're not using fiat. 18:20 There needs to be a place that will help scale up, which doesn't affect the asymptotic costs of the validators of full nodes. And that rent that they pay in CISCAS needs to be economically abundant and available and not super costly when people are trying to onboard into it. 18:41 So we've taken that time to figure out what the tokenomics and the security mechanism should be and how it all should relate to each other so that when there's mass adoption that we're ready. And the layer two just got launched probably about three, four months ago. And so we haven't really had any for users to onboard into CISC. So there's no activity on the CISC chain because that's by design. 19:04 At the same time, though, Jag, we have a pretty substantial community and it's continued to grow. We're very active. We're constantly developing. Now we have Rolex that's got a fairly rapidly growing ecosystem. I mean, we've had to kind of bootstrap it, but we've got a dedicated BD team. We're doing a lot. 19:27 OK, we're doing a lot and we're accomplishing a lot compared to even projects that have like a big war chest that are higher market cap. So it is interesting, you know, the fact that we are at where we are in the market. And, you know, there's probably there's probably some other reasons for that. 19:50 And I don't I don't know that it has anything as much to do with our project itself. It might be a symptom of the market. I don't know. 19:57 Well, we never did this crazy VC background where the market makers and VCs would pump us to distribute the bags. We're very organic. Our community is mostly Bitcoin OGs, some of the Eth OGs and the people that really believe in change rather than trying to look at like if you just visit Discord, the price talk is always about how will CISCoin help the world rather than, you know, what's going to happen. 20:27 You know, when can I sell and when? 20:30 Well, that's the smartest thing that Ricardo Spagni, Fluffy Pony, leader, cultural leader of Monero for a time. The smartest thing he ever did was they banned all discussion of the price, which I think was key. And they stayed focused on their problem, which was private cryptocurrency transactions. 20:49 Yeah, man. I remember back in the day when I think it might have been him, but I remember watching a Monero guy speaking and he basically told people, I don't you know, I don't give a shit about the price of Monero. Don't talk to me about that. We're here to develop it. And yeah, that led to a whole hellstorm of comments and drama back then. 21:20 Okay, I'm sorry, my phone did something weird. 21:23 Yes, yeah, that's very important. And of course, Monero is not very high either. It's let's see, I think it's like in the 20s or so. But it is beating many coins that did do the VC route. 21:36 VC route, you know, it does help. Probably, I would assume the coin. But I think it's huge long run costs. But I guess we would say I mean, like Solana is like the biggest VC coin in my head. That I would say, and it's number seven now. So I mean, you know, it's like, we can't base everything off of the rankings, because it's very circular, you know, circular reasoning. 22:01 You know, you're low until you're. But yeah, I just think it's, it's worth paying attention, especially because it's all open source. So everyone can just copy any idea. And that means that even if you have a great idea, or even the best actual shipped code, it doesn't necessarily mean anything, which is why I just kind of hang out in, you know, in my office, you know, 22:29 BTC world, even though it's, you know, it's not going super great in the BTC world, but it is number one. 22:36 Right? Well, 22:38 it's 22:40 okay. Yes. 22:41 Yeah, that's true about open source. I mean, that's certainly true. But there is another component as well. And that is the network. That's the network that's that's running the blockchain. You know, you can't replicate, you can't just replicate that. I mean, maybe, maybe arguably, 22:57 merge mining is kind of an exception to that rule. But, you know, you can't fork syscoins code and basically have our community and our network of masternodes. So there's that. 23:09 Yeah, I know, I would say it's, yeah, it's, it's a little, there's a bit of a little bit of marketing brainwash that's happening. But there's been cycles that we've been through that other coins are still going to experience, you know, we've had four or five bearable markets, whereas many of the projects, maybe one or two max, and they'll experience the same drawdowns that we've experienced. And, you know, in the end, it'll be the people that stuck around that can, you know, 23:39 kept developing that put their heads to the ground that thought about things the right way. Think about value first. You know, if you have VCs backing you, they're going to say when, when profits, when bottom line, when revenue, when how can you pump this and you're reporting to them, versus your organic communities asking, when can we change the world, it's a totally different dynamic and allows you to freely express yourself and develop and think about things in the right way, you know, we feel. 24:09 Okay, so now should we talk about the real meat of the substance, which is the L two, or for example, whatever, whatever it is that makes you say that you will, did you say something on Twitter earlier this week, that was like, whatever Cisco inverse BIP300 or something. 24:28 Right, don't you have some kind of maybe we're talking about the optimistic L two, the optimistic roll up, or just the ability to move coins? 24:43 It might have been Xiao, he might have mentioned something that I didn't catch the tweet, but I know he said something that there was some, you know, we should look to each other or talk to each other about we're solving the same sort of problems. And potentially, you know, there's opportunities to collaborate there. 25:01 Yeah, there was a tweet that said that we outshined VIP 300. And the idea was, okay, well, come on and tell us how. I feel that we, you know, we can look at Bitcoin from two different angles. There's BTC, the economics of BTC, and then there's the proof of work network that is supporting it. 25:20 The perspective of our project is that that proof of work is extensible, of course, through merge mining. And so what we're doing is we are providing utility, essentially, that is supported by Bitcoin's extensible proof of work. And we are saying that essentially we are we are providing the security of Bitcoin for that. 25:48 For that utility use case. And I don't think, I'm not sure how VIP 300, with that being said, can, like is useful or something maybe that Bitcoin should necessarily implement if merge mining is already in place, and there's a means to scale Bitcoin's proof of work through that. 26:17 Now, if you wanted to, I think, extend BTC itself onto other chains, then it would be. 26:25 VIP 301 is a type of merge mining that, and the merge mining field is a little crowded, or whatever. Because we have many ways of not only doing merge mining, including vanilla merge mining that is invented by Satoshi a long time ago, and that many coins have been merge mined with, which I assume would describe you from 2014 to 2016, based on what you said earlier. 26:55 And then there are, there's, in fact, VIP 301, which is different form of merge mining that was sort of invented by me. And then VIP 301 has been emulated in many ways by the super testnet or even, who else? 27:12 Ruben Thompson, people invented different ways of doing it today. There are, there's like, I think the, the, the sunny ray proof of work proof of stake, like, it's not merge mining, but there's that like that type of technique is possible where you have merge mining, and then you do other stuff, you have people stake the merge mined coins, and then there's like some second round, or something like that. 27:40 So that's 301. And 301 is sort of optional. I mean, Drivechain is considered like something that uses 300 and 301. And how the sidechain comes to consensus, that's kind of like, however, they want to do that, that's up to them, you know, as far as I'm concerned, it's a different piece of software, they can do whatever they want. 28:01 VIP 300 is about sending BTC to and from a different blockchain network. So it's deposits and withdrawals. And it works based on paying off the miners in all sorts of ways and making it very difficult for them to steal making it so that if they do steal, it will be economically devastating for them. 28:28 And so that certain chains where the chain deposit, the total amount of coins deposited in the chain is less than the turnover in transaction fees. For certain chains, it will be economically secure. And that is a VIP 300 idea. So together, those ideas are Drivechain, I think the 301, you know, is invented in like January 2017. 28:53 And we have different ways of emulating it. I think it's, I think 301 is a pretty good idea. I don't think it's like, it's nowhere near as important. Especially since we can already do it on Bitcoin today with just in a very inefficient way. 29:11 And we can probably do honestly, I haven't, I haven't really checked. But since it's just counting the 13,000, we can probably do VIP 300 today also. But that's not really the point. The point is to 29:24 Is it 1306 blocks is the number? 29:29 13,150, which is like three months worth. So it's like a huge overkill. On our test network, it's only 131 now for fast testing. 29:39 That's fine. 29:41 SPV proof base. So the state gets put on the sidechain state gets fully come to consensus. And then that gets put on the Bitcoin chain, like, like an anchor type of thing. And then people 29:56 Is that how you do it? We don't I don't I make no, I, I kind of flip it around completely, where I say, nothing on l2 will ever be enforceable on l1. And so l1 can ignore l2 completely. And then it's just the deposits and withdrawals. 30:13 There's the withdrawal system is very, very, very slow and very transparent. And with merge mining, the l1 miners collect all the transaction fees, which I imagine will be enormous in total, because there's no limit on quantity. 30:27 So it's like the whole world's transaction fees, like just visas transaction fees today is just like hundreds of millions of dollars a day, which is much, much more than what is collected on BTC now, which is only hundreds of thousands. 30:40 The miners need to mine the sidechain blocks. 30:45 They don't necessarily they if they want additional certainty, they always can, but there's no actual requirement. And in fact, many different shortcuts are built in to make it very easy for them to learn the sidechain state, even if they do absolutely nothing at all. 31:03 So that's Blind Merged Mining is some people, different people who are running sidechain nodes, and they know the state perfectly. 31:14 They just bid on what the next block will be with l1 coins. And they say, put this, put this little code, put this little Merkle root or whatever, put this little Merkle root in l1, and I'll pay you these l1 coins. 31:29 The miner just the l1 miner just does that to advance the state. And when that block is found over there, then the person who paid l1 coins, someone who ran a sidechain node, they earn the trans pay the transaction fees themselves. 31:44 So I don't know, I explained it very well. 31:46 If the Merkle root is uploaded, you come to a consensus on the Merkle root, the layer two sidechain has the witness data to create the Merkle root? Or is it that everyone's own UTXO positions, they can do an SPV proof against that Merkle root to exit? 32:05 Well, again, the finding the next block is, in my view, completely separate in every way. So finding the next block is the merge mining part and the deposits and withdrawals. Those, those are two completely separate and inseparable things in my view, but not in many people's view. Many people don't have that view, but I do. 32:27 The transition from state to state on layer two happens on its own. But at some point, you're putting the Merkle root back onto layer one, so users can exit, right? 32:38 Well, it's not the Merkle root that allows people to exit, but it is the hash of the withdrawal transaction ID. And when the state advances in the merge mining dimension, also, there is a hash of the hash of the sidechains block header. 32:56 So sidechain has, I see we have a hand, but let me try to continue to answer this question for a second, which is that the, okay, what happens is you're a sidechain node, and I'm a layer one miner, and you are a sidechain node, you, you build the next block, paying yourself the transaction fees. And let's say that's four Bitcoin worth of transaction fees. 33:20 You've built that now, but you, but you have, no one has found the block per se, you've just built it, you know what it should look like. 33:27 You know what, that's what you, you aspire this to be the next block. 33:33 You go on L1, and then you pay the miners 3.99 BTC and L1 coins, you say 3.99 BTC L1 coins to, to put this code in this special spot in L1 block. 33:50 And then that is what is the sidechain node software interprets. 33:55 They interpret that as being what counts as meeting the, you know, what would be the difficulty requirement and the sidechain L2. 34:05 Yeah, it's putting the state like as in anchoring and that lets people exit, right? 34:10 Later on, they can use that. 34:11 Well, that doesn't necessarily, I mean, indirectly it does, because the sidechain state has to advance at some point so that you, someone can brought on L2, say, I want to withdraw and have the sidechain become aware of that fact, and then bundle all the withdrawals up. 34:28 Yeah. So how does that withdraw work? 34:30 Like I'm a user of L2 and I move up back to, back to base. 34:34 Well, they're first all like cached and sort of collected on L2. 34:40 So the withdrawals only happen one at a time, no matter how many people are trying to withdraw. 34:45 So there could be many, like 12,000 people trying to withdraw, but the way for the first withdraw to finish, and then the sidechain, which is aware of L1. 34:56 It spends its UTXO, it says, here's select the UTXO that has all the BTC in it, you know, the UTXO of all the sidechains coins. 35:08 So the sidechain, maybe it has like 50,000 coins or something. 35:12 It selects that UTXO and then it pays out to the list of the list of 12,000 people who wanted to withdraw, who waited patiently. 35:21 And the sidechain L2 is, yeah, I haven't explained how it happens yet, but I'm saying this again, the sidechain calculates what it, what aspires to be the case. 35:30 So it knows what it's sort of aiming for. 35:33 And it constructs, what would the transaction ID be of that? 35:37 If it would, you know, what would the transaction ID idea that be if it were included on L1? 35:45 And then it, there's a tiny detail where it zeroes out in part because it's like a SIG hash, no input. 35:53 But other than that, it just broadcasts this hash everywhere in L2. 35:58 It's in every L2 header, it's in the, you know, ribbon of the GUI. 36:03 It's in, so, so it's, so this hash is everywhere. 36:08 And then the miners pick it up since the miners are human beings and not nodes. 36:12 The miners can, the miners just need to learn from, learn it from anyone who can make it available. 36:19 So there's a commitment of the hash and then someone needs to reveal the data behind it so that you can disclose the state that that's the state that's being changed. 36:29 Well, there's not necessarily the state. 36:32 It's only the, it's only the one transaction, but you could call it the state if you wish. 36:38 You could call it like a state changes every three months. 36:42 Maybe. 36:43 Anyway, we have someone who wanted to ask a question. 36:45 They have a hand at least. 36:46 Krums. 36:48 Hello. 36:49 Hello. 36:50 Hey, guys. 36:51 Thanks for letting me up. 36:52 And yes, Paul, I'm really impressed with sort of all the work you've been doing on Drivechain since like, I guess, 2014 or around that time. 37:02 So I was wondering, given that the Bitcoin protocol has changed a lot, right? 37:08 SegWit has been adopted. 37:10 Taproot has been adopted, replaced by Fee and other changes. 37:14 Why was Drivechain never adopted on a protocol level? 37:18 And can you talk a little bit about your efforts to kind of get a consensus around this protocol change and what has been the biggest barrier to adoption? 37:32 Well, I think it went through different time phases, and you can also chop the problem down different ways. 37:37 So, for example, to this day, there is no complete. 37:42 We never made, even though we made test software, we never made a fully complete pull request into Bitcoin Core that would have done all the Drivechain stuff. 37:55 So we never did that. 37:57 And so in that way, it wouldn't have been possible. 37:59 But that's not really an answer to your question at all, because what could have happened could have been that. 38:04 I published this blog post in November 2015. 38:08 And then everyone reads it and then everyone's like, oh, we should drop what we're doing and work on this because this is clearly the way to go. 38:15 So even though that is the kind of a literal answer to your question, it's not like really a good. 38:21 It doesn't really answer the thrust of the question. 38:25 And I give kind of a rambly answer about this sometimes, but I'll try to like those three sort of phases. 38:33 And in phase one, there was everyone was distracted by the scaling war and then. 38:40 And which was resolved with these conferences, scaling Bitcoin and the solution that everyone wanted to do first was SegWit. 38:49 And I was very supportive of this. 38:51 I also thought that was a good idea. 38:54 To do that first, and it seemed like that would be done soon. 38:57 And then there was a second phase when. 39:00 People were even more frustrated in the scaling war actually erupted, which was like a miners versus developers thing. 39:06 So anything mining based was kind of stigmatized, maybe or just not people weren't as interested in it. 39:14 And then now there is a. 39:18 I would say the third sort of phase is that Bitcoin has rejected the original idea that it would do everything. 39:27 And it is now much more of a. 39:32 It wants to just stay. 39:35 People have rejected the idea that anything it's kind of a paradox because. 39:40 Altcoins went through a phase when they used to stock completely and everyone, you know, in 2011, they were all terrible. 39:48 And everyone, the most shameful thing you could do is even discuss them. 39:52 And it's just going to people. 39:54 I'm sure they know the attitude that I'm talking about. 39:58 And then over time, some of the altcoins have gotten kind of good at things. 40:02 But Bitcoin has. 40:04 It's kind of rejected this. 40:05 I think also there's a whole trajectory of the scaling war made it so that anyone who deviated from like the. 40:14 There was like two polarized edges, which was like large blocks on L1 was the large blocker group. 40:20 And then there's like Lightning Network will fix everything in the small blocker group. 40:26 And this idea is kind of like in between because it's not large blocks on L1. 40:30 And in fact, we have we have people who come to these spaces. 40:34 They're very funny and they're great. 40:36 Like Hector is one. 40:37 Well, you know, we love Hector, of course. 40:39 But there are people. 40:40 There are a few people who come here and they love large blocks and they don't want even the large block sidechain. 40:48 They get annoyed and even offended at being asked. 40:51 So it's not. 40:52 It's not that. 40:53 But it's not. 40:54 Sorry. 40:55 They can invest in Solana. 40:56 Then that's a monolithic like end game. 40:59 Well, they're in like a Bitcoin SV or whatever. 41:02 I mean, Solana is an interesting case because when I think about I would always make fun of Solana all the time. 41:09 And I use it as a joke, you know, and I use it many times. 41:11 I was at Baltic County Badger. 41:12 I was like, hey, people want to put their money on Solana or whatever. 41:16 Why can't they? 41:17 They sell their Bitcoin and buy Solana. 41:19 They can should be. 41:20 Why can't they use Solana the sidechain? 41:24 But I actually kind of admire how just unapologetic it is, you know, like they have found their niche of just it's kind of like Tron also with USDT where it's just like we are what we are. 41:39 And that's much more threatening than hypocrisy, I think. 41:44 Anyway, that's my rambly answer. 41:45 It's not very it's not a very good answer. 41:47 A lot of it, I think, also is weird social nonsense. 41:51 Like I think I should write a big blog post because I get this question all the time. 41:55 Like people always ask this. 41:57 This idea seems like it's pretty good or worth trying. 42:01 And it's just like, why? 42:04 But I don't there's no technical answer. 42:10 The chief technical critic of this idea, you know, is Peter Todd. 42:14 And he didn't. 42:16 It's extremely obvious that he didn't. 42:18 He hadn't visited the website ever, because even after we paid him to write this article, he didn't know that the software exists. 42:26 So what was his argument to, you know, not like it? 42:30 Because I read that little spot and, you know, I thought that was really funny. 42:34 But it seems like he just took the money and didn't really provide like a real explanation. 42:41 Or what did you make of that? 42:43 Well, you know, last week I actually read through the article because I had nothing else to do. 42:47 But I think I should make I should make a video like because we're supposed to discuss it on a podcast. 42:54 But we haven't scheduled it yet. 42:56 And I don't think I don't think that he's trying to weasel out of it, per se. 43:02 But I also don't think that he's in any rush. 43:04 I mean, I think he's subconsciously he's trying to evade. 43:07 Lost his Bitcoin, right? 43:09 No, that's Luke Dashjr. 43:13 The wrong the wrong ideologue. 43:16 But Peter Todd, I think, was thinking more like small blocks because of, I guess, just keep it keep the base protocol as efficient as possible for full nodes. 43:27 Right. And reorgs and all that stuff just to reduce. 43:30 Yes. And he was right about that. 43:32 But he went too far. And he Peter Todd's. 43:35 If I had to summarize it, Mr. Crumbs and also Peter. 43:38 So Peter Todd has hated merge mining for a very long time, even back to 2014. 43:42 And they did a Let's Talk Bitcoin episode about sidechains, which ended up transforming into like a commercial for his own thing. 43:49 Tree chains that never materialized and that it was complete vaporware and no one could figure out what had happened to it. 43:55 And I even asked people at the scaling for Bitcoin program committee when we were trying to figure out what were like what whatever happened to that idea. 44:02 And even in very senior Bitcoin, people were like, I have no idea. 44:05 At scaling Bitcoin three. It's a long story. 44:08 But the Peter's core mistake is that he confuses nodes and miners and he thinks that it's good for nodes to be cheap. 44:19 And he's right. But then he also thinks it's it's good for mining to be cheap. 44:24 And that's not possible. That's that's a rejection of proof of work, actually. 44:28 So so he has this belief that. Miners might that miners must do something and then that matters and neither are true. 44:40 It's not true that miners must run a sidechain node and it wouldn't matter if that was required. 44:46 And he thinks that basically, if you feel that like if the miners invent these shortcuts, like I was saying, if they have a shortcut to get the state. 45:00 That doesn't involve them running a node like you call this a what we call it like a node knockoff or like a cheap node or something like that. 45:09 If they do that and it works 100 percent of the time. 45:13 Then to me, that's just a normal thing that we do like. 45:20 I guess. But to him, it's like logically impossible or something. 45:25 So I should make a little video with like I mean, you could give a metaphor where like a node is something that removes a problem because a node increases your confidence and trust. 45:37 So a node makes it so that you don't need to trust someone. 45:41 They say, oh, I sent you the money. And you say, well, how do I know you sent me the money? 45:47 And then when you run a node, then you're like, OK, now I know that I got the money and you can look at your own confirmations. 45:53 So that's like what a node does. So we could instead say like a node instead of deleting paranoia, it like deletes heat or something like it's like an air conditioner. 46:07 And so I'm we at the Bitcoin core universe, we like build air conditioners. 46:13 And we want them to be cheap in addition to working. 46:18 So that's why how decentralized the air conditioner is, is how cheap it is. 46:21 We want everyone to be able to have air conditioners because we want all the trust in the world. 46:26 We want all the distrust to be destroyed. So we want the world to be very cold indoors. 46:32 And so is this a metaphor starting to make any sense? 46:35 And then Peter saying like miners, if they have some any other way of being cold, then that's illegitimate or something. 46:43 I don't know if that makes any sense at all. 46:45 But this is Peter's problem is he he knows that it's bad if for the blockchain costs to go up. 46:51 But he to him and L2 cost is an L1 cost. 46:54 So he so that's why he just can't grasp the idea. 46:58 But either you're an engineer or you're modular, your thinking is it feels like it's in one of the camps. 47:04 And if he's monolithic, he thinks it has to happen all in one layer just for security concerns. 47:09 And the miner should up front that cost. And the Nakamoto coefficient of the full nodes should it should enforce that the security of the miners to not decrease that coefficient if if that work is happening off chain somewhere. 47:23 But he doesn't see that you could offload a lot of that cost without introducing the tradeoffs like what you're doing with some of those under them, you know, what we're doing with the roll ups and the similar concept. 47:36 Yeah, that's exactly it. That's very well put like he doesn't see. I almost want you to repeat it so I can write it down because it was so well put. It was like, there's no he doesn't really. He doesn't actually believe that you can move the compute like 47:52 to him. Every mining cost is an L1 node cost, which is if you go down that road, and that's why I asked him I at the tab comp debate I asked him is it is every single ASIC that someone buy is is that a block size increase and he sort of dodged the question because you can see when you put it as starkly as that it doesn't make any sense. 48:19 Paul, would you say that the Bitcoin devs, by and large, I guess, and maybe even the Bitcoin community have come to terms with the non viability of lightning networks for fulfilling, I guess, bitcoins earlier vision of electronic cash at global scale. 48:39 I think that. Well, let me tell you, because the question is a very emotionally charged in addition to being a politically sensitive, which is why it's a great question, and I hope to give an answer that's half as good as the question but it's like, I'm not exactly sure how to phrase it in a way but one way of phrasing it is that I had someone come up to me at tab comp. 49:10 Very senior person, I don't want to say who, but the person was talking to me and they were kind of annoyed, and they said last year, they were talking about Matt Corallo gave a talk, and the talk was very good I remember seeing the talk. 49:23 Last year at tab comp Matt Corallo gave a talk called lightning is broken. 49:27 And he and I remembered the talk and we were like oh yeah, this is not the person I'm talking about is a very senior person and they're not like particularly. 49:38 They worked for a lightning company at one point, they're like pro lightning. 49:43 But they are, they're kind of annoyed because the talk was lightning is broken and it was very convincing talk by Matt Corallo but what then what he said was and he's like it but nothing really changed was the gist of it. 49:57 And so that was last tab comp that was one tab comp ago that was a whole year ago. 50:02 So now we're at the next tab comp and yeah there was more each year there is more of like the stuff that the very very expert people complain about expert people complain about a lot of things. 50:15 And then they'd say we'll solve it with factories or something. 50:18 And over time, the complaining has started to filter down from like a very few technically elite people. 50:29 And it's in the process of slowly filtering down to the less experienced engineers and commentators and media people. 50:39 And then down to the end users. 50:43 So that is something that is happening. 50:46 Another thing that is happening is that the people are doubling down on denial. 50:50 And they are referring to things that aren't the lightning network at all. 50:53 Like for example, if what the lightning network is, is this network of nodes connected by bidirectional channels and HTLCs. 51:03 Now the bidirectional channel that is very old that long predates the lightning network. 51:09 Satoshi invented that also. 51:11 That's why there's n-sequence. 51:13 It didn't really work in earlier versions of Bitcoin. 51:16 But the idea of it was old and even people such as the hated Mike Hearn. 51:23 Everyone hates him now. 51:25 He was working on it in like 2014. 51:28 So the bidirectional duplex channels between two people, that's not the lightning network. 51:35 And what now has emerged is a network based on credit. 51:39 Which has the disadvantage of requiring you to care a lot about the reputation of who your node, your channel counterparty is. 51:50 The weird way it always did though, because the best case scenario was in many cases, you open a channel with someone, your funds are locked for two weeks. 52:03 Like if they just go AWOL. 52:05 So that's a cost. 52:08 Having your money locked for two weeks is a very expensive cost if you really think about it. 52:13 And then paying down one transaction fee on top of that. 52:17 And so it kind of always mattered who you opened the channel with. 52:21 But now we just see it just matters more and more and more and more and more. 52:24 And as a result, you... 52:28 And so this is a rambly answer, but what I was trying to get at is people are, you know, they'll say, 52:35 I just sent a one Satoshi payment through the lightning network. 52:40 But not really. 52:42 You would just advance the Satoshi, you know, for free to a third party who could just keep it. 52:49 There's no HTLC enforcing that it goes to the end person. 52:54 And that's because the stakes are so small and because you already must trust the nodes for so much. 53:00 So it's a complicated answer. 53:02 But I think that there's a mix between people who are coming to terms with it and people who are doubling down on lies. 53:10 And also the definition, which has changed, which is not necessarily the worst thing, but the definition is mutating. 53:18 If the definition continues to mutate, though, eventually it will just be the case that, you know, Venmo is a lightning wall. 53:25 Exactly. 53:27 Yeah, that makes sense. I mean, that it makes sense. 53:31 You know, the momentum of the noise is has to die down gradually. 53:37 And then, of course, you're going to have people in denial who have really put themselves out on a limb, you know, for the lightning networks idea. 53:45 So, I mean, what we kind of saw with lightning networks is that the idea was cool, but there were some issues with it. 53:54 I think, you know, JAG understands pretty well, probably better than I do, the flood and loot vulnerability. 54:01 And then you have the simple fact that even in the lightning networks white paper, it clearly states that there's a certain amount of L1 bandwidth that's needed to really scale. 54:13 And a real scalability solution is one that works at the level of the architecture, which I guess kind of lightning networks does. 54:22 But in practice where the rubber meets the road, it seems like Bitcoin doesn't have the bandwidth to really make it work for electronic cash at global scale. 54:34 And people have just kind of not mentioned that that's directly in the lightning networks white paper. 54:43 So, for me, there's two problems with L1. I think we covered that in some of our research. 54:50 But I think there was a notable developer as well that just quit L1 lightning labs or something like that. 54:57 But the security researchers came up with the flood and loot attack. That's something that's just inherently unsolvable. 55:04 That goes back to the lightning network white paper, which clearly says, if you want 8 billion people to do one transaction a year, you need so much bandwidth. 55:13 And that's where the new age big blockers came from, because they wanted to scale through LN. 55:19 But in order for you to stop those attacks, if all 8 billion people are using this, and this is discounting IoT, right, when AI and IoT comes on. 55:28 But when people are using this thing to do one transaction to move your value off the LN back to the base chain, so you don't have IOUs anymore, you have actual Bitcoin, you don't have the bandwidth. 55:39 And it just goes to the fact that Bitcoin is more of a court system. It's not meant to be that transaction processor. 55:45 There's two problems. Obviously, the flood and loot attack is unsolvable. 55:50 So they start to, in the peering and onion filtering, they start to try to detect that, which is inherently unsolvable because you don't have consensus. 55:56 And the second is, if you try to do other tokens, like you start to think about USDT and under hyper Bitcoinization, it may not matter, but in today's world, there are other tokens. 56:08 If you start to try to do this with other tokens, even if they're colored coins, you end up hitting the American call option problem, which again is unsolvable. 56:16 And so you can't, you'll have this arbitrage opportunity where people will be able to steal, it'll be easier to create theft than it costs. 56:26 And both flood and loot and the call option problem are easier to take money than to spend on taking that money. 56:34 So that's something that you just can't solve for unless you have the consensus around it. 56:39 And again, BIP300 and sidechains and putting the trust back into the miners and 51% security kind of gets around a lot of that. 56:48 And you think of Bitcoin as more of a anchor settlement court system rather than some mechanism in which it's a substrate of a transaction processor where people are doing Visa, MasterCard type things. 57:03 Jag, there's some interesting potential in client side proving though, like ZK client side proving for Bitcoin. Is there not? I've heard you. 57:16 You end up at the data availability problem and Bitcoin doesn't have a solution for that. 57:22 So the Lightning Networks is all a DA play because you need to prove that the HTLCs you can close off and stop a spam attack and take your Bitcoin back out of the channel. 57:33 And if there's not enough bandwidth to hear your court case in enough time, the judge will simply close, put the hammer down and you lost your money. 57:39 And even in a ZK based system, you could avoid some of the problems, like maybe the call option problem could be mitigated to a point. 57:47 But you still have the problem of hearing the court case on the base blockchain. 57:52 And if you don't have that availability, you run out of time to put your dispute up. 57:56 So unless the chain is ZK itself verifying, it doesn't really make too much sense. 58:03 Yeah. What about the idea of a ZK, like a succinct proof being stored directly on Bitcoin for DA? Is there any viability in that? 58:17 No, the DA itself is not ZKable. You have KZG proofs, which can prove sort of through cryptography that you're holding a subset of data. 58:28 But again, you're not under the Bitcoin philosophy where every node is trusting itself only. 58:35 But the ZK is computational based. 58:37 So if you want to solve a computation execution somewhere externally, like RISC-0 with continuations and you distribute that ZK proof amongst a thousand computers and you're able to do sub-second block verifications of ZK proofs, for example, 58:52 you still have the problem of, okay, if people are using this with Bitcoin or value, how do they enter and exit in a safe way? 59:00 And that requires, especially once you're moving the computation off, some mechanism where the witness data or the data of who owns what starts to be stored somewhere. 59:11 And the more you think about it, the more it feels like the base layer job is just to be a court system for the DA itself and not be worried about the transactionality, 59:26 like not where people are spending, receiving money for everyday transactions. 59:31 And that just against the Solana monolithic philosophy. 59:35 And as soon as you get to modularity, you start to think about how can we just move the executions off. 59:40 And having what Starknet wants to do is put that opcode on the blockchain, but you still end up, you don't solve for the DA problem. 59:48 And the costs will still be pretty high because you're going to be using scripts to store that data and put a ZK opcode for the verification, 59:58 but you're still storing a lot of data that never gets removed. 1:00:02 It'll be better than what it is today. 1:00:04 It still won't scale to what we're talking about. 1:00:07 Yeah, I guess it wouldn't get to the point where you could, like just I guess an example use case, participate in a prediction market that has a small turnaround time, 1:00:20 pay an incredibly low fee, wager a very small amount, like 10 seconds before the prediction expires, which by the way, you can do that on Rolex. 1:00:32 Well, if you take the Lightning Network volume that you're trying to anticipate and you throw that into a DA layer, it also won't scale, right? 1:00:43 You're talking about potentially millions of transactions between two people even within a year. 1:00:49 And if you have to throw that on the base layer, it won't scale. 1:00:53 So if you show commitment to that, and that's what Drivechains is doing as well, the base chain never has to learn. 1:01:00 There's no asymptotic cost or asynchronous assumption between the layer 2 and the base. 1:01:06 If you tie in any way the base and the layer 2 or layer 3 or whatever, then you have this asynchronous assumption not only of bandwidth, 1:01:14 but also of some security constraint the miner has to worry about. 1:01:18 And that is where you start to get broken down. 1:01:20 You either have some mad mutually assured destruction there, or you end up having some sort of takeover or political centralization issue 1:01:32 where someone doesn't believe in the philosophy and gives up and tries to attack that chain. 1:01:39 These are really good answers. I love them. 1:01:44 I just want to comment on something interesting about this whole data availability. 1:01:54 It sounds like it's presented sometimes as though there's this big list of things. 1:02:00 Oh, this, this, this, this, this. Oh, but then on number 14, we couldn't check that box, data availability. 1:02:07 But really, this is the whole, it's the whole game to some extent, because the L1 has a limited amount of space. 1:02:14 And the whole idea is how do we make the transaction happen, but not consume this space. 1:02:21 And it's only make, you know, whatever, one megabytes worth of data available every 10 minutes. 1:02:29 So it's actually quite, quite at the heart of the matter. 1:02:32 And for some reason, I'm not really sure why, but in Bitcoin, the technical community or whatever, 1:02:45 has evolved over time to really prioritize what you might call the unilateral exit, 1:02:52 which is to say, we're using L1 and we want to use the Lightning Network. 1:02:57 The Lightning Network has to always give me something that I could broadcast on L1. 1:03:04 I individually could broadcast on L1 in order to get my money back from the L2. 1:03:13 After all, what if all the people I'm participating in the L2 with just leave? 1:03:18 They go AWOL, absent without leave, they just disappear. 1:03:22 Then I have to have something to come to L1. 1:03:24 Now that has always been the philosophy and that strikes through to like ARK and other things also do this. 1:03:32 And Federated Model might do this. 1:03:38 I know state chains do something like this. 1:03:42 But that doesn't actually work because if 8 billion people won't fit on L1, 1:03:51 but on L2 you have 8 billion people, all of them can't go from L2 to L1. 1:03:59 So there's kind of a little bit of a paradox there about this data availability. 1:04:04 We push all the data away for everyone, but then give everyone something where they can come back to L1. 1:04:10 Everyone gets the unilateral exit. 1:04:12 That's actually a paradox. 1:04:15 And there was something else that I really wanted to say that seemed very important about data availability. 1:04:21 It's a paradox. 1:04:25 It's actually related, which is giving everyone something they can broadcast on L1. 1:04:31 It's the same thing as solving the data availability problem because it's just the data that you would have to put on L1 1:04:39 is split up among everyone who owns the L2, who's using the L2. 1:04:43 And so I just wanted to try to comment that what Drivechain does is it says, 1:04:47 well, we have this second blockchain where everyone over there has this new common data structure 1:04:57 that they all share and that they all need in order to run a node. 1:05:01 And that's kind of how I solve the data. 1:05:05 That's how I dodge the data availability problem and also solve it. 1:05:08 And I don't know if this is making any sense as a rambling answer, 1:05:11 but I think the only way of actually solving it is to dodge it because of what I was saying before 1:05:15 about giving everyone unilateral exit just recreates the problem on L1 and it will never work. 1:05:22 And that is exactly what you were talking about before with the Lightning white paper saying that. 1:05:28 And this actually dives into many other things about the Lightning network, 1:05:32 such as the creators emphasizing that HTLCs only work for high value payments and for low value payments they don't. 1:05:42 And just the whole thing is just a credit network anyway, which it is. 1:05:47 And that the quantity of bytes required to enforce the HTLC or the PTLC or whatever the thing is, 1:05:55 if that quantity of bytes is already basically almost as much as in the L1, 1:06:01 a small, small, small L1 transaction. 1:06:04 And as a result, the fee rate, you know, the fees on both networks. 1:06:09 And it being the same, the three, the dust to their shoulders are being the same anyway. 1:06:14 So it doesn't actually matter. 1:06:16 And under the flood and loot, you just flood every channel regardless of the amount that's in there 1:06:22 and force them to hit the main chain. 1:06:25 But I guess in that scenario, the flood usually will target the low value channels and not the high value. 1:06:32 So if you're using, maybe that's why they mean to, it's a high value payment channel system and not low value penny transactions or low value. 1:06:41 Flood and loot is a completely different, there's many unsolvable problems with Lightning, I think, 1:06:46 of which flood and loot is only one, I think. 1:06:49 That's related to the channel risk. 1:06:51 But the HTLC is that if you actually were to pull the, if you were to say, 1:06:55 let's just say it's an ABC, A is paying C, and I'm B, and I have a channel open to A and C. 1:07:05 If the fee rate is currently, let's say the fee rate is currently $10 for a transaction, that's 220 bytes. 1:07:13 That's the L1 fee rate. 1:07:15 So $10 for one transaction. 1:07:20 If I have a channel with A and a channel open with B, my channel with A is going to increase by one HTLC, 1:07:29 and the one on B is going to increase, the AB channel is going to, the size of the transaction that would be broadcast, 1:07:37 that is going to grow to include an HTLC. 1:07:42 And then potentially, it depends, you know, I could, the BC one could also grow. 1:07:47 And now to, just to do, just to grow that, I need the hash pre-image, 32 bytes. 1:07:54 I need to have another output. 1:07:56 I need to have another, that's eight bytes, just to count how many coins. 1:08:00 And then to spend these later, they're going to become, each is going to become an input, 1:08:04 where I have to provide the pre-image, which is 32 bytes, or I have to provide something. 1:08:08 And I have to provide another signature. 1:08:11 The signature has to cover this thing, 64 bytes. 1:08:17 So just to spend the HTLC is going to cost, like, it depends completely on the scenario, 1:08:25 but it's going to cost like 100, 200 bytes, even in best case, like point lock, time lock. 1:08:31 In any reasonable case, the H, just using the HTLC, the amount of ink it would require to write to the transaction to L1, 1:08:41 in the worst case scenario of everyone going AWOL. 1:08:45 And I have to broadcast on L1. 1:08:48 That's going to cost me hundreds of bytes. 1:08:51 So if it's already 220 bytes, it's already costing $10 worth of transaction fees. 1:08:56 Is this making sense? 1:08:59 In that scenario, I can never route a payment that's less than $10. 1:09:02 Ever. 1:09:04 It's not even worth it to go to court. 1:09:06 It's like your court analogy. 1:09:08 It's like the court charges, the court is charging $10 to hear an HTLC case. 1:09:11 So now, well, if I route $7 and then they just, they leave, 1:09:17 I'm not going to court to collect $7 if the court is going to charge $10. 1:09:23 So that's just one of the many problems, is the sensitivity to L1 fees. 1:09:28 The onboarding is the biggest problem with the Lightning Network, 1:09:31 is that just to join the network, people need two of two multi-sig output. 1:09:35 They need their own two of two multi-sig output, 1:09:37 or they need to be, even in the most absurdly generous case, 1:09:42 this is not unrealistic and will never happen and has terrible UX. 1:09:45 They would need to have joined some kind of group, 1:09:49 some kind of coalition, provided the public key, the XPUB, 1:09:53 and then have it do some kind of statistical crypto magic 1:09:58 to create the output that we will then all spend the first coin, 1:10:03 the funding transaction. 1:10:04 So the onboarding is huge. 1:10:07 The privacy is not good. 1:10:09 The payments fail. 1:10:11 The payments really can't fail. 1:10:13 It's not a big difference between. 1:10:15 So it's like, you know, the on-chain, 1:10:18 the payment has trouble making it into a block, 1:10:22 but it hits the mempool instantly. 1:10:25 And then once it's into a block, everyone knows that it, 1:10:29 everyone can kind of estimate for themselves 1:10:31 how likely it is to settle based on the number of confirmations. 1:10:35 So once you get one confirmation, 1:10:37 most people in most contexts would just think, 1:10:40 well, this seems really, really, really likely to be going through. 1:10:45 It seems legit. 1:10:47 And then even the exchanges only require three-ish confirmations these days. 1:10:53 And then if you want more certainty, wait for more confirmations. 1:10:57 Yeah, you could detect an attack as well. 1:10:59 So you could just wait for more confirmations 1:11:02 if everyone knows there's something happening. 1:11:05 But the DA problem, 1:11:08 we classify it in the modular blockchain paradigm 1:11:14 as a specific problem. 1:11:16 We understand that all blockchains, 1:11:18 it's all they are is data, 1:11:20 and proving the data is mapped to some state. 1:11:23 But specifically when you're talking about blockchain, 1:11:26 modular blockchain, 1:11:28 where you're separating execution state, 1:11:30 and not as much with UTXO, 1:11:32 but with the accounting model, 1:11:34 you do have the roll-ups proving just a Merkle state 1:11:39 or just a hash that gets put on the chain. 1:11:41 But for people to be able to know, 1:11:43 not that 8 billion people are going to move back to the base chain, 1:11:46 but just that they have immutable decentralized ability, 1:11:50 should they choose to one day do it, 1:11:53 they have the ability to do it, 1:11:54 the roll-ups can say they inherit the base layer security 1:11:58 if that data availability exists 1:12:01 so that someone can take that data 1:12:04 and prove to the Merkle state that they are part of that state. 1:12:07 And to solve that problem, you have to take the data off of the blockchain, but you have to do it in such a way that the blockchain knows that the data has been posted, and that's a specific problem once you get into modular blockchain, and the problem would be that if you have a validator or a LayerTwo block producer, and he chooses to withhold the data or change one byte, it's called the Fisherman's Dilemma, then they could 1:12:35 manipulate that byte and then post the state on the LayerOne, and no one is able to move their money back off of the chain because the state has been updated with the bad Merkle root. 1:12:46 So in order to solve that problem, the validator must prove that the hash of the data exists on the LayerOne, and then commit that hash into the state that they're updating. 1:12:56 Therefore, when the state gets updated, it checks, okay, does the hash of the data exist because the network would have validated it? Yes? Okay, then the state's accepted. 1:13:06 And with the ZK roll-ups, they actually go further and put the hash in the public verifier, we check the circuit, and it checks that the data actually was committed, it was on-chain, and it's part of the circuit. 1:13:21 And so there's no fraud-proof assumption there either. So that's a really, really cool breakthrough that we've considered on the data availability. 1:13:32 Because you're only proving short-term, during the time of confirmation, you can actually delete the data after from the blockchain. 1:13:39 So not only do the miners only propagate raw data without checking it, just a simple hash, and that data could represent all the transactions, that raw data is really cheap. 1:13:52 It's bandwidth cost, but it's cost that goes away after the finality event, that's why we have finality. 1:13:59 After the finality event, you remove the data, and all you get left is a hash of the data. 1:14:04 So when you replay the blockchain, you're just replaying hashes that represent any number of transactions that have happened off the chain. 1:14:14 So that's specifically, in the Ethereum or EVM world, when we talk about DA, the DA problem, it's a short-term data store that gets removed from the base blockchain after some time, 1:14:26 and you're using that in your roll-ups to prove that data was stored to solve that problem, the withholding data problem. 1:14:33 Yeah, because of the pruning, it helps full nodes be able to run more easily and sync very easily with the network, keeps things lightweight. 1:14:48 Okay, we have some other people who are now speakers, Grant and Klaus. 1:14:55 Yeah, Paul, when you were talking about Nakamoto consensus and what it takes to allow for miners to do something but not have the energy so high, 1:15:10 I was thinking about the Nakamoto consensus that Bram Cohen created for Chia. 1:15:16 Have you looked into proof of space and time much in the hard drive utilization? 1:15:21 A very long time ago. 1:15:23 I think it was weird because I was looking into it in a context of something that would be an exception to my nothing is cheaper than proof of work essay, 1:15:35 because I thought there's a trapped market for hard drive space, which is that you buy a hard drive and you start filling it up. 1:15:50 But until you fill it up, there's a lot of empty space on there. 1:16:00 So what I was thinking was, this is something where it is a free resource to you, but to the network, it could be worth something. 1:16:10 And in that sense, it might be an exception. 1:16:13 But the paradox is resolved if, as soon as someone invents a SIA or a Filecoin or a storage, then that becomes a valuable resource again, and then you start wasting it. 1:16:27 And I've heard it's pretty brutal. I don't know if this is to be the case, but I have heard that it shreds the hard drives really quickly. 1:16:36 No, no. So the way the consensus mechanism works is you take the ASIC style portion of what Bitcoin is doing. 1:16:45 You do that once and then you write it to the hard drive. 1:16:49 So that part, which is called plotting, is the part that has been referred to as shredding hard drive, because that is such an intensive process that when it was originally done, people did it on an SSD. 1:17:03 And there's a lot of read-write that happens during that process. 1:17:08 And so the early plotters on SIA, they would use a technology called NVMe or they would use RAM to do the plotting. 1:17:16 And that eliminated that issue. 1:17:19 And so what happens is you write a hard drive completely with data, so you fill it up. 1:17:25 And then for the consensus mechanism, you're occasionally reading from the drive. 1:17:30 So there's no write load on the drive once you reach steady state. 1:17:35 So after you've done that first bit of work, the only thing that's happening in the consensus mechanism is you're doing occasional reads from the drive to see if you have a proof. 1:17:45 So the way that they describe it is it's like proof of proof of work. 1:17:50 And there's an attack that if you were just using proof of space, that there are certain ways that you can subvert that. 1:17:57 And so the next part that needed to be brought in was a verifiable delay function. 1:18:04 And so on Chia, there's actually two elements that are participating in the consensus mechanism. 1:18:10 It's the distributed network of people who have hashes on hard drives operating in the same facility that ASICs are. 1:18:18 And then you have these entities that exist on chain called time lords that are running a VDF. 1:18:23 And that VDF has to verify that a certain amount of time has elapsed and then is responsible for emitting the signage points that are then distributed to the network. 1:18:35 So if you look at the Nakamoto coefficient for Chia, it's actually quite high. 1:18:40 And there's a broad base of participation. 1:18:44 So I think from a Nakamoto consensus mechanism, this one is fairly interesting from it being a novel. 1:18:51 The hardness of those coins are dependent on the hardware, the disk, Moore's law cost, right? 1:19:00 So as the hardware gets more efficient, the hardness of the coins being output and the security of the coins through the verifiable delay is insured, right? 1:19:10 And so my concerns there would be around the hard drive costs and the abundance of hard drives, 1:19:16 especially with artificial intelligence being able to go into servers and attacking them and taking them over and using that for re-plotting. 1:19:26 And then also just dynamically on the VDF or the time lord being able to manipulate that because the hardness is based on hardware rather than a simple hash function, 1:19:37 which even in the quantum realm, you cannot get around the XOR and the AND gates that are happening within the SHA-256. 1:19:44 And so it's actually much more secure and much harder to manipulate that than go and get some hardware, some disk and manipulate that to do your attack. 1:19:55 Well, I'm not sure about that. 1:19:58 If you're talking about the capability to plot to win, right? 1:20:05 So this is getting down into some of the deep guts of how this stuff works. 1:20:08 But there's a way that you can determine whether the files that you have on your hard drive could possibly contain a proof for the signage point that's been proposed to the network. 1:20:21 So let's assume Chia has found a way to do modular scaling, right? 1:20:30 I'm assuming there's a general purpose execution, right? 1:20:33 Not just file storage or is it just file storage? 1:20:35 It doesn't do file storage at all. Chia is not doing SCIA or Filecoin type operations. 1:20:42 If it's general purpose execution, you're going to be doing modular execution, right? 1:20:46 Then you end up having some sort of mechanism where the proofs get stored for a state transition of that modular chain. 1:20:54 The event of manipulating that just once is a fault tolerance on the system level that we're looking to try to prevent. 1:21:00 If you can even do it once by rolling back or manipulating that state, that ends up creating a fault in the entire design, in my mind. 1:21:09 And that's why I was thinking all it takes is someone to get ahead on the curve on the hardware for the disk to be able to plot an attack once, which undermines the system almost forever because you have to fork and manipulate the algorithm around it to prevent that scenario from happening. 1:21:26 Well, in the two years that Chia has been in operation, what you've described has never been demonstrated. 1:21:34 So I don't believe that that type of attack exists. 1:21:38 Yeah, I mean, of course it has. 1:21:41 I'm just saying theoretically, if you wanted to get ahead and try to do that, and if Chia scales up through a modular approach, like we're talking pushing 1,000 plus transactions around, 1:21:55 per minute or per second around these sidechains, then you end up having this... 1:22:01 I really wasn't talking to the scaling capabilities in any way. 1:22:06 That's, I think, something that's been yet to be demonstrated on chains. 1:22:10 Chia has been operating without L2s, so I think with respect to how... 1:22:16 But you know that my normal commentary... 1:22:20 I wrote that essay, Nothing is Cheaper Than Proof of Work, because the proof of stake people were claiming, not only is this better or whatever than proof of work, but also it doesn't waste... 1:22:36 Proof of work is just wasting a bunch of resources. 1:22:40 And so I was like, well, you know, whatever you do, there's this pile of money coming in. 1:22:46 There's the newly minted coins plus the transaction fees. 1:22:49 This is coming in. It's coming into the blockchain. 1:22:52 It's being paid to someone. 1:22:54 So people are going to fight. You have to build some clever way of people fighting over it that doesn't cost any resources. 1:23:01 So that's why I was originally looking into the proof of space and time. 1:23:05 Because I was like, maybe if there's more hard drives out there that are just empty and just used by normal people versus the... 1:23:14 Although it's hard to tell because you mentioned that one thing about AI hacking into a server or whatever, AWS. 1:23:22 But I was also thinking of... 1:23:24 Doesn't the NSA have all these multiple giant facilities that just have absurd amounts of storage space and they just log everything in the hopes that there'll be an encryption vulnerability one day and they'll just decrypt everything? 1:23:36 Well, I mean, on the network, right? 1:23:38 So it operates just like Bitcoin from the perspective of what are you trying to do when you make a new block, right? 1:23:44 You're trying to have the correct answer to a particular math problem. 1:23:48 And it's different on Chia. 1:23:50 So it uses a different set of algorithms. 1:23:52 And so if you have the correct input to that, then you can sign the block and you swoop up what's in the mempool. 1:24:00 So I think there's this misconception that Chia is somehow like storing data. 1:24:04 It's like what you're doing is you're storing proofs. 1:24:06 So those same proofs that are being generated by Bitcoin are sitting there on your hard drive. 1:24:12 So you're just looking them up. 1:24:13 So from the perspective of what does Chia look like? 1:24:16 It looks like Bitcoin in so many different ways. 1:24:19 Like it's a UTXO. 1:24:21 No, no one's disputing that. 1:24:23 I'm just saying, you're saying, what do you think of proof of space and time? 1:24:26 I famously wrote this essay about these are all just different versions of proof of work. 1:24:31 And I mean, so one way, I think that if you really want to look at it from my perspective, I think let's fast forward to the future. 1:24:40 Everything happens on Chia. 1:24:41 Chia is collecting $700 million a day in transaction fees from everything, which includes payments and smart contracts and data storage and whatever else. 1:24:54 So just a billion a day is coming in. 1:25:00 There's no U.S. dollar because we've had hyper Chia-ization. 1:25:05 And there is only Chia, right? 1:25:07 But whatever was a billion dollars worth of stuff, that's how much you can buy with the crypto that comes in each Chia block each day or each day's worth. 1:25:19 So in that scenario, someone out there is going to build the equivalent of an ASIC to mine Chia or whatever. 1:25:29 And they're going to build something and it's going to have just the right amount of RAM to do that thing you mentioned before. 1:25:36 And it's going to have the right amount of storage space and it's going to have great heating. 1:25:41 So they'll just build an ASIC version of that is my is my extremely strong suspicion. 1:25:47 So, yeah, I'm kind of very happy with my I just sit here on my little hill. 1:25:52 I'm like the king of this little hill where I just say everything just is proof of work. 1:25:57 And I've been living here a long time and I don't really see why I'm going to move. 1:26:02 Yeah, that's definitely an argument. 1:26:05 And that's been demonstrated to some extent because that's called plotting to win. 1:26:10 And we've demonstrated that with GPUs already. 1:26:13 It's not about whether you can do something like that. 1:26:16 It's about whether it's more cost and energy efficient to do it with a hard drive. 1:26:21 Right. Because you can simulate a certain amount of space on Chia with a GPU. 1:26:25 So just purely with a GPU, you can plot to win. 1:26:30 You can keep your plot in memory and then you can use that. 1:26:33 So that's already possible. 1:26:35 Like, yeah, but that's great. 1:26:37 I'm saying I'm saying your revenue is now gone up to three hundred and sixty five billion dollars a year. 1:26:46 So can't you go into the lab and design something that's going to be more efficient for you to just produce and run than. 1:26:53 What people are doing in their home. 1:26:57 Maybe, maybe not. 1:26:59 There's intrinsic levers built into the protocol that cause that to not work. 1:27:04 So like one of the things that you have to do when you're proving that you have a certain amount of space is that the space you have is a certain size. 1:27:12 And so ultimately what you get down to is bus speeds and how fast you can move data across, you know, whatever it is that you're going to use to generate the data internally and then make use of it. 1:27:26 And so when you talk about an ASIC, it's not exactly the special purpose kind of hardware that you would want to design. 1:27:35 But you're talking about something like maybe an FPGA that would be able to do something like this. 1:27:39 And then being able to move the data around on the bus. 1:27:43 And so it's not like the team didn't think about this kind of stuff. 1:27:47 Like they said, hey, let's look out a hundred years. 1:27:49 Like what what is it going to take to keep this chain resistant to this type of stuff? 1:27:54 And so there's there's inherent levers within the consensus mechanism that say the plot filter can require a larger size file. 1:28:03 So right now we use K32. 1:28:05 It could require K33 or K34. 1:28:06 And if that occurs, then you wouldn't have consumer grade hardware that could do this. 1:28:12 Now, if you're saying, well, the NSA could build something like that. 1:28:15 It's like, OK, maybe like you could go after that. 1:28:18 But if the size of the network is growing proportionally, right, it still might not be cost efficient to even try to go about stimulating that amount of space. 1:28:28 That's civil defense, right? 1:28:30 If AI takes multiple servers of small servers over, you're not able to detect those events. 1:28:36 You can't differentiate those between regular users. 1:28:39 There's going to be small plots, right? 1:28:41 I had a question. 1:28:43 Is there a longest chain rule? 1:28:45 How's the fragility handled in that? 1:28:48 Heaviest chain. 1:28:50 So longest and highest CLVM cost. 1:28:51 Yeah, so that helps. 1:28:53 Because if someone was to attack over time, the longest chain or the heaviest chain is a ghost. 1:29:00 It should prevail. 1:29:02 So anyways, that does help. 1:29:04 But yeah, I would lean to look into the nitty gritty details for sure. 1:29:08 Obviously, it's really cool design. 1:29:11 I've gotten some feedback from what it's about. 1:29:16 But yeah, the devil's in the details. 1:29:19 So for me, the fault tolerance is the main thing. 1:29:22 If you can cause one fault ever, I think the heaviest chain might prevent that. 1:29:27 But if you can ever cause one fault, then when you're scaling up and you're going modular, that's when those risks start to appear. 1:29:34 But it seems like it's really, really good as a base layer, as a monolithic design. 1:29:40 I'd love to see how it scales up once it starts to get going. 1:29:45 I think the other thing that's worth considering as far as what Bitcoin's been attempting to do and sort of been listening to the Bitcoin VM guys bemoan the lack of certain types of opcodes that they wish they had. 1:29:58 Chia adopted a Lisp language, which is similar to the approach that Cardano took, which is having a functional language that's relatively complete in its ability to express ideas. 1:30:10 And then keeping what's on chain pretty small by saying we're not going to reveal what the smart contract is until you actually try to spend one of the coins that exist. 1:30:20 So starting from the hash and saying each coin has a hash. 1:30:25 And if you want to spend this coin, you have to reveal what the smart contract is and what solves that smart contract in the spend bundle. 1:30:32 And that's the point at which you pay those costs to be able to move that coin to some new owner or some new contract that secures it. 1:30:43 Yeah, so like a UTXO sort of model built into the smart contract. 1:30:49 Well, each coin has its own attached smart contract. 1:30:52 So just like how Bitcoin has Bitcoin script attached. 1:30:56 And it's like almost what Chia did was say pay to script hash is the primary thing that we want to do, as well as having something equivalent to partially signed Bitcoin transactions, which is Chia offer files to eliminate counterparty risk and allow you to trade assets back and forth. 1:31:14 There's some other interesting stuff that's happened with Chia with respect to like, how do you actually do, you know, bigger, harder problems like making an AMM singleton spend? 1:31:35 We lost that person, I think. 1:31:38 I think everyone got muted. 1:31:40 Okay, we're back now, though. 1:31:43 The last thing you heard me say is like, I was just trying to say a few things about like how the on-prem programming is working. 1:31:49 I think you said AMM. 1:31:51 Yeah, like just how you do more sophisticated style programming like AMMs and like singleton spend aggregations. 1:31:58 And how do you actually do some of these more sophisticated vehicles that we've seen on Ethereum? 1:32:05 And how do you do that in like a UTXO model? 1:32:08 Yeah, Cardano is also tackling that as well. 1:32:11 Yeah. 1:32:12 Anyway, did we ever get to Klaus? 1:32:15 Should probably get to him. 1:32:17 I think Ron covered everything. 1:32:19 My mind is melting right now. 1:32:23 Well, yeah. 1:32:25 We'll post the recordings later so people can listen when they're in a very, very quiet room with a pen and a piece of paper and listen a second time. 1:32:41 It's great to finally meet you guys. 1:32:46 Likewise, nice to talk to you on Spaces. 1:32:48 I think we've like messaged like once or twice, I think, before over the years, maybe. 1:32:55 Paul, I'll definitely give you guys a follow. 1:32:57 I hope we can continue this discussion in further Spaces if you guys would like. 1:33:04 Cool. Great. 1:33:05 Excellent. 1:33:08 All right, back to Klaus. 1:33:10 Yes. 1:33:11 Thanks for stopping by. 1:33:12 We'll just go back to our regularly scheduled conversation. 1:33:16 Back to our regularly scheduled rambling now, I suppose. 1:33:21 Oh, yeah. 1:33:22 Welcome. 1:33:23 I think we do Spaces as well. 1:33:24 We'd love to have you on as well. 1:33:26 Sure. 1:33:27 Absolutely. 1:33:29 All right. 1:33:30 Cool. 1:33:31 Thanks for having us. 1:33:32 Hope everyone enjoyed the discussion and I'm sure there will be more in the future. 1:33:37 Yeah, for sure. 1:33:38 Thanks a lot. 1:33:39 Bye. 1:33:41 I had a comment to make about what Jagdeep was talking about scaling. 1:33:49 I feel like there is an inherent issue in both the UTXO and account model with the scaling aspect, you know, at least for on-chain, because there's a lot of coordination that is involved. 1:34:03 And I'm not sure what he was referring to when, you know, these popular buzzwords these days is modular blockchain. 1:34:11 I mean, is that consensus separate? 1:34:15 Like, because, you know, UTXO has outputs and it has to coordinate as well to, you know, you basically have downloaded the entire blockchain. 1:34:29 So it still has to on a local machine is fine. 1:34:32 But among other machines, it still has to do the coordination part. 1:34:36 So does the account model. 1:34:40 So I'm not quite sure that how these change address any kind of scalability, because that's where the bottleneck is, is the coordination. 1:34:51 Well, I'm not an expert on that particular topic, but I do think the one advantage of the UTXO model is that it is easier to chop into tiny pieces, you know, where you have your UTXO set and then you bolt on a bunch of things. 1:35:13 Each one of those could usually be discarded or added back. 1:35:20 And so the damage is limited, whereas with the account model, each thing could affect the state of like everything else. 1:35:28 And so it's just a little more interactive. 1:35:31 But I don't really know specifically exactly what that was referring to. 1:35:36 But I know the account model has numerous disadvantages. 1:35:40 Yeah, definitely. I mean, UTXO is definitely better in that respect. 1:35:46 What I'm looking from the both point of view, like even UTXO and account models still require two things to be changed, like the bearer and the sort of amount. 1:36:01 And so it's still not like one-to-one like cache exactly, where you just change the bearer, right? 1:36:11 And so it's interesting. That's where I think most of the scaling issues come in, in these approaches. 1:36:21 And I'm not sure. I was just trying to ask him if deep left, like how modular approach solves it, but because it's still be based on either UTXO or account model. 1:36:33 So I'm just trying to wrap my head around, you know, the coordination problem doesn't go away in either, both of them. Right. 1:36:43 Yeah, that is a good point. I mean, my view, which is not his, so I don't know what he would say. 1:36:50 But I think it's like the, you know, you have like small blocker, large blocker type people in every paradigm. 1:36:59 And so the large, some people want the node to be more expensive. 1:37:04 And. 1:37:07 As a result, they are already a game for, so they're already game for paying more. And that's the modularity coming in to save the day. But I don't know. I don't know what they would mean. It's a good question. 1:37:22 Yeah, because there's no inherent parallelism right in the transaction, like the congestion will happen as a result of coordination. So, so I think L2s will be required for sure. Unless you have some completely different paradigm from UTXOs and account model. 1:37:50 Anyways, just some thoughts. 1:37:56 Yes, definitely. Okay. Anyone else have any, anyone else want to come up and speak or have a question or comment? 1:38:05 Anyone want to say, should we just talk about the, the boring topics of the day? Like, you want to talk about Sam Bakeman Fried or whatever everyone is talking about? Whatever all the cool kids are talking about. We try never to do that here. We only talk about the pure alpha cutting edge. 1:38:34 We are the, we're like the hidden jazz club, you know, that none of the, none of the other people know about. We do the best, but you know, we can just hang out and talk about funny things. 1:38:44 I'd like to ask you a question about what you think about what's going on with Bitcoin VM. Like what the, are you paying attention to that at all? 1:38:50 You mean BitVM? 1:38:52 Yeah, yeah, yeah. 1:38:55 Well, I think it's a, it's a very good idea. In a way, I think it is related. It's kind of what I was talking about before, where the whole community has gone in the wrong direction, I think, which is that what I was saying before about the L2s is that there's a direction of always requiring each person to get something that they could bring unilaterally to L1. 1:39:16 But I'm saying that's kind of pointless because there's no way everyone can use it. So there's no way it's really been given. 1:39:23 And what I mean in this case is there's this whole like, ever since the block size war and the frustration with scaling, the frustration with SegWit and the frustration with Soft Forks, that has led the community to evade the Soft Fork issue and delay Soft Forks. 1:39:42 Soft Forks went from being just get 51% of miners to upgrade to the software to like an unjumpable hurdle that cannot be an impassable barrier. 1:39:54 And as a result, people are now interested in this type of thing with, can we do something really, really complicated that the end user is not going to understand? 1:40:05 So it really won't be self-sovereign. It would be a black box. It might as well be closed source. 1:40:11 Should we do a very complicated thing in order to get, you know, basically Bitcoin, the EVM onto Bitcoin? 1:40:20 And so I think it is actually, in a way, it may be part of the healing process because once people see that you can do it this way, they'll want to do it and then they'll want to do it a better way. 1:40:32 And then they'll evolve back toward the correct answer of just doing it the efficient way with modular sidechains. 1:40:40 I think as I've started to look at this, it really does bring up the fact that Bitcoin script is pretty limited in what it's capable of doing right now. 1:40:50 I'm wondering if this is, you know, a sea change moment where the development community starts to really push back and say, look, you know, we have all these opcodes that are disabled and they're causing us to be able to just not do fundamental, like fairly simple operations. 1:41:07 And some of the stuff that BitVM is demonstrating here is it's like, all right, if you're not going to give us, you know, the opcodes we really need to do what we want to do, then we can go down and build them in digital circuits. 1:41:20 And then from there, we can do these very convoluted things that allow us to do whatever we want. 1:41:25 So it might force the issue just from the perspective of like, we're going to do it anyway. 1:41:30 So either you make it easy in the programming language, or we're going to compute all these pre-images offline and use them to prove that these digital circuits are working correctly on Bitcoin. 1:41:41 Seems like we're trying to push Bitcoin script with this whole idea. 1:41:47 I think that's correct. And I think that it is also, I'm not really sure how to go about saying this, but there is a kind of, you have to equivocate if you're in Bitcoin, you have to take two different things at once where you say, well, it's really cool when things are built on Bitcoin. 1:42:11 And then you also have to say, Bitcoin is perfect the way it is. And so if you can't build on Bitcoin, then that's also good. And those are just two different things. 1:42:24 But I think that you're right that part of this would be, I mean, Adam Beck often, very often tells a story about how people didn't want to add support. 1:42:33 They were worried about adding support for some kind of thing. And I don't remember what it was. I think it was like a C++ compiler or something like that. Ancient history. 1:42:43 And people were worried about it. And then someone demonstrated that you could emulate that, whatever the thing was, you could emulate it already. And then they just dropped the issue. They added it because they said, well, you can already do it. 1:43:01 I feel like that's where we're at. With this whole discussion and what's being demonstrated, we can keep withholding updates to the language, but you can't fundamentally stop computing. And if you make us do it in this really convoluted way, it just makes us do a lot of offline computation to be able to do the same thing that would be much more reasonably done. It's just part of the programming language of the chain. 1:43:31 Yeah. 1:43:41 I had a quick thought on what I was talking earlier really quickly. And I'm going to say, historically, all the blockchains with UTXOs and as well as account model, they at least involve at least two transactional units, right? 1:44:00 Because you have this interconnected ledger, and history of each asset in the ledger is kind of dependent on the other assets. So I think there's the limitation of any performance improvements. 1:44:30 So you're looking at what Avalanche or AVAX or these folks do with federated consensus. I mean, they do introduce compromises, of course, in security and performance. So I don't know where I'm going with this, but I'm saying if there is a way to have these cross dependencies reduced or these assets be independently update, 1:45:00 updating, and don't require any sort of coordination, I mean, that would be an example of a perfect sort of parallelism, like analogous to like, say, real cash in the real world. 1:45:14 No, but that is the goal with sidechains is that they're all they're independent pieces of software. And each person is like benevolent dictator of their own little realm. And they do whatever they want over there. 1:45:26 Right. But yeah. Yeah. 1:45:48 Come on up if anyone has a question or comments. Happy Friday to everyone. 1:45:56 What's coming up? Anything good? Nothing, really. 1:46:03 There's a Texas thing in the middle of the Thanksgiving is coming up. Before that, there's that mining thing in Texas. That could be fun. Right now, there's isn't there something now in Dubai? Not there, but whatever. 1:46:15 I think there's something. 1:46:18 In April, there's a big one. I went to the Singapore one, the 2049. I was crowded 10,000 people. 1:46:25 Oh, good. 1:46:27 Yeah, the Dubai one is going to be a bigger one because, you know, I'm in podcasting and stuff. So yeah, it was pretty massive. Singapore, a lot of companies showed up. And Dubai one is going to be a bigger, supposedly bigger. So yeah. Asia is buzzing, actually. I compare US and Asia, like I'm like, so slow right now in the US. 1:46:53 Yeah. 1:46:55 That was also my experience that in Asia, everyone was very optimistic, excited all the time about everything. And also US, that's when also I was like, USDT is taking over. And this mirrors an experience I had before when it was like all the NFT stuff was doing. 1:47:14 Like, I'm not really active with NFTs at all, to say the least. But I think people should be free to do it. I don't consenting adults to do it. And I know that they like the art market, they people are using it for like all kinds of money laundering and tax evasion. 1:47:30 Yeah. 1:47:31 Which is fine for them, good for them. But I was just trying to say that USDT is taking over in Asia. But everyone, but people are loving, they love everything. They love every project. They love every coin. There's no Bitcoin maximalism over there, I think. Not that I could tell. 1:47:45 Yeah, exactly. That's what I felt. And you know what, I'm kind of scared of this naive optimism over there. Actually, we don't want SBF 2.0 happening over there. But from what I'm hearing, the regulators are pretty strict. So maybe what we do see like this, the overly optimism in the space over there that every project is cool, it's probably people are catching up to the tech. 1:48:13 I mean, I had some hard questions from some folks on stage and they literally would dodge the questions and people wouldn't even worry about it because I think it's still new for a lot of folks there. But yeah, I kind of agree with you there that it's like, what's going on here? 1:48:33 Everybody is so positive about every project and nobody's critical about how this is going to scale, what are the security assumptions, blah, blah, blah, this, that. Yeah, I have the same feeling. 1:48:49 A little bit of regulatory ping pong, so to speak, which was FTX collapsed last November. And that was bad, of course, for, I mean, you know, Bitcoin had nothing to do with it, but we all suffer as a result. 1:49:18 And then regulators moved in at the same time that for all these other Asian markets, I think, Bitcoin and everything had been banned, then it was like unbanned. 1:49:31 And then Coinbase, Binance, et cetera, people decided to fight the SEC in the US. It sort of slowly won, so we've kind of been trading places back and forth. Very fast-paced industry. Anyway, we have Satoshi Enjoyers here. Hello. Nice to see you again. 1:49:53 Hey, what's up? Happy Friday, everybody. So I have this weird thought I was listening earlier about the merged chains. And I'm wondering, maybe I'm overthinking it, but I'm wondering, what's the actual purpose for a new token for a merged chain? 1:50:11 If it's merged anyways, it's miningly merged with Bitcoin. It's leveraging Bitcoin for security or some sort of finality. So is the new asset really just trying to compete in the market for its own niche? I think you might know a little bit about that because Hivemind needs its own token, but I still don't understand where it would be. 1:50:33 Yes. So the way it started was with Namecoin. And Namecoin was an attempt to create a new project for DNS and have a new coin that would float against BTC. And it's a very intriguing case because anyone can go back and read the original Bitcoin talk thread that has Satoshi's comments. 1:50:55 And he doesn't seem to be threatened at all by a new coin. And he helped invent Namecoin. And he helped invent merged mining. Because I think Satoshi thought that they might compete for mining strength. And he thought it's better if they just cooperate and they can all merge. All the transaction fees will go to the same group of people. Increasing total strength. That's his three words. Increasing total strength is his quote. 1:51:25 So he wanted the hash rate to be very high. And he thought we can merge them all there into one project, into one set of miners for free. And that is what he did. And there was no way of making it so that Bitcoin could be used on the Namecoin sidechain. That is what in Drivechain, BIP300 aspires to do that we don't have. 1:51:53 And this is a long, long, long, long time ago. 1:51:55 One second, let me stop you. So if there was a way to move Bitcoin back and forth, do you think there's any purpose for a new asset as Namecoin? 1:52:03 In the case of Namecoin, no. Because I think the only reason they did it that way was because they didn't know what else to do. Whereas I would do it with BTC the whole way. BTC paying the transaction fees. 1:52:17 In the case of Hivemind, that good mechanism of back and forth, that's the reason why the other chain has its own asset. But really, it's really not competing with Bitcoin since it's still giving all the revenue fees to the miners anyways. But in a way, it's still diluting the value because it has its own floating price. But you're saying it's only because there was no good mechanism to go back and forth. Otherwise, it would just be useless to have another asset, right? 1:52:41 Yes. In the case of Hivemind, there is something. First of all, almost everything is done with the BTC asset, the cash asset. Placing a bet. Betting in the markets. Going long or short. Buying a share. 1:53:03 Buying all the shares and opening your own little exchange with all the opening lightning channels with trades in them. Creating a market. Creating a question that you want the oracle to answer. So all of those things, basically everything is done with the BTC coin unit. 1:53:27 Is the fees for all these transactions also on BTC the unit? 1:53:30 Yes. 1:53:31 Nice. 1:54:02 If that thing does a terrible job, we want basically the market capitalization of that corporation to collapse. So there must be an independently floating, having the coin. 1:54:14 Exactly. Yes. 1:54:16 More decentralized type of company where people can come and go as pleased, right? 1:54:19 Right. It has this very narrow and well-defined purpose of doing the peer-to-peer oracle. As a result, it needed to have a floating thing. It doesn't compete. There's absolutely zero sense whatsoever in which it competes with BTC to be used as money. That would be ridiculous. 1:54:41 It's the same thing as tokenization as far as just a company that has shares. It's not really competing as a base asset. 1:54:51 That's another reason why I'm actually in favor, even though I haven't really messed. I don't really participate in ERC20 or NFTs or whatever, but I think it's a perfectly valid thing to want the blockchain to do because we do it all the time with every stock, every bond, every IOU, every forward contract, every receipt, when you buy concert tickets, when you catch the game ball at a baseball game. 1:55:22 It's like we have collectibles when they make only 2,000 of a certain type of watch. 1:55:29 I agree as well. There's nothing inherently wrong with tokenization. That's fine. I think the issue that comes in is the misleading marketing that goes along with it. That's really what everybody doesn't like. 1:55:41 They conflate it together with just creating tokens, but I think creating tokens is not an issue. It's the marketing. 1:55:47 Back to the question, all these other chains that were previously speaking, what's the point of the asset there? Are they really just trying to compete as far as just having new assets that's competing in the market? 1:56:01 What would their say be? Is the new asset required as far as in their protocols or it's more just they want a new asset? 1:56:12 The syscoin people? 1:56:13 Yes, the syscoin people. The syscoin, but also I think, what's that other protocol? Stacks as well? 1:56:23 With stacks, I think it was so that they could raise all that money they want. That's the problem. This is the corruption of incentives. 1:56:32 I say corruption because it goes both ways. I think there's a mixture of legitimate and illegitimate incentives which they each chip into each other, which is not so great. 1:56:47 I think the lack of sidechains opens the door to this where people just say, well, what do you want me to do instead? 1:56:56 I don't want to just not launch the project and it has to have some currency because with no two-way peg, your options are one-way peg, which one-way peg just isn't that good. 1:57:09 A one-way peg has a lot of the disadvantages of having your own coin because the exchange rate can still fluctuate, but it has none of the advantages of just giving yourself more money and rewarding the people in your community who are helping make your project a success. 1:57:29 Your options are create a new coin or do a one-way peg. The one-way peg is not good. That's what RSK is doing. Well, not really because they have the two-way peg. 1:57:42 Liquid and RSK, they emphasize the two-way peg that is assisted by the federation, but it becomes a one-way peg if people don't believe that it works. 1:58:05 Having a new coin obviously gives you a lot of benefits in the form of you have early adopters, you have people cheering for the project. 1:58:16 That's good. I don't think there's a globally beneficial purpose. It's hard to say because this is not something where everyone is going to know about every project. 1:58:39 This is a very complicated industry overall, so you never know. You hear about some project and you think it's a scam, but then you hear about it and you're like, it's actually not that much of a scam at all on a relative basis. 1:58:51 If you can get rid of the new coin, then you always should, I think. When else would we do that? What if you went to Walmart and you had to buy a Walmart coin to shop there and the prices are fluctuating? No one would want that. 1:59:12 I don't know. Maybe I don't fully understand because sometimes they pitch it as it's actually required on a network level, but then they do have this quasi two-way peg, like SACs or something like that. 1:59:27 So they still have Bitcoin that goes back and forth. So it's like, well, we need a new asset to pay our validators or something. But then it's like, all right, well, if you need a new asset to pay for the validators, that means you need money to pay for those validators. 1:59:43 So it's either you have that money or you don't, because if you do have that money, then just pay them in Bitcoin. And if you don't have that money, then what are you paying them with? You're paying them with money that you don't have. So then it's you just creating a new asset to speculate on. 1:59:57 So to me, it seems like it's a little bit misleading to say that this token is absolutely needed on a protocol level. Maybe that part I don't understand if they are needed or not. 2:00:10 But I do understand the idea of crowdsale, raising the speculation. Also, obviously, people want to get into something early and it can help bootstrap network adoption to have early bag holders and things like this. 2:00:26 So from that perspective, it does make sense. And that's fine if you're transparent and honest about it. But then the moment you start saying, well, this is needed on a protocol level, there's no other way to do it without actually creating an asset. I have trouble understanding that. 2:00:38 But I could be wrong. I don't know. Yep. Just wanted to share my thoughts on that. 2:00:53 Well, come up and ask if you wish. Or we will end the space. 2:01:02 I have a question for the Chia guys. So they were talking about the plotting on the hard drive. I'm wondering if you have like a one terabyte hard drive and you have, you know, maybe 16 gigs or 32 gigs of RAM, how much write, like total write is needed on this one terabyte, like to plot it one time or something like that. Like the initial plot. 2:01:23 The initial plotting operation, you would need a separate thing to actually achieve the plotting. You wouldn't do it on that drive. So you would use like your graphics card to do it. Nobody really plots with like drive based plotting anymore. So that's like way old tech. So you would use like a leftover graphics card or something like that and use that to create your plot. 2:01:48 And then all the intensive operation would be done using your graphics card. And one terabyte isn't going to get you anything on Chia these days. You've got to have something like 100 terabytes. 2:01:58 Yeah, I get that. I'm just thinking like if it's a one terabyte drive, how much is actually being written on it, like to fully plot it? Would it be about one terabyte, two terabytes? Or is it actually going to be like 100 terabytes to fully plot it? 2:02:09 Oh, I see what you're asking. Like, how much in total write operations does it take to produce the actual plot file? Yeah, I think it's about, I think it's about two or three X, the size of the plot. So you need about 300 gigs of space to make a 100 gig plot. 2:02:24 Got it. And how often, like once you plot it, is that it? Or does it you have to replot it every week? Or like, how does that work? Nope, you only plot, you only plot it once, you never have to plot it again. And then from then on, you don't need any more write, you just have like occasional read speed, right? Read operations. Correct. Got it. Is there is there also like an amount of read operations that you need for like, per like time? Or how does that work? 2:02:46 So you have to respond to the signage points. So if you're not part of a pool, then the only time you're reading from the disk is when you're responding to signage points. So the network will broadcast and say, who's going to make the next block, and then you need to go look at your plots. And there's a thing that allows you to determine ahead of time whether you would need to look at a plot or not. So that's a big part of the process. 2:03:10 So just to break it down, if you have, let's say, you know, one terabyte drive, that's that's fully plotted. How often do you actually read one terabyte? Is that like, for a long time? 2:03:37 So you don't read all of that one terabyte. So that would you'd have like eight plot files, like eight to 10 plot files on that disk. And you would be passing the plot filter about once every maybe 50 times. So you would you would be reading from that disk, see if you had a proof, like maybe once every 10 or 15 minutes. 2:04:03 And the amount of data you would read would be like a couple megabytes out of that. 2:04:09 So a couple of megabytes every 10 or 15 minutes. So how long would it take to read one terabyte? For one terabyte drive is what I'm thinking. Like, are you are you reading one terabyte a day? Are you reading one terabyte a week? Are you reading one terabyte a month from one terabyte drive? Like on average, right? 2:04:26 You're asking for like a very specific number. And I don't I don't have that right in front of me. I could I could I could point you to a place where you could reference this and I could look it up for you. But I don't have that right off the top of my head of exactly how much data throughput goes across the drive, like per unit time, because it's different if you're pooled versus not pooled, because the way the pool works is it's sending you fake signage points. 2:04:52 So you're reading from the disk more often if you're pooled. But if you're not pooled, then it's like way less. So it's like two different styles of doing this if you're going to participate in a pool or not. And usually I work with like the pool, not the not the base case, which is the 2:05:08 Yeah, no, I brought it up because, you know, you guys are talking about shredding the drive. So I was just wondering, like, what an actual, you know, how much read write on average? 2:05:39 I see. All right. Well, thanks. Thanks for answering those. 2:05:42 If nobody has a topic, I wanted to come back to the horizontal scaling of blockchains. I mean, is there an inherently architectural issue with the way we design public blockchains for scaling horizontally? 2:06:13 Could something better be done in that respect? 2:06:21 Yeah, any thoughts would be 2:06:23 You mean horizontally, like by increasing block size or horizontally by like just adding a sidechain? 2:06:28 Yeah, see, that's the that's mostly where the discussion ends up. Right. I am going more fundamentally, like at a lower level, because, you know, you have this, you know, there is a cross dependency among assets, you know, they require sort of a global ordering of transactions, you know, to have some sort of a 2:06:58 deterministic execution. So I'm just wondering, can that dependency be minimized or 2:07:08 I think the fundamental thing is 2:07:10 eliminated 2:07:11 block size, because it's limited. So no matter how much, you know, you optimize other parts, there's still a limited block size, right? And limited block sizes for the decentralization of the network, less data being, you know, needed to be to be stored, less data that's needed to be verified. And, you know, running the conversation on that, verifying the signatures, whatever, passing that data around. 2:07:37 The less data is, you know, the argument for less data that's, you know, being passed around, the more decentralized it is, right? So you still have a limit there. So if you want to horizontally scale, it's either you increase that limit, which a lot of people are opposed to, because that's gonna, you know, hurt decentralization, or you just have to just have another chain. And the only way to have that other chain is, if you're going to go back and forth, you need a mechanism to go back and forth, right? 2:08:07 Yeah, well, you know, I'm thinking how cash works, and I'm no proponent, like, I love, I do crypto podcasting and stuff. So I'm not saying, yeah, I'm just trying to see, like, you know, you can settle, do a cash settlement independently, right? It's just the bearer, bearer changes, like there is, that's just one 2:08:36 What I'm saying is, you don't need to look at prior transactions to verify the current one in a cash, sort of a purely cash kind of transaction. 2:08:49 I think that's what, there is some parallelism there. But in context of blockchain, I'm trying to rephrase that and probably rethink in terms of, you know, how a public blockchain can like really reduce those sorts of interdependencies. 2:09:14 I mean, I don't see a way but I'm just sort of trying to brainstorm with the rest of you folks. 2:09:23 Yeah, but what was the question about? Wasn't it originally about horizontal scaling? 2:09:27 Yeah, yeah. So this ties to the horizontal scaling, right? Like, how do you scale horizontally? I mean, you know, with L2s as a solution, sidechains and all that, but they come at the cost of like, performance, you know, all those trade offs that they come, you know, at the cost of. 2:09:58 So, I mean, there's no question. I mean, it's pretty open ended in terms of like, is, is there a way to rethink these monetary schemes like UTXOs and account based money schemes like that lends itself to more sort of throughput? I don't know. 2:10:24 What about something like eCash? 2:10:28 Do you have a shiny cake has come up? Maybe we should let them answer their question or comment. 2:10:35 Yes, I have a question. One moment. Give me two minutes. I'm just preparing something to eat. But give me two minutes. 2:10:42 Okay, great. 2:10:44 You said eCash? Like, Chaumian eCash? 2:10:47 Yeah, like, Chaumian eCash. If you see like, what Kali is building with the not-cash and eCash stuff over there. Like, there's still like a mint that is like centralized. But as far as like, if you do trust the mint, I think that there is some more scalability. Not sure. 2:11:08 Yeah, I mean, once you remove the, yeah, yeah, that's not, that trust me bro model is the issue there. So yeah, that's not probably what I'm pointing to actually. 2:11:28 All right. 2:11:37 Is somebody still having a question or can I ask something? 2:11:42 Go for it, man. 2:11:43 Nice. Okay. Sorry to interrupt. It's not Bitcoin in this case. I have a question about SkyDodgeNet from Paul's perspective. Is somebody like the developer MLG, who's also known as one of the most involved testers of your idea. 2:12:09 Is he able to solve those tasks to make these sidechains available? What he's showing for, for example, Thunder sidechain inside. Is it really like a solvable task for one person alone or do you think he needs some more people helping him? 2:12:30 Well, I'm not sure. I think so. SkyDodge is an altcoin that implements BIP300 and which is great. And we also, we develop like LayerTwo Labs and myself and other people who collaborate with us, but mostly us. 2:12:51 We develop the sidechains, the sidechain full node software, which really anyone can use if they just point them at a different L1. So we do like a lot of the work and he is certainly a great tester and helper of, you know, he tries out our software and that's very, that's very good. I like that. 2:13:17 And, but we do an enormous, you know, percentage of the work. I can know whatever, 99% of the work. And he has turned it into like a funny little altcoin. And they didn't, they give themselves a huge amount of the coin. I don't know, but I would think they would probably want to hire someone to. 2:13:38 But they're very funny. I think the SkyDodge people are very funny and they, I like that they are testing my idea, but I don't know. 2:13:47 At the moment, it's not really like profitable. It's more like helping the idea grow. He's really believing in your idea and he's 100% behind. But for me, it's like not a professional coder. It's also sometimes really hard to judge about the ability to get something like this ready. 2:14:09 And I think he's just able to work with what you give him and then to add maybe some things and maybe fix some minor bugs. I don't know. Or some small bugs. I'm not sure. But I'm just questioning myself. What do you think about this idea? Is it like possible to realize it like this? Also, like he's fighting alone at the moment for nothing. No money at the moment. 2:14:33 It's completely community-driven, the project. There's nobody getting paid. 2:15:03 I'm not sure what their plans are for that. But I think it's a funny name. It's a funny meme. SkyPip300. What do you think? We should do something differently? Like we being LayerTwo Labs or myself or something? 2:15:21 It's already the first mainnet of your idea. But it's still not 100% ready to run. And he's fighting for this kind of idea. And I'm asking myself, will he be able to solve these issues that at the moment it's not easy to do? Alone with your help, I don't know. 2:15:46 It might be a good idea for them to start over because we have our own way. We have the launcher and stuff now to make it very easy for people to run all those different sidechains and find them and keep everything very organized and relatively user-friendly. 2:16:09 And we intend to continue to improve. I intend to improve everything. We have more of an emphasis on front-end and back-end. I'm expanding the team often. 2:16:25 And so I am expanding it a lot. Maybe LayerTwo Labs should just release. We should hard fork SkyDoge. We should partner with this. Presumably they have the domain and social accounts and we should just do it as a joke and redo it with a pre-mine and hire those people. 2:16:43 And maybe that would be funny enough. Why not? It's not like we're getting enough love from the actual Bitcoin maximalists. So that should be a funny idea, I think. Especially if it has an absurd name, an absurd logo. We could have a lot of fun with it maybe. I don't know. And really test it out. But there you go. 2:17:05 That's interesting. And what kind of time period would you say? How long would it take to get these things, what they have on their website, running? 2:17:13 What do they have on their website? Bitassets? 2:17:44 The answer is sort of yes. And yeah, I realize this is probably very frustrating and confusing for people on the outside who just don't know what's going on. But really, Bitassets is... 2:18:00 Okay, let me try to explain. Because, you know, sometimes I have a lot of thoughts bubbling in my head, you know, and I just want to convey them all at once. And it doesn't go over very well, but I'm going to try to dump them all out now. 2:18:13 So Bitassets is currently being rewritten in Rust, because a lot of things are being rewritten in Rust. And the old sidechain template, which is still available and still in use, C++ and Qt, Qt is the frontend GUI, the graphical user interface. 2:18:32 So Qt is okay. There's nothing wrong with it. It's nice. I like it for mainchain L1. It's the same thing in Bitcoin Core. That's why it's the same. And that's why we used it. 2:18:47 But for the sidechains, it's not great. Because, first of all, we clone sometimes sidechains such as Ethereum and Zcash that have no frontend at all. So if we were relying on the Qt frontend, now we just got deleted. 2:19:05 So the other reason is that Qt reads a lot of its data directly. It's very tightly integrated with the code. I'm not sure if this point is easy to convey, developer to non-developer, but other frontends will just ask for data with RPC or with something like that. 2:19:25 But Qt doesn't work that way. So Qt is tightly, it's like a Siamese twin sewn in together. So we have decided to try to separate out the frontend completely, which is its own project. But this is by far the right decision, I think. 2:19:43 Because when you separate the frontend, you cut the Siamese twin, you also get competition among frontends. So we just say, these are the RPCs you need to support. And if you want to build your own frontend, which includes your own wallet, your own node, your own whatever, your own way of viewing the node. 2:20:02 Now, that just went from basically impossible to very, very, very easy for anyone with any frontend experience to completely redo the frontend of any sidechain. So I was kind of redoing that. And then while we were at it, we have a lot of brilliant people over here, and one of them rewrote the sidechain template in Rust because everyone loves Rust these days. 2:20:28 And they got it down to a very high performance, seven megabytes. So we had BitNames, the Namecoin sidechain that was in C++ Qt, but now that's been rewritten in Rust. And now that BitNames happens to be very similar to BitAssets. 2:20:44 So we were just like, well, when BitNames is really, really good, we'll just redo BitAssets in Rust and all with different frontend. So on one hand, you could say this is evidence of Paul being scatterbrained and having no focus. And this is all just mission creep. And it's all chaos. 2:21:06 But it's quite difficult. It's quite difficult to get something that has a good user experience for Mac, Windows, and Linux, and has a frontend that works on everything, which includes the desktop, laptop, phone. 2:21:23 So it's a very unfortunate growing pain. But we have actually done a lot of work already. The BitAssets sidechain, I specced that out in 2018 or something. And I get messages from people all the time asking me about it now. 2:21:42 And they like the idea. They think I was right about everything that I said. And so yes, it's true. Developers are always going to want to take time, rewrite everything from scratch, redo everything from the general case, solve the general case, whatever. 2:22:02 And that is definitely frustrating for the end user who wants everything to just be finished now. But a lot of stuff also fell through the cracks temporarily. 2:22:17 So we have the latest Zcash and latest Ethereum. But those don't have any GUI. So we either build one from scratch ourselves, or we modify something else, modify Metamask or something. 2:22:33 So what we're going to have instead is this unified modular frontend experience. And then we're going to have the backend node experience. And this is all going to be organized in the launcher. 2:22:49 And the launcher will know what operating system you are running. And then it will download the node software or point you to the node source code. Just download the binaries or download the nodes or stuff like that. 2:23:03 So that is my plan, because it actually becomes a bigger task. When you say, instead of just shipping one piece of software, you got to ship Bitcoin Core, you have to ship Mac, Windows, Linux version. 2:23:19 Now we have to ship one, we have to have basically three columns, Mac, Windows, Linux. Three columns and then as many rows as there are sidechains. And it's difficult. And the decisions that I have made in working with this problem of how to do this, and I've tried to reshrink the problem. 2:23:43 And as a result, we've done a lot of work that no one has seen yet. But I think if you plot it on a graph, it's gone very well. Like LayerTwo Labs was only created, you know, we only started to, I don't even remember when I made the slides to ask for money. I think that was August 25th of last year. 2:24:03 We got funding in November. And we have large block sidechain, we have latest Zcash sidechain, we have Ethereum, latest Ethereum sidechain, we have, they said large block sidechain, I don't remember, I have to put them in the right order. So I don't repeat or forget any. But we have BitNames sidechain, we have, we had BitAssets, but it just doesn't work for every, it's just not as good. It works, but it's just not as good as it could be. So I kind of like pulled the plug on it temporarily. 2:24:33 If anyone, you know, if you want, like, if you're a great developer, and you want a job, then there's plenty of stuff that we're working on, if you're very good. And we have latest core sidechains, the sidechain is the latest version of Bitcoin core that has 118, 119, it has CTV in it, it has one, it's basically Bitcoin Inquisition, but has a sidechain. And it has OpVault. And it may have other fun, arc shaped opcodes. 2:25:03 Soon, we'll have the Rust rewrite large block sidechain, which is different from the original large block sidechain. We're working on Bitcoin Hivemind as a sidechain. So we have quite a bit, we have a blank version, we have a sidechain that is very blank, in terms of the test. The C++ template is just a blank sidechain that has the GUI, C++ Qt. 2:25:31 We have that's just like where the starting point would be, we have that and we have the Rust starting point one, which we call plane. So we have a lot that we have already made. And stuff, it's I realize it's annoying, because the end user, they either just see something that works, or they just kind of see nothing. But we are, we're in the arena trying things. 2:26:01 I just mean, like, we are. I don't, you only see like the tip of the iceberg, really. It's and yeah, we had more. Sometimes we got like, whatever Zcash is got stuck on this a very obscure linking error, tiny for like a little while. So sometimes just a tiny little thing trips trips us up. 2:26:30 And this, this switch to unified front end, I think will be key because we want the front end and back end to be to be separate. And, and when they're when they're when they're when they are separate, we will have a front end that works for every sidechain that does not. 2:26:48 Because the Qt one is too tightly integrated. So you can't you couldn't use the Qt front end in something that was that had like a very different back end. So they just didn't fit together. And this is Bitcoin Core has just had Qt for a very long time. Well, the Bitcoin Core is also trying to get rid of Qt. So 2:27:09 so I don't know, that's kind of a rambling answer. But we plan on, we're doing a lot of software development. Over here, we do much more actual real work than I think. I think by, you know, certainly, if you actually plotted it on a graph, like the actual raw capacity of what we can accomplish for the user, it's going to be a lot easier to get rid of Qt. 2:27:36 I think the answer in a user friendly way in terms of transaction throughput, privacy, usability, extensibility, reliability, just overall ability, like I would say that we have blown way past the entire lightning network, like a long time ago, we're like 10x or 100x superior. 2:27:59 If or slash when BIP300 activates on Bitcoin Core. So it was already 100x superior to the entire state of the art of the industry. And BitAssets, the old Qt version, that's in C++, it still exists. The old versions are all there for download. It's just, it's very, very difficult to like, 2:28:23 right now, we're changing it, but it's very difficult to just release something because you the end user, you'd have to download it, install it, you have to download it as you know, if it's just a binary, you have to download it and run it, then you have to, like edit the comp files, so that it can connect to L1 main chain. And we just have a different way of doing it now that will make it much easier for you. 2:28:53 So it's just like, I don't know, it's a work in progress. 2:28:57 Hey, Paul, I wanted to know, you have considered building on top of Chialisp? 2:29:04 On top of what? 2:29:06 Chialisp. 2:29:09 What is that? Chialisp? What is that? 2:29:13 Chialisp. Chia, basically. 2:29:16 Oh, Chia. You mean coin? Well, no, I don't know why I would. Should I? 2:29:23 I think you should, you should definitely look into the code. 2:29:28 But the code really doesn't make any difference, does it? 2:29:34 In what form? In what sense? 2:29:36 Well, it's all about the community and the market cap. And so the code is kind of irrelevant, I think. Do you disagree or no? 2:29:49 I mean, is that a fair thing to say? I mean, mostly someone launches a car, you launched a project, and it's number 500 on coin market cap, the code could be perfect, but that doesn't necessarily matter. 2:30:00 Especially if it's for a while, because then people will just say, though this code, they'll either say this code is bad, here's the proof. 2:30:10 Or they'll say, here's this idea. It's number 500 on coin market cap, but the code is good. 2:30:19 And then they'll say, well, okay, we'll copy paste the code into our own coin, and then we'll launch it, we'll launch a new coin. 2:30:26 So I think that's what, so I think the, I don't think the code matters. 2:30:40 I still think you should look at it. Trust me. 2:30:44 Okay, cool. 2:30:46 I have a last question. 2:30:52 If you would go to mainnet in the next year, what would be your plan? How would you arrange the project to get as time efficient as possible to some kind of product? 2:31:04 For BIP300? 2:31:07 For example, you have to go like the skydash way, sorry to name it. But for example, you have to go the same name like this one, that's the same way like them. And you have to go to mainnet and to create a usable product. How, what kind of strategy would you suggest? 2:31:26 Well, I mean, if you're saying if I activate on Bitcoin, the easiest way would be to just use a minor activated software to go to launch a completely separate thing. I mean, I don't know, that would be that's a very different thing that involves a lot of strategy, I would think. 2:31:46 So it is a, but I think the, I don't know, I'm not sure. 2:31:56 Okay, because you were talking about a funny idea to to launch an on thing with skydash Corporation, I just wondering what kind of plan you would go then, if you have to. 2:32:08 In that particular case, I would say maximize like the irony and humor of the situation, and just do it with a lot of self awareness. And just skydash is a funny name. So if we could, that would be funny to partner with. 2:32:25 So that would be a funny, I think that would be kind of fun, the reverence of it, like the idea that I have been in the Bitcoin community for like much more than 10 years. And I have like never done a thing. And now to do it, I think that would be funny, actually. 2:32:40 So I think that would be a neat idea. 2:32:44 But I think that would be like, to just demonstrate the product, and just kind of have fun with it. 2:32:51 What I would say would be the strategy to because I think the Bitcoin's biggest weakness now is that everyone is a Bitcoin is not succeeding at its core goal to replace the banks. 2:33:06 And so everyone is a conflict in their own mind with how upset they are over that. And this is causing people to be annoyed. And, you know, we have this cult also, the cult cannot tolerate anyone having fun, which is why it doesn't like, you know, people like Udi or whatever. 2:33:27 So if you could just bring back the fun and the humor of it, and target the end user, just don't try to evade the world of developers, especially developers in BTC, and try to evade every cultural leader in BTC, like just try to avoid all that. 2:33:45 And then just do something that the end user thinks is fun. And just completely ignore the BTC like orthodoxy. That would be probably the strategy in that case. 2:33:57 Yeah, it's good that they support each other. And it's a little bit of pity. It's a big pity that so such less core developers helping you developing the project. And it's great to have such people like MLG also around to really try to help you. 2:34:15 Yes, it is. And to have a helping help is good. And Bitcoin Core, unfortunately, there has been a prestige economy has been created around Bitcoin Core, where it matters a lot who contributes. 2:34:34 And as a result, there's gatekeeping, and they don't want certain people contributing because it would increase their prestige, which is very bad for the end Bitcoin user. But the gap between the end Bitcoin user and the insider technical person is enormously vast. 2:34:54 Anyway, I think we had Ethan come up first, and then Morgan, I think. 2:35:01 Hey, can you hear me? 2:35:03 Hello. 2:35:05 Hey, thanks for having the space. So I've looked at a lot of your tweets going back and forth with people on about the Lightning Network, and why and some disadvantages of the way that it's implemented. 2:35:18 And it seems that any scaling mechanism for a small block chain is going to be bottlenecked by the very low write throughput to the global state. 2:35:35 And that a lot of the B-cashers, I guess I really did not ever approach Bitcoin cash with an open mind. And I know that the large blocks threaten the consensus because not as many people can consume them, it's more difficult to mine. 2:36:00 But how will the low write throughput to the current Bitcoin blockchain be overcome then? 2:36:13 Yeah, well, I have a, there is a way of scaling Bitcoin with sidechains that, and there's also, there's quite a few, there are a lot, there are more different, there are more L2s than just the Lightning Network, which is part of why I named the company LayerTwo Labs, because it's the obsession with the Lightning Network has 2:36:38 shut off interest in other L2s. And even the biggest, well, it's a long story. But basically, we had a similar question earlier today, where I think it's not a good idea to have the L2 give every single user something that they can broadcast on L1 to get their coins back. 2:37:00 Because if 8 billion people won't fit on L1, then it doesn't matter that 8 billion people are on an L2 or each of them could go because it's just not the case. So I think that that's actually dead end. And I think that's how both Ellen and ARK insist on that. And it's a long story short, but other sidechains have wrestled with that concept. And I think that's not headed in the right direction. 2:37:28 I wrote a post. The difference with scaling with sidechains is that you can both onboard on L1 and off, excuse me, on L2. And you can actually offboard on L2 also. So you can, someone on L1, like a rich guy, Michael Saylor, or whatever, Roger Ver, I used to use the example, they send like 50,000 coins to the sidechain. 2:37:56 With one L1 transaction. And then only periodically, there's L1 transactions, you know, to maintain the sidechain. But on the sidechain, the 50,000 coins can you can make a new address, make your new sidechain address and collect the coins over there, send them to other people, send them back and forth. 2:38:18 And, and then actually, if you say, someone panics, and they say, Oh, I want to go to L1, but there's not enough space. What do I do? The L1 ARK method is to give everyone something they can broadcast on L1. But as I've explained, and as you asked in your question, that idea is dead, actually, it's not going to work. So because everyone can't 8 billion people can't use it. So what difference does it make if they have it or not, you might as well just raffle them off and only let a few people get them. 2:38:48 Get the unilateral exit transaction, because that's the only people who are going to get it in time. So the what you do instead is you say that on L2, you sell your right to go back to someone else to anyone who will buy. And in that way, the transaction, the coins can actually collapse back, they can fan out, and they can also collapse on L2. You say, listen, I have eight coins on this network, but I want to have L1 coins. 2:39:18 And you say, well, okay, I'll give you something on either the different L2 network or on L1. And that's still both of those things require block space, getting on their respective networks. 2:39:32 So there, the difference is small, but I think it's big enough to make a difference because the end user signs off the coins on L2 or for an exchange for whatever else they want. So it could be a car could be a coins on some different L2s and different sidechain. 2:39:54 And then you end up with people on the L2 who have, you know, at the end of the day, there's only like one guy with 10,000 coins, one guy with 15,000 coins, and then a third guy with 15,000 coins. And then those three people withdraw to L1. And those three people could be like Foundry, Marathon, whatever. 2:40:14 I see. The thing is wouldn't. Yeah, okay, my bad. 2:40:21 So, so I wrote a post about this called Thunder sidechains for scaling. Thunder is like a little joke. And the, there's certainly no perfection, but I do think that lightning, my problem with the lightning network, I would like to reiterate and make this very, very clear. 2:40:41 The fact that the lightning network basically doesn't work. That doesn't concern me at all. I think that's fine. Nothing works at first. You know, Elon Musk's rockets explode, etc. Before they work. 2:40:58 The issue is instead, that the dishonesty and just everyone losing their brain, basically. And that is the kiss of death. Now, I think nothing will, you see what I mean? Like, what if it was, there's a huge difference between Elon Musk is building reusable rockets, and they explode. 2:41:20 And they're, they're spending a lot of the running out of money. But every time the rocket explodes, they've got cameras, they have the black box, they have sensors, they have debates, they have people with blueprints, and, you know, AutoCAD and everything. So they're changing it around. 2:41:37 And they get a little closer each time. And they think, I really think that we'll get it. They try. And they launched the rocket. And I think we know that this is going to fail. But we want to collect the data. We need to try if we're ever going to collect real data. 2:41:53 Now imagine if SpaceX work differently. And every time the rocket exploded, they said stuff like, well, actually, we want the rocket to explode. Or they said, or they don't, there's no actual rocket, like there's just like a custodial rocket, that's like a fake toy model rocket. And everyone's using that. And, you know, and people seriously believe that with the toy model rocket, we're going to make it to Mars or something. 2:42:23 And so the self delusion is what proves that the project is doomed, because you can't fix a problem that you are in denial about. So that, that is the problem. And the fact that so many people have reacted recently to my very like tame little tweet, it proves really just how insecure. You know what I mean? Like if someone said, Oh, SpaceX, they'll never, you know, they won't, they're not going to make it. 2:42:53 If you work at SpaceX, and you think you're going to make it, what do you do? You just ignore that. And you just say, yeah, we have to work hard. We're going to ignore that person. A lot of people think we're not going to make it. But then if to like, to react in such a paranoid and sort of defensive way, that's because what lightning network really is, is not a protocol for scaling BTC. 2:43:23 It is just a medium. It's a figurehead. It is a kind of tribal mask or something. It's a ritual. lightning network is like a performance. It's something that people say is good for Bitcoin. But, and it's something that we kind of in a sense, there's this very real sense in which the lightning network is just something that everyone pretended that they believed in, in order to win the scaling war. 2:43:47 Right, the so so the the L2 that you're referencing, which I kind of understand better how you're you're thinking that. 2:44:18 redemption, this the the L2 that you're referencing, would that be just a large block sidechain then? And you have the same problems as Bitcoin cash? 2:44:29 It does. But the key is, this is, I think, the key to understanding it all, which is that what was the problem that the large block nodes had is that the runaway cost of running a full node. So for example, one of the many problems with Bitcoin cash was there are enormous number and I've tweeted a big table. 2:44:54 If you guys think I'm hard on the lightning network, I like crush Bitcoin cash, and I go on their podcasts and don't mean to them. And I have this big table of like the Bitcoin cash mistakes, and I think you can find it. And I put them on a huge list, just like I did with lightning network. And I was just just that kind of guy. And they had lots of problems. But one is that they never really explained. 2:45:19 Like, they said, Okay, one megabyte is too small. But then it's kind of like, what is so they wanted to change the eight megabytes, but it's kind of like, that's just the difference of degree. They're evading the issue of principle, right? Like, what is the what should the number be? And they said, Well, they think the line should be at eight instead of at one. I don't know. 2:45:41 They never really explained. And they also never really explained like, an obvious question. I mean, it's insulting to use that word, but I really feel it was obvious. Which is that, what do we do when the blocks fill up at eight megabytes? Want to just be the same thing? The same problem just double now because we already had some people like in the reality where we hard forked eight megabytes, we already did a hard fork. 2:46:11 To go from one to eight. So when we go from eight to 64, and then when we go from 64 to infinite, and if we're going to go to infinite, then why don't we just go to infinite like today, you know, like, I think that would have been the smarter thing. But even the Bitcoin cash community was very, the large blocker community was very divided. I remember Gavin Andreessen saying, No one wants, no one supports an unlimited block size increase. 2:46:36 But then look at exactly what happened to them as they created their large block version. And then they got immediately outflanked. Not immediately, but like one year later, by a Bitcoin SV. And now they're trapped because they have to say, well, small blocks are bad. And then people say, Well, what about what about Bitcoin cash, your blocks are smaller than Bitcoin SVs. And then they have to say, well, Bitcoin SVs are too big. So is this starting to make sense about now? 2:47:02 Yeah, probably. So there's two already, we've hit two things, two huge differences between scaling via sidechains, and via large block sidechain. Two huge differences between that and Bitcoin cash is one is no one pays the cost except the people who want to run the large block node. Whereas in the naive L1 large block is in Bitcoin cash world. It's a one size fits all. So everyone has to run the more expensive node. 2:47:32 Whereas in sidechains, you have everyone run the small tiny node. And then whoever wants the minority who wants to run the more expensive node. They do so. So that's one huge difference. But the second difference is that naturally, the block size limit is going to be changing around now. 2:47:52 Because you make it too big on the large block sidechain, you might kill the network. And then it'll all be that network will die out, but the regular main chain L1 network will survive. And if you make it too small, then someone will make a new large block sidechain somewhere else. So now I have three networks, one small one is mandatory for everyone, a large block sidechain, that's kind of full, and then one that's, that's newer and is empty. 2:48:17 So naturally, more block space would be coming in and out of existence, there would be something to regulate it. And that thing would be adding and removing sidechains on L1. 2:48:27 I see. 2:48:57 Maybe they don't have a long run future, like a Solana style sidechain, that is huge, that's not sustainable, but has huge blocks, huge transaction throughput. And then you'd have maybe some that are different, you have a whole range, you know, we have a whole spectrum of like decentralization, and security and fees. So we hit the whole region. But in particular, you'd have geographically distributed sidechains. 2:49:23 Since most of the trade, like, most of the trade on like, in America is like you have like North America sidechain, you have like Europe sidechain, you have Southeast Asia sidechain, you have like China sidechain, and they have like rest of the world sidechain. And just like, almost all my transactions are in US dollars since I live in the United States. And then when I go to Europe, I make one big transaction swapping some of my cash for euros. 2:49:51 And then I make transactions over there. So it's just the way it is, it just happens to be the economic reality that people are clumped up already into big clusters of, and that within cluster trade is enormous, much 10, 50, 100x, the inter cluster trade. And so you already get some efficiency there. It's actually the same principle as a lightning network that if even if I, this is superior to Bitcoin SV, because in my universe, 2:50:20 I would run, even as a full node user, I would run main chain l1. And I would run the US large block sidechain only I don't need to run the Southeast Asia, I don't really care. No one's paying me over there. I get paid on the North America chain, because I work at whatever North America company. So only rarely do people have to go in between. 2:50:47 And so it's a similar principle of the lightning network where you ignore things that you don't see just on a slightly different, you know, slightly different trade off. So those are some of my lists is one of my reasons why I want to emphasize the large block scaling via sidechains is very different from naive l1 large block ism. 2:51:07 I see. So you're so like BIP300 is, in essence, going to be increasing the amount of block space there is, but then regulating exactly how much through market forces, I guess that like, it's just, if it's way too big, then people just won't run it, because that's annoying and expensive. And 2:51:31 that it doesn't, I guess, inflated on l1. It just uses l1 as sort of like a peg for all whatever ideas people might have. Okay, that makes a lot more sense. I appreciate it. Thank you for doing these. 2:51:46 Yes, of course, the, the issue with the block size is that is global is like a, you know, tragedy, the commons type problem. So once you have it, so that a sidechain is free to fail, that is very healthy, because sidechains free to fail. And as a result, you know, like, it's, it's completely the absolute reverse night and day where it would be with l1. 2:52:12 Because we no one would say, Oh, we'll just set the block size to something else. And if Bitcoin fails, then whatever, it's not a big deal. Everyone l1 fail, if Bitcoin fails, that's a big deal, that everyone's going to be really pissed off about that. But if it's an optional sidechain, that starts with no coins, and people have to voluntarily send the coins to that, then they have to attract users. And then if they die, then we won't shed a tear. They sort of have their fate in the hands of the people who are in charge of the blockchain. 2:52:40 So that's the idea. So now maybe we'll go to Morgan, I suppose. Hello. 2:52:45 Hey, Paul. I haven't talked with you before, but I'm a big fan of all of your pontificating and harassment of Bitcoin Core. I salute you for your work. 2:52:58 One of the things I wanted to talk to you about was this user interface, the front ends, either using or not using BIP300. And I'm wondering if you could answer a question maybe. 2:53:12 In an example like how Samurai Wallet uses BIP 47, and it doesn't seem to be a very popular thing in other wallets. 2:53:24 Is there a way today a wallet could implement BIP 30 without any approval from other nodes and basically do some testnet stuff on a user interface level with BIP300? 2:53:43 And building user interfaces that are showing off these sidechains and Drivechains. Is that being done in a way or can it not be done in a way? 2:53:55 We do it now with our test software, which is not actual real Bitcoin. So I don't think it can be the way. BIP 47 is a great example of, I can give you more pontification, especially BIP 39, where people for some reason hate BIP 39. 2:54:15 Everyone in the technical community, where I should say is a small minority of the elite technical community, had some kind of problem with BIP 39 and BIP 47, and I'm going to get into that in a second. 2:54:29 But who didn't have a problem with it was the end user who was like, oh, this is great. I just have to write down 12 words and then I don't need to print out this thing of gibberish where I have no idea. 2:54:42 I have no idea if I printed it out right or if someone switches the piece of paper for a different one. I won't even notice. But now I just write down 12 words and I just stick them in a book or something. 2:54:55 So people love BIP 39, which is taken over. BIP 47 is, people thought it was wasting black space because the first transaction between two parties is 20% larger. 2:55:14 And then we could have gotten rid of Bitcoin addresses. You just friend request someone on the blockchain, and then you have an encrypted tunnel. Back and forth, you can send them money, you could send them messages. 2:55:31 And this is what we all would have had a long time ago. I don't even know how long, like 2015 or something. And yeah, this is because of people, and I love Luke Dashjr. He's great, but he's also crazy. 2:55:47 And he just thought this is wasting block space, the friend request thing, which is like 40 bytes. Again, it's like 20, the first transaction is like 20% larger, which is nothing. 2:56:01 And so then they fight this war to keep this type of thing out. And then they get a big, you know, when ordinals and stuff, inscriptions, when that finally broke out. 2:56:17 I mean, now they have to deal with it. It's like a perfect example of like, not solving a problem and kicking the can down the road, and then having to pay for it later. 2:56:29 And yeah, bit 47 is another thing where it's super arcane reason why it was like, unanimously disquoted, unanimously discouraged for implementation. 2:56:45 But again, the end user, I think they would love nothing more than to get rid of all, no one likes these Bitcoin addresses, they're weird. People, they're definitely not going to last, you know, like in 30 years, people are going to look back and they're going to be like, Oh, yeah, kind of like how we look at like, maybe IP addresses, or I don't know, maybe like usenet or something where it just it's going to look old. 2:57:11 We're gonna be like, yeah, that's what Bitcoin was like. Yeah, we got to get rid of these stupid Bitcoin addresses. But anyway, that's just some of my pontification. 2:57:19 So let me let me continue on that, then, like, why is or how can BIP 30 be implemented in multiple wallets now, as an example, you know, to go against the common grain where BIP 39 and 47, 39 is used everywhere, 47 is used in samurai and some other things. 2:57:42 Why can't BIP 30 be used right now? As an example, I work at edge. I'm QA engineer over here. And I in the past when I, my company made the first Bitcoin ATM long ago, and I white labeled air bits and said, Hey, can you guys help me build a point of sale? 2:58:04 And I changed, you know, air bits into Bitcoin pay, basically put some lipstick on the make, you know, on the pig and try to get it put into these casinos. And so I took someone else's wallet and said, Hey, let's make a user interface for the casinos. And they've helped me build that. 2:58:23 So my thought process, knowing that that could be done is why is someone not making a wallet that's like BIP300 friendly or throwing BIP300 in like a test version of a wallet now and trying it out? Is that able to be done? Or? 2:58:39 Well, that's it. Well, I wouldn't care. I mean, the thing, the reason why it wouldn't, it won't, the actual rules of BIP300 will not be enforced until 51% hash rate runs software that enforces them. So that is the soft fork. And, but we have testnet software already that we're trying to make. And we have a test network with, you know, 2:59:08 with fake coins. And we already we have that. And we, we want to continue to make that. And in fact, I think the right thing to do next would be to make a signet version, but who has time, but we have a we have it because we have now we have just open in reg test. So that's very easy for each. But I think signet is actually probably better. We'll have a common signet and we'll have like a faucet. And so we kind of go back and forth between just like turning the network loose. And 2:59:38 just letting people reg test only, which is the most convenient is, you know, they can find, we program it to just find a block every two seconds or something. But I think signet is the way to go next. But, but we have wallets, we, and we do need, we have like desktop node software with desktop wallet. But we do need people to make, to add support to whatever wallet it is that they, you know, people like certain wallet, then it would have to support this type of thing. 3:00:07 If each wallet is kind of like the each sidechain is its own piece of software. So each wallet, it's kind of be like the, the Jack's multi currency wallet or something like that, where it would have to be a little like that to be a mobile wallet. But, but yeah, I think all that should be done, but they won't, you understand that they won't actually be able to send Bitcoin to like the Zcash sidechain until BIP300 activates, they won't, they'll actually be able to send the coins, but they won't be safe. 3:00:36 The coins will be vulnerable to just. 3:00:39 Okay. So when, when, when we have say a user interface, like say we make a desktop version of a user interface that is playing with the BIP300 test coins, are we able to make test sidechains like a test Zcash and a test Ethereum and, and test the interoperability in that way? 3:01:04 Yeah, exactly. Yes, that is the case. 3:01:09 Okay. So, um, cause I, I've always wanted to do stuff like that on top of Bitcoin and I used to use counterparty, like religiously. And I think the biggest problem with all this cool shit that was done on top of Bitcoin just didn't have good user interfaces, you know? And, um, I think that's a big issue and, and getting it to people, you know? 3:01:33 Yeah, I agree. I mean, you know, Steve Jobs would repeat that over and over and over again. Everyone would say, oh, Steve Jobs is so smart, business genius. And they'd say, what's the secret? And he's like repeating it over and over and over again. He's like, uh, just focus on the user, focus on the customer, focus on the user experience. So certainly that should be number one priority. 3:01:55 Well, you've been around as long as me, but, uh, you may know this and I don't know this. Uh, what was the, the threshold that got 39 and 47 put in play? Like, um, it seems so quiet. 3:02:09 Right. 39 and 47 do not require whether or not you use them does not affect if it's not affected by if other people are using them. In fact, the more people using 39, the more, the better it is. Whereas 300 requires 51% of miners to run the software first. So that's the, that's the stumbling block. Otherwise this all would have happened long ago. 3:02:36 Is there a specific technical reason that you could kind of explain to a layman why that is different? 3:02:43 Yeah, the coins, the way the design of 300 is that the coins and must, uh, the coins can easily be, you track which coins are in which sidechain, and then they return through this kind of gauntlet. 3:02:58 The sort of like slow hallway with a bunch of locked doors. And, uh, that is a very slow withdrawal system that is designed to make it infeasible for the coins to be withdrawn to any mistaken destination. 3:03:14 And, uh, if you, if everyone, the BIP300 code enforces that, that like hallway thing, but if no one runs, if miners aren't running the code, then they can just mine a block that just takes the coins in the very next block or someone else can just take the coins and pay a high fee. 3:03:35 And the miners won't really know that what they're doing is breaking any rules. So, um, they, that is why this, um, the, the rules of BIP300 will not be enforced unless 51% of miners upgrade, which is, uh, they used to really not be a big deal. 3:03:57 We did many of these such soft fork things, 16 or 17 in the first seven years of Bitcoin's history, but then came this SegWit disaster and everyone panicked on doing them further to our detriment. 3:04:12 Is that why, uh, 301 is there as a sister bit because, uh, that encourages this hallway action from happening in a faster way? 3:04:22 Uh, I'm afraid they're actually completely different things. Uh, 301 is a much tamer, smaller problem that is already solved in many different ways. And a BIP300, 301, 301 itself is easily emulated by, um, other things like Ruben Thompson and super test net have already built space chains that use line bridge mining. 3:04:49 So they are already kind of exists. It's not a very efficient way, but it, uh, it does exist. And so. 3:05:05 Everyone got muted. 3:05:09 Okay, I'm back. 3:05:11 Um, so they, they, well, I wanted to really ask, I wanted to kind of get an idea from a, you know, I'm a developer, but I wanted to get an idea from a user interface, user experiences. 3:05:22 Why can't we just, uh, shove new features in everyone's face? Why do we have to have the Illuminati of Bitcoin, like approve it when these other bits kind of went through, but that answers my question on that. 3:05:35 BIP300, then even things that are soft forks or hard forks, they would also be in the same category as if 39 or 47, um, where you could just launch it without getting approval from the community. 3:05:52 And in fact, the point of sidechains is actually, if you disagree with the community, you think they're doing something wrong. 3:05:59 So actually the point, uh, you do have to get 51% minors to approve you taking the slot, so to speak. But again, the slot is supposed to be for descent. 3:06:10 Um, so. 3:06:12 So this may be the last bit we ever need if we can kind of get it to that threshold. 3:06:18 Yes, that would be the hope, or even maybe this bit would just make it so that extremely contentious ideas move to the L2. 3:06:28 And as a result, there's just so much less politics and less unproductive chatter on L1 so that the only L1 changes are like very, very tame, very, very conservative, very, very good ideas that just are made based on merit and not on, uh, 3:06:47 Is there a metric way of measuring right now approval? I mean, do we have a percentage threshold of, I mean, we don't have our user authenticated, you know, soft fork flags and stuff right now. 3:07:00 But is there a way to measure how much approval BIP300 has right now when it comes to nodes? 3:07:07 Uh, well, uh, not when it comes to nodes. Um, I think we have, uh, yeah, we should probably try to do that somehow. I mean, for now, I'm actually focused on getting out the. 3:07:21 An actual pull request to Bitcoin core that activates both 300 and 301 that is like rebased and like good enough to actually use because until you have a real proposal, um, people won't really know like what it, um, is, I think. 3:07:41 Um, you could ask like the smart thing would be, I suppose, to ask the heads of mining pools, you know, if they would support activating it. 3:07:50 So we've had the one public yes from Luxor pool. So that's whatever 3% or so. So that's three, three down 47 to go. But, uh, that's just I wasn't me who asked some random other person. 3:08:05 So I think that would be a good 90% though. 3:08:09 Uh, well, I suppose if, um, to actually add the sidechain, you would need 90%, but maybe it could be the case that a minor has a belief of the form. 3:08:21 I don't want to get involved in software activation, but then if BIP300 activated, they might be like, okay, whether I wanted it or not, BIP300 is activated. So now that it is activated, should we, should we try out the slot? 3:08:40 And then they could, so their willingness to participate. 3:08:45 Is there any way to know what it's activated? Unless there's like actually already a slot with 90% approval? 3:08:50 Well, it depends. 3:08:51 You can't really know, right? 3:08:53 It, uh, like all things, it exists between a state of certainty and doubt, but, um, it, there is a way of activating it where everyone knows. And there's a way of activating it where people don't know yet until after it had activated. 3:09:09 There is always a way of finding out eventually that it did activate, which is to try and break the BIP300 rules and notice that the block never is, the block is always getting orphaned. 3:09:20 Um, the, but what I was, we were just talking about moments ago was like having 50% of the pools say they would support it and then have them run the software. 3:09:32 And then in that context, people would know that it had activated. 3:09:38 Well, that, that's all I wanted. I'm going to step down, but I will, I'll join the discord and I want a job. So whenever you need someone, you call me and I fully support you. 3:09:47 And I think we need some dramatic changes to Bitcoin. And, uh, I think technical options like this are great. So keep, keep kicking ass, man. 3:09:58 Cool. Hey, thanks. 3:09:59 I just want to say BIP 47 is amazing. Um, I know the samurai users really, really love it. Um, you made a really good point that it would just be so much easier for like the user. 3:10:09 You know, if you just share the, you know, like, like the payment that is derived from the BIP 47, uh, I think Sparrow also implemented it. Um, I mean, I know that it has, which is great. 3:10:20 Yes. It's not, you know, it's like a wall, any wallet can just do it also. So even though core, so it's an example of how core, you know, there's, it's often thrown around this, this great lie that Bitcoin core is like an open system and that anyone can work on it and that it's a meritocracy. 3:10:42 But the, but basically, you know, one person's merit is another person's terrible idea. But, but I think BIP 47 in particular proves that Bitcoin core often makes mistakes and they don't take the idea with the most merit. 3:11:03 Well, 39 as well. Core still doesn't have 39, right? 3:11:07 Bitcoin core does not implement 39. No, there was no, you get no passphrase. 3:11:13 And then for a while, if you generate more, more keys, right, you still have to back it up every time. 3:11:18 No, I think there's HD wallets, but I think you, but, um, you have to, uh, for a very long time, you could not switch wallets. If you were using the QT client, I think it was only version 20 that allowed you to like save the wallet to like a file and then like open a different one or something. 3:11:40 You could not like, oh, you could, I think it was maybe set the seed randomness. That's what it was. You could not set the seed randomness until version 20 or something like that. 3:11:50 But so, uh, it's just not the case that Bitcoin core is a meritocracy and it's not the case that if it was, then no one would ever complain about anything. 3:12:00 All the complaining would be illegitimate. So I guess if someone wants to live in that fantasy world where they believe two lies at once that are mutually reinforcing, then that's great. Good for you. 3:12:13 But, um, there is no such thing. Nothing is infallible and there's no process that is without error. And the key is to how to correct the error. 3:12:23 The number one question is always how can Bitcoin survive mistakes made by Bitcoin core, which are inevitable. And so, yeah. 3:12:34 Do you think that there's a benefits to alternate implementations being more widely adopted like Bitcoin knots and like whatever other alternate implementations about following the same consensus? 3:12:46 The alternate implementations, I think, uh, Satoshi was strongly against them. He said they would always be a menace to the network because if they ever disagree, it may fork the network. 3:12:58 And Corey Fields is a brilliant guy. He gave a talk about two plus two equals three about saying the whatever Bitcoin core does is what everyone else has to do. 3:13:09 Although I think that that position is a little bit overstated because it's not like literally the end of the world. 3:13:16 Like you could run Bitcoin knots and you could also know that you're running a minority piece of software. And so you could know that, hey, I'm in danger of working off. 3:13:25 And certainly I think you don't want any minors. You want all the hash rate to be running the exact same piece of consensus, the exact same consensus library. 3:13:35 But other than that, an end user could run whatever to process the node, however they like. The blockchain process, the blockchain, however they like. 3:13:44 And so I think it's, um, but these are, these don't tend to be very popular. Bitcoin, the JavaScript one and Bitcoin knots, Luke Desch Jr.'s thing. 3:13:57 But a Bitcoin, the JavaScript node, it has excellent comments. It's very easy to read. 3:14:04 It's been said when I was in San Francisco in 2019, it was often said that if you want to actually learn how Bitcoin core worked, you should just read Bitcoin, the JavaScript Bitcoin core. 3:14:18 Because it had a layout and it had comments and it had like a consistent style. So it was easier to read. 3:14:26 And, um, yeah, there's not that many comments in Bitcoin core, which is very shameful. And also very, very, very, very much against the spirit of self sovereignty. 3:14:37 It's a very hypocritical Bitcoin core too. We talk a big talk about your node protects you and trust don't verify. 3:14:47 But, uh, really it should be like every single line of code should have like more comments than, than code should be explaining every single thing so that, so that anyone who tried to do something nefarious would be caught easily. 3:15:01 Um, I don't know. Sam Parker has a question. He has written it in the form of a tweet and he has not come up to ask it. And I don't know why, but the question is, was this larger TX optional if you didn't intend an ongoing relationship with a party? 3:15:24 I have to admit that I'm not totally sure what that means. 3:15:27 Talking about the IP 47. Uh, and in that case, it's, uh, you don't, you don't really do that unless you want to. 3:15:35 Yes. Was this larger transaction optional? Yes. It only, you only did it if you sent a bit 47 style transaction. So it's not like every transaction would become 20% bigger, but is if you wanted to use a bit 47 and create the tunnel. 3:15:51 And one intriguing thing also is that the recipient gets it for free. So if I want to send money to Edward Snowden, I look up his friend code or whatever. Then I friend him on the blockchain and then he and I have an encrypted tunnel and he didn't even have to do anything. 3:16:07 So, uh, bit 47 was fine to me. It bit 47 has also been improved. Uh, there's a version three and a version for the guy, justice Ranvir. He has, you know, some, some differences of opinion with Bitcoin core and he kind of just left to do his own thing. 3:16:24 Many such cases. And, uh, but he, he does, he has a different, uh, get hub library where he does version three, version four of bit 47 and that Ruben Thompson has, uh, was further tinkered with this idea to do the silent payments, uh, thing, which is basically a sort of a version of bit 47. 3:16:48 And, um, so the larger transaction is optional. Yes. The answer is yes. 3:16:56 And so one of the benefits is that all other transactions, uh, in this channel of sorts that you've opened is much, much smaller on chain. 3:17:06 Uh, no, they are regular size, but you get an endless, each of you gets an endless vector. 3:17:13 Uh, Ray, so to speak of, like, I get a list, we, you and I, I, I make the bit 47 3:17:17 transaction to you and it causes both of our wallets to become aware of each 3:17:22 other's friend code and we store it. 3:17:25 This, this one blockchain event, we store it. 3:17:28 And then I can look up, there's like a Paul, Sam list where Paul pays Sam. 3:17:33 And then it's like, imagine like a Microsoft Excel or something. 3:17:35 We have like a, a column that's like Paul pays Sam, and then you have a second 3:17:40 column, that's Sam pays Paul. 3:17:42 And then the rows are just Bitcoin addresses. 3:17:44 So we have now each of us has an unlimited stream of, of new Bitcoin addresses to 3:17:50 use. 3:17:51 That's the key is they're all different. 3:17:53 So there's never any address reuse, but we know now we have an infinite number. 3:17:57 We can just keep going down the list over and over and over again. 3:18:00 And whenever I want to send you money, I know what public key to use next. 3:18:05 And then once you receive money there, you think, okay, now, not only am I going to 3:18:09 check everything on this list, but I'm going to check the next one on the list 3:18:12 because Paul just used, he used one, two, three, four, five, six. 3:18:15 So now I'm going to check number seven and you're going to, you're going to add 3:18:18 that as like a watching only thing, you know, as one of your, is mine equals true. 3:18:23 And then you, when I send you money on seven, you're going to check number eight. 3:18:27 And then you, when I send you money on seven, then you, then you switch to eight. 3:18:32 So it's like, if they all have their own gap wallet, they go on gap limit or 3:18:35 something. 3:18:36 And, uh, but also key is that we derive a, not only do we have an endless series 3:18:40 of, um, Bitcoin addresses and ECDSA public keys, and, you know, it could be 3:18:48 any kind of, any kind of public key. 3:18:51 Uh, we have a shared secret also. 3:18:54 So just between all these things, we have basically the ability to send messages to 3:18:59 each other. 3:18:59 So that can include me sending you like a text message or something on telegram 3:19:05 that's encrypted, like through some rail, but your wallet could open it because we 3:19:11 have, you and I, we have this tunnel already. 3:19:14 And since you can do that, then the message could be something like it could 3:19:18 be, I could literally send you a message that has you like, you know, like curl, 3:19:22 see URL, something and decode that you and I can have like a whole encrypted video 3:19:28 chat or something. 3:19:30 We can disguise the limit because we, we know, know each other's key. 3:19:34 And so it's also replacing like PGP, it's replacing web of trusts, replacing 3:19:38 everything. 3:19:39 It wouldn't literally replace all of that overnight, of course, but I'm just 3:19:42 trying to give an idea of, 3:19:44 yeah, I just want to give one more example. 3:19:47 Um, the Bitcoin company, it's a gift card website, like similar to a bit refill. 3:19:51 It actually implemented, um, uh, paying in VIP 47 logins. 3:19:55 So you can just like, you know, have an account that you don't have an email 3:19:58 address or anything. 3:19:59 You just, you know, you register your account with the VIP 47 and you log in 3:20:03 with VIP 47. 3:20:04 So that's an example of what you're talking about. 3:20:06 You can use this for, you know, authentication, logging in, talking, 3:20:09 whatever you want to do. 3:20:11 That's a, excuse me. 3:20:12 That's a really cool idea. 3:20:13 It's like you're entangling your, um, your HD wallet generation with this other 3:20:19 guy. 3:20:20 Um, but, uh, yeah, like I, it, it seems like something, excuse me. 3:20:26 It seems like something like you can, you don't necessarily need to do anything 3:20:29 on the core level for that. 3:20:30 You could push this up a layer. 3:20:32 And I'm assuming that that's, you said that Ruben Thompson was doing something 3:20:35 like this for silent payments. 3:20:37 I'm assuming that's what he's doing. 3:20:41 Yes, that's right. 3:20:43 Interesting. 3:20:44 And I just want to, uh, yeah. 3:20:46 So look into silent payments. 3:20:47 If you want to see, that was kind of like what became a VIP 47. 3:20:51 But what I want to stress is it was, this idea was killed because it was wasting 3:20:57 block space quotes, quote wasting. 3:20:59 And there was this notification transaction on, on chain that people 3:21:02 thought was inelegant, but it turns out. 3:21:08 Um, in my opinion, they're certainly right. 3:21:11 I mean, if, if you look at the technical details, it does feel inelegant. 3:21:15 However, later attempts to replicate this functionality without the inelegant 3:21:21 part, have faced disastrous trade-offs. 3:21:25 And what this does with the, with the one quote, inelegant part, which again, 3:21:30 can be, can be shrunk down and compacted so that the only cost you pay is the 3:21:35 first transaction between two people is 20% larger, it goes from being 220 bytes 3:21:41 to like 200 and whatever, 48 bytes or something. 3:21:44 So, um, so that's not that much. 3:21:48 And, uh, the different versions, either they introduced a requirement that in 3:21:55 order to receive money, you have to scan the entire blockchain again, like, uh, 3:22:02 so whenever you get a new, like a new person wants to friend request you or 3:22:08 something, so the, you either have to scan everything or you have to do some 3:22:12 other stuff, um, the element of being worse. 3:22:14 So what's something that looked kind of inelegant at first, my, my view now is 3:22:19 that this is just an example of how something can really, really, really be 3:22:24 misleading and how it looks because I now with hindsight, I now look back on 3:22:30 this and I see it, I still see it as inelegant, not elegant. 3:22:34 I see it as this creepy kludge, like friend requesting someone on the 3:22:39 blockchain. 3:22:40 And it's just this, this pointless opportune, bare multisig junk is in the 3:22:43 blockchain. 3:22:44 It does look like it's spamming the blockchain. 3:22:47 But now I, uh, I see that as, even though I still see it, I see it as an 3:22:51 illusion. 3:22:52 It's like when you see an optical illusion that you already know, and you 3:22:56 say, you see the two lines and you know that they're the same length, but they 3:22:59 still look like a different length. 3:23:01 That's how I see it. 3:23:02 Now I look back on bit 47 and I think that was a really, really good idea. 3:23:08 We could have had that idea in like 2014 or 2015 or something. 3:23:12 It wasn't that long after, uh, stealth addresses and that was like 2012, 2013, 3:23:17 2014, something like that. 3:23:19 So, so we could have had this idea the whole time, no addresses in the UI, just 3:23:24 the friend code. 3:23:27 Imagine that would have been amazing. 3:23:29 Would have been way better. 3:23:31 It's quite soon also to go from people would have also hated this, but it would 3:23:36 have been, I think this is like, if history had taken a different turn, the 3:23:40 idea of putting the name system on the blockchain also, which again, this would 3:23:45 have been like wasting space because you would, you would broadcast a message that 3:23:48 says like, I want to be Truthcoin and on the Bitcoin where I want to be truth 3:23:55 coin, you know, dot bit or something. 3:23:57 And then if two people, you know, you do like a hash reveal and whoever gets it 3:24:01 first, whoever is first in the blockchain gets it, gets the name. 3:24:06 Um, but if we had done that, like Namecoin, like Namecoin as counterparty on 3:24:12 Bitcoin, you know, if that makes any sense to anyone, but if we had done that, we 3:24:17 would be wasting more block space, but then it would be even, it would be even 3:24:22 more user friendly. 3:24:23 It would be like very difficult because now you just have, we would just be truth 3:24:27 coin and then there'd be Satoshi enjoyer and then there'd be ZK Chesterton. 3:24:32 And, um, that we would just be sending you, there would not only would it be no 3:24:36 addresses, but the friend code would just be an actual name. 3:24:40 It would not even be a, and there would have been, we would have long blown past 3:24:44 the point where like silk road, silk road would have been like a name on the 3:24:49 blockchain. 3:24:50 And that would have done all the authentication. 3:24:52 There was still need to be like a site and stuff, but then with telegram bots and 3:24:55 stuff, it would have been a very different world, but because people were so, well, 3:25:01 you know, I'm just going to say that this is like, you know, this is the decision 3:25:04 that was made to, it's right there in the bit, but it says unanimously discouraged 3:25:07 for implementation. 3:25:09 So decide for yourselves, of course, a meritocracy after that. 3:25:19 I think there was other reasons why they might've not thought it's a good idea. 3:25:24 Cause like, um, if you want to say it's private, it's like privacy preserving. 3:25:28 If on chain, I'm opening a, opening up a, you know, this tunnel between me and you, 3:25:32 and then I go ahead and do a transaction, like chances are, I'm probably just 3:25:37 sending you those funds. 3:25:38 Right. 3:25:38 Right. 3:25:38 Because I just opened the channel with you, but I think the BIP had that, uh, had 3:25:44 some ways of obscuring that. 3:25:46 Uh, so like when a, if I open the tunnel with you, I use your friend code and 3:25:54 everyone sees that someone is friending you, but they don't know it's me. 3:25:58 Um, I spent some BTC and they don't know it's a, with, it's like there's three 3:26:06 outputs, so I spent some inputs and then one of them, I, one of the, okay, let me 3:26:16 re-explain it. 3:26:17 I select one input and then there's two outputs. 3:26:20 One of those outputs has a bare multi-sig with three keys. 3:26:24 One of those three keys is your friend code. 3:26:29 So everyone knows that someone's friending you, but they don't know. 3:26:32 And then the other part is a something that you will be able to calculate a, uh, 3:26:39 I give them a code that enables you to decrypt my friend code. 3:26:43 So my friend code is never given away. 3:26:46 So you don't know, everyone knows that Soshi and Joy are getting a new friend, 3:26:50 but no one knows who it, only you know that it's me. 3:26:52 And then the other script of the three is an output, which would normally have been 3:26:58 changed because I'm going to select, you know, something that has four Bitcoin. 3:27:01 I'm going to pay 0.01 fee and then pay 3.9999 back to myself. 3:27:07 And then, but however, that does not need to be that part. 3:27:13 You can flip around. 3:27:14 That could be my first payment to you, or it could be the change. 3:27:18 And then the change could be a different output or my first payment to you. 3:27:20 It could be the other output in that transaction. 3:27:23 So you can scramble all of those. 3:27:25 So they don't really know how much you're being paid in the first payment either. 3:27:31 If anything, you know what I mean? 3:27:32 Like I can, I can select 3.99, pay some to myself, pay some to you. 3:27:36 Yeah. 3:27:36 Like, uh, it would look like a page join kind of, or not, not a page on this. 3:27:40 It's more, they just don't know which one is which. 3:27:44 Yeah. 3:27:44 Yeah. 3:27:45 They don't know which one's the change, which one's to you necessarily. 3:27:47 So, so it's not, it's not great, but, um, it's not, it's also not broken either. 3:27:54 It, for most of the people, most of the time it would, it would have worked. 3:27:59 I agree because you can open a channel, like open this tunnel with you today and 3:28:02 with somebody else tomorrow and somebody else the third day, and then I could just 3:28:05 pay one of you and nobody knows which one I paid. 3:28:07 Right. 3:28:09 Like automatically. 3:28:10 Right. 3:28:11 No one knows who wants someone knows. 3:28:14 So on day one, I opened the tunnel with you. 3:28:17 So someone knows that you have a tunnel, but, uh, and then I opened a tunnel with 3:28:23 Sam on Tuesday and then on Wednesday, I open a channel with moon and then from 3:28:27 then on, no one knows if I'm using any of the tunnels, everything just looks like 3:28:31 a normal Bitcoin transaction. 3:28:32 The tunnels are only for, so we can agree on a list of Bitcoin 3:28:35 addresses without interacting. 3:28:40 And, um, and so, cause the, the problem with the interaction is, uh, I have to, 3:28:46 well, interaction is bad for privacy, but also interaction is like, I, I interact 3:28:51 with Sam and he gives me a Bitcoin address. 3:28:55 Uh, is that one like burned forever? 3:28:58 You know, because if he doesn't use it, like, then what do I do? 3:29:01 So I have to keep track. 3:29:02 I have to keep track of a lot of state actually, because if I give one to Sam 3:29:09 and one to Satoshi and Joy and one to Moonsettler, then I don't, um, I've given 3:29:15 three off of my list to keep track of how many I've given out in this scheme. 3:29:22 Everyone gets their own list that starts at, starts at one. 3:29:25 So I was at zero. 3:29:26 So, so I can do this all day and I don't have to be online to do it either. 3:29:31 I just, someone needs to find my friend code so I can be like Edward Snowden. 3:29:34 I can be like on the run and I can have no internet, but then when I get to my 3:29:38 internet, I can find it all of a sudden I have 40,000 new friends and they all 3:29:42 want to send me money and messages. 3:29:44 They want to, you know, send me a little thank you email or something, 3:29:48 you know, you know how it is. 3:29:52 So, uh, that's, so that was, again, it looked ugly, but I, it still does. 3:29:58 But now I see it as an illusion. 3:30:00 You know, when you would see, you look at those two lines, you know, the lines 3:30:03 with the, uh, the arrows pointing in and out on the edges and the one line looks 3:30:08 bigger than the other, even though, you know, they're the same length. 3:30:12 So again, I, it, it, I see it for the ugliness that it is, but it, um, at the 3:30:18 same time, it was by far superior idea, idea to whatever else we thought was good 3:30:25 at the time, or even since like, it's a better idea than probably taproot before 3:30:30 47 is, so there you go. 3:30:36 Just, um, excuse me, going back to something you were saying earlier, I've 3:30:40 been thinking recently that, uh, you were talking about the problem with 3:30:44 lightning basically is, yeah, there's a, there's a hard cap on, on, uh, how small 3:30:52 of an amount you can basically go to court for, um, and that really like that, 3:31:00 the, the, the problem of kind of guaranteeing settlement of fraud proofs 3:31:05 in a very general way is something I've been thinking about a lot recently. 3:31:08 And, um, basically if, if, yeah, if, if that problem actually is unsolvable 3:31:15 without either, uh, going full sidechain or increasing block size, like if we're, 3:31:22 we're like really bumping up against like information theory type stuff there, 3:31:27 which is possible, but I suspect we aren't then, then yeah, that's, we, we 3:31:34 absolutely need to do that. 3:31:35 But if there is a mechanism by which we can, uh, guarantee, you know, asterisk, 3:31:47 um, settlement of fraud proofs in like extremely high volume and, uh, and for 3:31:55 arbitrarily small amounts, you know, I'm thinking something by some mechanism 3:32:00 along the lines of congestion control or some, some kind of batching like that, 3:32:05 then, uh, then yeah, the whole, the, the, basically the small block dream is dead. 3:32:16 Well, I think certainly a lot of stuff could be invented and who knows? 3:32:21 Like, like I think arc is a good example of like fixing onboarding. 3:32:26 Um, but, uh, arc, of course has its own weird trade off with the, every, every 3:32:33 transaction, there must be funds that are locked for like the whole period of time. 3:32:37 But that's not really the point. 3:32:39 I think the point is like the small block dream. 3:32:45 Uh, I don't know. 3:32:47 I have a very different way of just looking at the whole thing. 3:32:50 It's a dispute between two groups of people, like two, two, these two types of 3:32:55 people are very, they have a different type of person and different types of 3:32:59 transactions. 3:33:00 So I see the world as very heterogeneous, you know, it's very different. 3:33:07 So like, so for example, Roger Ver was a large, famous large blocker. 3:33:13 And he was, he was a, he was a, he was a, he was a, he was a, he was a, he was a 3:33:19 famous, large blocker. 3:33:20 And he, he was rich and he lived in Japan. 3:33:24 So he, he could easily afford to him running in the full node was nothing than 3:33:29 running one that was 10 or a hundred or a thousand times larger would have been 3:33:33 nothing. 3:33:34 You know, he would have been thinking to himself, you know, I have whatever 3:33:39 billions of dollars be BIL ends of dollars. 3:33:44 He's thinking like, what? 3:33:45 Like I'll just buy nodes, like all over the world. 3:33:48 Like he, so, so he has like, he had like a very different point of view. 3:33:51 You know what I mean? 3:33:52 And then like you had cypher punk people were thinking like, okay, it's happened. 3:33:58 You know, they're, they're going to arrest everyone. 3:34:00 We're all on the, it's like the end of hackers. 3:34:03 We have to use the pay phone to hack into whatever the mainframe. 3:34:10 And so the, we, we need, you know, every second is going to count and we need to 3:34:17 be able to hide our location behind Tor and we need the network to be. 3:34:26 We need the network to be there. 3:34:27 We know we can't have it die. 3:34:29 You know, it's like a little fire, like a little candle. 3:34:31 So we've got to protect it. 3:34:33 And so just, I don't think one of the two groups was wrong or right. 3:34:39 I think it depended on the, the end use case really. 3:34:43 So when Ross Albright is running Silk Road, he, he made this, the, the biggest 3:34:52 priority for him would have been privacy. 3:34:56 That would have outweighed by far. 3:34:59 Like, you know, the decentralization, but decentralization would also have been a 3:35:04 priority because he has to hide his node. 3:35:07 So he would have liked small block, you know, Zcash or whatever. 3:35:12 But so let's just assume that Silk Road, large block would have, he 3:35:16 would have been a small blocker. 3:35:18 However, he was leading a double life. 3:35:23 So he, you know, he would be running Silk Road as Dread Pirate Roberts, but then 3:35:30 he would, he, as Ross Albright, he would walk down the street of San Francisco 3:35:34 and buy coffee or something, you know? 3:35:39 And my point is when he buys coffee, he, he switches from being a small 3:35:43 blocker to a large blocker. 3:35:44 He doesn't have a type, you know, it's the transactions that have a type. 3:35:48 So he switches and then he switches and becomes a large blocker for a couple 3:35:54 of moments and then he switches back. 3:35:56 So my view is all the transactions are very different. 3:35:59 Like all these USDT, these Tron transactions, they are different 3:36:04 for a different type of person. 3:36:06 The Zcash transactions are for a different type of person. 3:36:09 The Monero transactions are for a different type of person. 3:36:14 So I don't have this view that, you know, like the small block dream is, to me, 3:36:23 the small block dream is just that L1 is there, you know, as a small block 3:36:26 version, and then the large block version is, can also be there. 3:36:32 So I don't see it. 3:36:33 I think trying to make it one size fits all is doomed kind of no matter what, 3:36:38 because I think there's just too much of a difference in people and in the 3:36:42 circumstances around the world, you know, there's 8 billion people. 3:36:48 Some are very poor. 3:36:50 Some are very rich. 3:36:52 Some have great internet. 3:36:53 Some have terrible internet. 3:36:55 Some can easily afford transaction fees. 3:36:57 Some cannot. 3:36:59 Some can easily afford to wait. 3:37:00 For block inclusion, some need it instantly. 3:37:04 Some need, you know, some need privacy, some don't. 3:37:06 Some need decentralization, some don't. 3:37:08 So, so I think there's just too much of a difference in the world is my, is my guess. 3:37:18 Excuse me. 3:37:19 Interesting to me that the quote unquote small block dream, like what I like about 3:37:23 it is it is a, it's a hyper-conservatist take on the kind of stateless blockchain 3:37:32 idea where the idea is basically you have a, like, basically you have no blockchain. 3:37:42 Like all you have is the UTXO, something equivalent to the UTXO set, the active 3:37:48 state, and you have a recursive zero-knowledge proof that has recursively verified the 3:37:56 complete history of the chain up to and including that particular snapshot of the 3:38:01 active state, and then that is your blockchain. 3:38:05 And so the size of your blocks at that point doesn't really matter for anything other 3:38:13 than, like, bandwidth requirements for running a node and like latency finality stuff. 3:38:22 And this is, this is, in my opinion, this is like the end game for blockchains. 3:38:26 And this is eventually where every blockchain is going to converge into. 3:38:29 In fact, you can see, even though there's only a small number of non-Bitcoin blockchains 3:38:34 that do this, we have through the zero-sync guys, like Bitcoin is actually going to 3:38:39 be getting this, albeit like at a layer up, and that they're, what they're, what they're 3:38:43 doing is like recursively verifying it. 3:38:46 But if you don't want to trust the, the, your execution history of your chain to, to put 3:38:56 that under cryptographic assumptions and the way you have to do to do that, well, then 3:39:01 the, the next, the, so if you, yeah, so then the next best thing to do would be something 3:39:07 like Smallblock. 3:39:09 I do. 3:39:09 I already disagree, though, with a lot of what you said, or I'm not even sure that you 3:39:13 realize what you're saying. 3:39:14 You're saying the large, see, because the zero-sync, let's start with the zero-sync guys, 3:39:18 which, you know, I love the zero-sync guys. 3:39:19 They're great. 3:39:21 Okay, we got Robin Linus, he's the big BIP300 guy, he's the big, he's the big, he's the 3:39:27 Okay, we got Robin Linus, he's the big BIP300 supporter, by the way, but he's also great 3:39:34 for other reasons. 3:39:37 So he's got a great accent. 3:39:41 No, no, the zero-sync guys are great, but what the zero-sync solves is a problem where 3:39:45 you run an SPV node and they lie to you about it being a valid blockchain history. 3:39:51 But that problem is that it's a non-existent, that has never happened. 3:39:55 So it's a non-existent problem. 3:39:57 So it's nice to get that extra cherry on top, certainty, but just the way that SPV works 3:40:02 already, you have to put in all the thermodynamic work to get the header. 3:40:08 And having the zero-sync proof, I think, doesn't really add, you know, it doesn't really add 3:40:14 that. I'm all for this research being done. 3:40:17 I think it's great, but it doesn't add very much. 3:40:20 So that's the first point I want to mention. 3:40:23 I'm curious to see your reaction. 3:40:25 They're also proving the hash chains as well. 3:40:26 So you don't need to download the complete hash chain. 3:40:29 They're just basically summing the cumulative hash weight across all block headers. 3:40:35 Yeah, but the headers are 4.4 megabytes per year. 3:40:39 So it might as well be zero. 3:40:42 Right? I mean, I'm not really, what it would take to download the ZK Prover would be larger 3:40:48 than, you know. 3:40:49 That's probably true. Yes. 3:40:52 So that's not really an issue. 3:40:54 And. It speaks to maybe a misunderstanding of nodes, but I don't know, I'll evade that for 3:41:02 now, because the large block vision, that was the large block vision, was that everyone 3:41:07 will run SPV and no one needs to run a full node because we can trust the miners, so to 3:41:12 speak. Now, with zero-sync, trust the miners is basically replaced by trust the zero-sync 3:41:19 prover. But I think. 3:41:24 You know, that is a small improvement, but. 3:41:28 Do you understand what I'm trying to say that that has never actually happened? 3:41:31 The other thing, though, is that the ZK, neither SPV nor zero-sync solved the problem that 3:41:37 we discussed in this space a few hours ago, which is the data availability problem. 3:41:43 You always need to have someone who's out there who's able to serve block, you know, 3:41:48 three thousand three hundred fifty thousand four hundred twenty five. 3:41:53 Because if no one has that block, then no one knows if it's everything and it is valid. 3:42:00 And this is a horrible problem because now you have to assume that it's invalid. 3:42:06 And so now you have to reorg. 3:42:07 So if anyone ever loses a block, then the blockchain must go back to that spot. 3:42:12 So. 3:42:13 So this is a horrendously difficult problem, which is not good at all. 3:42:16 And I think that has really solved it. 3:42:18 And that's are we there, in my opinion, is the only one that have actually solved this problem. 3:42:24 You know, it's very difficult because you need to. 3:42:30 Well, yeah, and Bitcoin, that's part of the reason for small blocks. 3:42:33 So as I say, we'll keep the cost of serving all this data limited, which will prevent it from growing. 3:42:39 To an unlimited degree and then. 3:42:42 The higher the cost, the fewer people are going to do it, of course. 3:42:45 Other things being equal. So. 3:42:49 So that's another point to make. 3:42:52 Third, you mentioned actually I have also solved it myself and you mentioned fraud proofs. 3:42:58 I don't know if you read. I wrote a little post. 3:43:00 On Truthcoin.info about fraud proofs, including a solution to data availability where you randomly query the block. 3:43:08 And I think it was in 2016, a long time ago. 3:43:12 And I wrote about this. 3:43:14 That's interesting. That's what Arweave does, although they base it. 3:43:17 Maybe were you the guy that inspired the Permacoin proposal? 3:43:22 Oh, I don't I'm not aware of your idea, but I probably was my idea because I do get lots of questions often. 3:43:29 About my ideas. And then later I find out that. 3:43:31 And, you know, I think isn't isn't Eric Wall involved with Arweave or something? 3:43:36 I don't know. The NFT people seem to like Arweave. 3:43:39 That would be cool if that was your idea, because I agree, because this that precise idea is. 3:43:44 No, you can look it up. 3:43:46 Yeah, this is the only thing that I've stumbled. 3:43:49 And you know, it's cool. 3:43:50 That solves this problem. 3:43:52 My idea requires that you open a channel. 3:43:56 Doesn't have to be a lightning channel, but it can be any bidirectional channel with the with whoever is claiming to have the block. 3:44:04 So so that is kind of a funny thing about it is it sort of required the lightning network or something like it. 3:44:11 It's a very neat idea. 3:44:12 And yeah, the fraud proofs are very cool. 3:44:16 A very, very interesting thing that used to be said in the past that. 3:44:21 People used to say certain things that I think are very suspect now. 3:44:25 So, for example, they said, oh, we could have large blocks if only we had fraud proofs. 3:44:30 I kind of didn't believe that. I still don't. 3:44:33 They could have large blocks in layer one if we had fraud proofs. 3:44:36 I don't actually believe that. 3:44:37 But it was just kind of like because then they would say right after that, they said, we can't have fraud proofs because. 3:44:47 There's no way to check the if a block is there's no way to check if the block is following the block size limit or not without downloading the whole block. 3:44:59 And I thought that's not true at all. 3:45:01 That's not true at all. 3:45:03 You know, that's not actually a good reason because you just break the block into tiny little pieces and have each piece keep track of how much of the space it's using. 3:45:12 And then since the sum has to equal the total thing, each incremental part, you just you have a fraud proof for each increment, any any mistaken increment. 3:45:22 So I wrote about that in the fraud proofs post. 3:45:26 And but what really got me on the whole thing was that. 3:45:32 It's clear that everyone's kind of being a little dishonest, as usual, where they were saying like. 3:45:38 This is the reason X is why we can't have Y and Y is why we can't have Z. 3:45:42 And so just for fun, I invented X and Y, but it was just to show people that it wasn't really that's not the real reason for Z. 3:45:48 The real reason for Z is the full node cost. 3:45:50 You have to serve the data that the block chain is harder, is more effort to process, store, validate the block chain, the larger the block size. 3:45:59 And so if you buy that frame, then everything can have some kind of fraud proof already. 3:46:09 And we'll and it could have ZK proofs. 3:46:12 And then the the real problem, the whole my point of view is that the entire problem is just people disagree over how expensive the node should be. 3:46:22 And so that's the idea is to try to get them to cooperate despite that disagreement. 3:46:29 So that's kind of my take on the whole thing. 3:46:32 Sure. I just looked it up here. Andrew Miller published the Permacoin paper in 2014. 3:46:38 So he scooped you by a couple of years. 3:46:39 But the cool thing about Arweave is that they actually use this. 3:46:44 And actually, I think Greg Maxwell actually, of course, had a post years ago where he was like an idea for an altcoin would be a coin where the proof of work algorithm was doing random querying into the UTXO set. 3:46:58 So that I wouldn't be surprised if that predates this paper. 3:47:01 But the cool thing about Arweave and the cool thing about using this random data querying system as your consensus mechanism is if you construct it right, the chain doesn't advance on blocks that have not achieved a sufficient threshold of data availability that has been proven on them. 3:47:24 So if the data hasn't been disseminated, like there is no data withholding attack in this model, because if the data hasn't been disseminated to a sufficient number of miners and a sufficient amount of the hash has mined on it, the block doesn't get produced at all, which is a very, very cool thing. 3:47:44 And it's the only thing I've seen that I think solves the data withholding data availability problem sufficiently, because I don't even know whether or not we know to a sufficient degree how we prevent data withholding attacks on Bitcoin now where the miner hits a block. 3:48:04 Let's assume if someone announces that they have found a block and then they don't give you the whole block, then they are kicked off. They are banned or whatever. 3:48:13 Okay, so this is basically... 3:48:16 Yeah, exactly. 3:48:19 Which is not ideal. 3:48:20 Unsatisfactory. 3:48:22 Well, you know, I think it's like... 3:48:29 The network is robust to not having found a block, you know what I mean? 3:48:32 It's not like if we go 11 minutes without finding a block, your computer bursts into flames. 3:48:37 So it's kind of like saying, if you say that you have found a block, then give us the block, you know, and otherwise don't bother us. 3:48:45 But yeah, it's not... 3:48:47 In particular, like I was asking you before, how do we know that someone has blocked 300,000? 3:48:57 Like, I mean, we just kind of hope that no one loses it, you know? 3:49:07 Yeah, and actually the interesting thing about Bitcoin not having a recursive ZKP is that basically every block is part of its recursive proof. 3:49:17 And the reason why we're trusting that someone is going to be keeping that data is because you can't actually verify the tip of the chain unless you have that data. 3:49:27 It's part of the proof. 3:49:29 And so, you know, by like this weird dichotomy whereby like, quote unquote, modern blockchain design is all about stripping away the need to store the full proof of the chain. 3:49:41 But in doing so, you're also dramatically reducing the data availability requirements for the data that you do want to store. 3:49:49 So anyway, yeah, I just thought I would mention that about how I don't think ZeroSync... 3:49:59 ZeroSync is not... 3:50:01 It's totally irrelevant. 3:50:02 ZeroSync is like a slightly improved, modified SPV. 3:50:06 But SPV already has like a 100% success rate. 3:50:10 And for SPV not to work, you need to have someone mine a whole block that is invalid and then, you know, propose it to the network, like send it around as if it were valid. 3:50:27 That is invalid. 3:50:29 And then, you know, propose it to the network, like send it around as if it were valid. 3:50:39 And the network should rely on SPV. 3:50:41 That would be a bad idea to rely on it. 3:50:43 But the network... 3:50:47 I mean, SPV, it would cost them about... 3:50:51 In opportunity cost, it costs them whatever that is, 7 BTC to make that. 3:50:56 So this is already a very expensive attack just to do something that won't work. 3:51:01 And that's why it has never been done. 3:51:04 Because it costs you whatever that is, like $200,000, $250,000. 3:51:14 So it's expensive. 3:51:21 But I think the problem is just full node cost. 3:51:25 And that is why sidechains solve it, because there is heterogeneity. 3:51:32 The distribution is different. 3:51:44 Anyway, nice to hear from you. 3:51:50 I see you on Twitter sometimes. 3:51:52 We seem to be dwindling down. 3:51:53 We had many more people before, but now we have... 3:51:58 What do we have here? 3:51:59 18. 3:52:01 So maybe we should begin to wind it down. 3:52:06 Let's... 3:52:09 If anyone wants to ask anything... 3:52:14 I just want to give a suggestion. 3:52:17 Great. 3:52:19 Chris Black was part of the audience a few weeks ago. 3:52:23 He never came up. 3:52:24 He has a podcast that he started recently. 3:52:27 And he started having some, I guess, controversial figures on there. 3:52:30 He had Udi on there yesterday or something like that. 3:52:33 It might be a good idea to go on there and explain BIP300. 3:52:37 For sure, yeah. 3:52:39 Yeah, I don't... 3:52:41 I almost always accept... 3:52:44 I'm not aware of having really rejected anyone when they said, 3:52:49 come on my podcast. 3:52:52 Oftentimes, people invite me to their conference, 3:52:54 and then they're like, just get on this nine-hour flight. 3:52:57 And I was like, oh my God, I'm not going to do that. 3:53:00 I feel bad for everyone that I say no to, though. 3:53:04 But yeah, I don't... 3:53:06 But yeah, I'd love to go on. 3:53:07 I'll go on whatever podcasts people think, so... 3:53:14 Chris Black... 3:53:15 I'll send him a DM. 3:53:16 Hopefully, he'll read it. 3:53:17 Yeah, that'd be great. 3:53:18 Yeah, I think it's much more effective if someone else asks, 3:53:22 oh, you should... 3:53:23 They say, oh, you should have this person on, 3:53:26 than the one person... 3:53:28 Yeah, because then it's like... 3:53:29 I do have a kind of a... 3:53:32 I kind of have a very full schedule anyway, 3:53:34 so it's not as though I'm desperate. 3:53:36 It's not as though I'm desperate to go on any podcast anytime soon, 3:53:40 but if someone wants to have me on, then that's good. 3:53:43 Probably a better interview, too. 3:53:51 Okay, well, this has been fun. 3:53:53 I don't see any new people. 3:53:54 No new questions. 3:53:56 So... 3:53:58 Thanks for a great space, everyone. 3:54:00 Until next time. 3:54:02 Until next time. 3:54:03 Happy Friday. 3:54:04 Happy weekend. 3:54:06 Happy Friday.
