0:05 Thank you. 0:35 Cool. Hello. We made it to another Friday. 0:48 Hey, Paul. Sprinting into the year-end? 0:51 I guess so. Merry Christmas to all. 0:57 I talked to a lawyer yesterday, and she said, 1:02 are you sprinting into the year-end, or are you crawling into the year-end? 1:06 Hmm. 1:07 I think there's lawyers and utility groups, infrastructure utility groups. 1:15 They have the toughest sprint into year-end. 1:19 Lawyers because everyone tries to get stuff done for tax purposes or for calendar years, 1:25 and utilities because their budget ends December 31st. 1:31 The money expires. 1:32 They literally can't spend another dollar once the calendar year is over. 1:38 Interesting. It's also so dark. 1:42 Those lawyers are working hard. 1:47 A lot of lawyers do complicated work and boring work also. 1:51 So it's stressful and boring. 1:54 That's a terrible combination. 1:58 Yes. Well, maybe it's not boring. 2:01 I don't know. It's boring to me. 2:03 Yeah, me too. 2:06 It's not like fighting with people on the Internet about Bitcoin. 2:11 For all the good that'll do. 2:14 Yeah, I don't know what... 2:17 We are in an interesting... 2:19 Well, this is going to be great with CTV. 2:22 I mean, CTV has always been on my list of the smoking guns, so to speak, 2:27 of like the process is broken because... 2:30 Well, first we have 1.18, which everyone likes, 2:33 but which no one wants to touch activation. 2:35 So it just sits there. 2:37 And then we have 1.19, which had enormous potential. 2:41 And Jeremy Rubin was waiting around and then he tried to activate it. 2:45 And then he had such an unfair and absurd, angry reaction that he quit Bitcoin, 2:52 quit Bitcoin development and quit Bitcoin. 2:54 And now everyone wants it back. 2:56 So to me, this just proves that everyone was wrong to run him out of town two years ago. 3:03 And, in fact, again, same as before, 3:07 people don't even really talk about like what CTV will do, 3:10 like what it will enable or what it will like cost your full node in terms of like... 3:15 Why don't you take this opportunity to explain it for the... 3:24 What I'm trying to highlight is that no one... 3:26 People only care about getting their filthy fingerprints on the process. 3:31 They don't actually care if it's delivering something. 3:33 You know what I mean? 3:34 It's like you're at a restaurant and it's delivering you food, 3:37 and no one cares about the price or what the actual food is. 3:40 But they want to make sure that, whatever, the chef doesn't turn on the oven without... 3:47 I don't know. 3:48 But sure, that'd be great. 3:49 I mean, CTV, what it does... 3:53 CTV Check Template Verify was one of the original names, 3:57 changed the name quite a few times. 3:59 Originally, it was Secure the Bag, 4:01 and then there was a different name that I really liked called... 4:07 Instead of Check Template Verify, 4:09 it was suggested that it'd be called the Checks in the Mail 4:14 because that's kind of what it did where you could spend to an output. 4:20 So you send to... 4:21 Basically, it's not literally an address, 4:23 but it's as if you pay to an address that has the feature that that money can only go in a certain way. 4:31 So one obvious use of this is instead of putting... 4:39 If you want to have a big... 4:40 If you want to pay a bunch of people, like 500 or whatever, 4:45 you could broadcast the transaction that has all those outputs, 4:49 takes in 80 Bitcoin, 4:52 and then it pays 1 Bitcoin to Person A, 4:55 1 Bitcoin to Person B, 4:57 1 Bitcoin to Person C. 4:58 You could do that. 5:00 Or you can do this sort of link thing where you say, 5:02 okay, listen, I'm paying all this money to just this tiny little code 5:08 that's just very small, like 32-byte hash or whatever it is, tiny output. 5:13 I'm taking... 5:15 I know that I have to pay 1 Bitcoin to, let's call it 55 people. 5:18 So you take in 80 Bitcoin, you pay some and change some for the fee, 5:23 and then you put 55 into this little code. 5:26 And that itself is not... 5:30 No one kind of recognizes that as an actual Bitcoin output yet, 5:35 but by the magic of CTV, 5:38 you can show everyone that the only way to spend it is to pay 1 Bitcoin to this predetermined list of people. 5:47 So it actually adds overhead overall, 5:49 but you can time things differently, 5:52 and you can shove the cost onto the most impatient person of the 55 or something like that. 5:58 So hence the checks in the mail type thing where the money is there. 6:03 It's not going anywhere. 6:05 It's locked to this output. 6:07 How would this be practically used, and why do you consider this to be a big deal? 6:13 Well, I think this is... 6:17 I'm more interested in the totally dysfunctional process, 6:20 since it sort of affects why I think BIP300 is a bigger deal. 6:24 But there's one thing that... 6:29 One interesting thing about it is that Bitcoin currently has an absolutely... 6:36 a very difficult to solve onboarding problem, 6:39 which is to say that everyone who wants to actually get coins on the network, 6:43 they must have their own output. 6:47 So if you have... 6:49 Your mailman is coming by or whatever, 6:52 and you say, oh, Bitcoin is great. 6:56 You should get some. 6:58 They need to have an output, 7:01 and this needs to be in a block in the Bitcoin blockchain. 7:05 And it's just a simple... 7:06 You take out a calculator and divide that each output is maybe 43 bytes. 7:11 It sort of depends on the scenario. 7:13 But even in absurdly optimal situations where the entire block is just one input 7:18 and then just a giant list of outputs, 7:21 you can only fit so many because it doesn't get the witness discount. 7:24 So it's a million divided by 43, 7:26 and that's how many people you can onboard in each block. 7:29 And this is nowhere near... 7:31 This takes like 100 years to onboard, or at least... 7:34 It depends on the assumptions, 7:35 but it takes somewhere between seven years to like 120 years. 7:41 Seven years in the case of absurd assumptions that will never be met at all. 7:53 To onboard everyone, for just everyone to get one output, 7:58 which is not enough, let alone to use them and spend them and stuff. 8:01 So it's just not possible for everyone in the world to switch to Bitcoin, 8:05 which means that we hold up Bitcoin as this kind of great alternative. 8:11 But until it actually is an alternative for most people, 8:18 until then we have a complete... 8:20 We're sort of hypocrites. 8:22 So anyways, as I hopefully gave a tiny explanation with that example, 8:29 you can kind of fix this to some extent by saying, 8:32 okay, I can onboard... 8:34 You could theoretically onboard very, very, very many people. 8:37 None of them will be truthfully onboarded per se, bona fide, 8:43 but it will be like they... 8:48 You can have an output and then it will pay 3,000 people or something, 8:52 and that's kind of better than nothing because then they can do other weird... 8:57 And this is what ARK is. 8:58 ARK is basically a bunch of hacks on top of that to rearrange who's getting paid. 9:04 But there's another thing that's kind of... 9:07 That's not a great example. 9:08 I mean, I like CTV for its original purpose, which was the vault. 9:12 The vault is this thing where you have your own money in this vault, 9:15 and only small amounts can be withdrawn at a time. 9:20 And if you want to move a big amount, there's like a second key. 9:24 The blockchain is doing all this stuff to try to make sure that you aren't being 9:29 held at gunpoint. 9:30 And I think Jameson Lopp has an interesting database of Bitcoiners 9:37 who have had their house broken into and their children held at gunpoint 9:45 and people pulling out their teeth and all this horrible stuff. 9:48 And that is what vaults would maybe prevent because, of course, 9:53 if the thief gets away with it, they're encouraged to do more theft. 9:59 But if they don't get away with it, then instead they're discouraged. 10:02 So every time you're a victim of theft, you are actually making every other 10:08 Bitcoiner more unsafe in addition to losing all of your money and having 10:12 a horrible experience. 10:14 So the vault thing is a pretty good idea. 10:19 Yeah. 10:21 So those are kind of two. 10:22 But personally, I'm just more interested in, like, 10:25 why is it the case that the process is so broken? 10:31 And it's in part because, as I was saying, people really want to get there. 10:37 They want it to go through them. 10:38 They want to be like a… 10:40 Everyone wants a veto. 10:45 Yeah. 10:46 Yeah. 10:47 And I think there's something that is inherently… 10:52 Well, I think there's two things. 10:53 Number one, it's good that the answer is always no, but that's a great 11:02 natural immune response of the system. 11:06 And I do think there's also, like, an aggrandization of that, 11:13 where people enjoy… 11:18 There's a certain attraction of personalities to saying no and, you know, 11:26 the empowerment that that creates. 11:30 The culture is not one that can adapt to a changing environment 11:37 relatively quickly, for better or for worse. 11:41 And it's… 11:44 Obviously, Bitcoin has lost a lot of developers over the years to cultures 11:51 that are more conducive to that kind of environment, like Ethereum, 11:57 for example. 12:00 And I think also with Ethereum right now, you are seeing that allowing 12:07 for interested parties to make changes, you may end up with a structure 12:13 that is very painful to be a part of. 12:16 Like, with EIP-1559 and the switch to Proof of Stake, 12:23 those two changes were not really scaling Ethereum drastically. 12:29 It imposes extremely high costs from a fee perspective on a transactional 12:33 blockchain or transaction-oriented blockchain for the users, 12:39 and it enriches the holders of the token. 12:43 And now Ethereum has this muddled scaling landscape with lots of different 12:48 Layer 2s and more performant low-fee blockchains like Solana have an opening 12:53 to acquire more users because users are obviously extremely sensitive to fees 12:57 when they're doing lots of transactions. 13:00 So I do think that that segment of Bitcoin could point to what's happening 13:06 with Ethereum and say, look, we don't want to end up like that. 13:09 And developer frustration is a feature, not a bug. 13:15 Not saying that I agree with it. 13:17 I do think, as you point out, there's an error in the process. 13:21 But that culture does have positive ramifications. 13:31 One thing that I always like to ramble about endlessly is the trauma of the 13:36 scaling war and how it destroyed numerous things, including activation, 13:41 activation being just one. 13:43 But this is one that miners could heal if they just went back to, you know, 13:49 if they just expressed, like, some kind of willingness to, if the miners would 13:56 say something like, we will set aside a certain amount of time every year 14:02 or whatever to, like, review soft forks and assess them by this one criterion 14:10 of just do they increase transaction fees or the price of Bitcoin. 14:15 Like, and that would be both incentive compatible, I mean, and profitable. 14:22 And that would also be healthy for the ecosystem because people would no 14:27 longer be like, they would have to actually bet on, they couldn't, like, 14:38 they say, well, we can't have any, we can't activate a soft fork without 14:41 consensus. 14:42 And then they create the, we can't do it until everyone disagrees. 14:46 And then they're the one person who disagrees. 14:50 And then they say, you see, I was right. 14:55 We didn't all agree with this. 14:57 And then that is kind of a pointless exercise in just no one getting what 15:05 they want, including the end user, of course, who may want the feature, 15:11 or just a Bitcoin investor who wants Bitcoin to be a success, 15:15 or the miner who wants more revenues and more profits. 15:19 So I don't know. 15:21 But one of the things that happened during the scaling war is that the miners 15:24 tried to be more assertive, and then they did it in the worst way possible. 15:29 And then after screwing that up, they decided to make the reverse mistake, 15:35 I suppose, and be more unbelievably passive. 15:41 And now I just think that the miners have evolved into a zone where they are 15:46 so specialized that they don't, like, there's a lot of specialization. 15:51 And so I don't know if you have any thoughts on this premise, 15:56 that I don't know how it would work. 16:00 But I think there are, and I have some other ideas also, 16:05 but I just think that do, 16:09 I'm not sure that the miners really realize that they are ruining Bitcoin 16:15 development, I think, and, you know, 16:16 kicking a lot of these people out to other projects and just like, 16:19 how can it be logical that Jeremy Rubin can quit? 16:22 And now everyone likes the idea. 16:24 I mean, what, how is it not just an indictment of the process? 16:28 And similarly. 16:29 Yeah. 16:30 I mean, no, I think you're spot on. 16:33 And I do see the culture changing in the last two years, 16:41 call it since publicly traded Bitcoin mining companies started to really 16:46 become a thing. 16:50 The growth of Western companies representing large portions of hash rate 16:56 has been, it has gone from a minority to a majority. 17:01 And so the relationship between the developer and the miner is, 17:09 it's becoming closer. 17:10 They're attending the same conferences, you know, 17:13 they're meeting each other face to face. 17:14 And I know that there are other miners like Cormen who are becoming much more 17:22 involved in this. 17:23 I've been having conversations and, you know, 17:28 it's going to take some time, 17:30 but now that all of these people can speak the same language and, 17:36 and meet each other in person and have a few beers or a meal every once in a 17:43 while, I think it'll be a lot easier to move the ball forward. 17:48 But I think that point that you raised is a really good point. 17:51 Like if you were to make that claim and say miners are complicit in not, 17:57 and you wouldn't even really say miners, 17:59 you would probably say pools are complicit in not creating an environment that 18:07 fosters at least a reasonable pace of Bitcoin development and Bitcoin improvement. 18:12 Because it would be ultimately the most miners are represented by pools and the 18:17 pools are actually creating the block templates. 18:22 If there were a process by which a miner could signal without requiring their 18:28 pool to change software, 18:31 do you think that that would be an improvement on the current state of affairs? 18:38 Because it's not necessarily the miners because they're not going in and creating 18:42 these block templates. 18:44 The only public miner who has their own pool is Marathon. 18:52 Well, I think that the issue is really that the kind of like the pools, 19:00 I think they don't really understand exactly. 19:05 Everyone seems very confused about what to do. 19:09 And they seem very, there's a lot of disagreement over even simple facts about 19:14 like whether or not miners must upgrade in order to activate a soft fork or 19:20 not. That's the only thing that's both necessary and sufficient for like 55%, 19:25 51% of miners to upgrade via soft fork. 19:29 And then of course a soft fork, it does not, if it's a true soft fork, 19:34 it does not affect the old nodes. 19:37 So the old nodes do not need to upgrade. 19:39 Of course, this is very contentious by people like Luke Dashjr. 19:44 They don't, you know, they don't agree with that, 19:47 but it's very rare for people to agree. 19:50 I would kind of think it would be a big improvement. 19:53 Like, yeah, I think the miners should not change the software. 19:56 Miners should upgrade very rarely and should not change the software unless. 20:03 It's really important. And I think they probably don't want to touch. No one wants to touch the setup. So that part is very aligned. I just think maybe they should just talk in a different way that just says like, here's what we're looking at. And they should have some kind of like clear criterion. You know what I mean? It can't just be that it's a fancy piece of engineering. 20:24 But if it's, it can't be like, we like this developer or we like this thing. It has to just be like, we think this will increase our profits. So then who's going to second guess them then? Because that's a pretty normal thing to do. And you just say, well, we'll just make the price of Bitcoin. I mean, like you could make a case for every single one of the soft forks. All of them, they were so simple. 20:49 I mean, maybe with the exception of Taproot, but probably not. And even SegWit with the block size increase, but almost certainly not. Because with SegWit, you would just say, this is going to enable a much better lightning network. And we think that a Bitcoin, that BTC that has the lightning network is just better than one that doesn't have that option. And so this would be, you know, malleability was a clear error. 21:18 There's no way it was intended and it was messing things up. And plenty of people had blamed, Mt. Gox blamed that for their, the hack that destroyed them. A lot of opinions differ on whether or not that is plausible. But, but so the point is, each of these soft forks, you know, if there was like a, some kind of process that made sense to everyone, I think that would be, that would just be better. 21:43 And the process can just be, we want to make money. They want more fees. They want more higher exchange rate. So obviously that includes a lot of stuff. Like you can't have a soft fork that will just ruin some previous use, some already existing use case, but everyone already agrees about that. 22:02 That's the thing is no, no one actually cares about the content of any of these things. They just want to insert themselves and feel like, you know, this is my, you're not going to touch my Bitcoin. And a lot of people, you know, they've sold books or conferences or whatever, where they just say Bitcoin is already perfect. 22:22 And so, so it's actually all that stuff is unhealthy and we actually have to get rid of that. But I think just first on the list would just be to just have the mining pools. Like, you know, it's like you have to like admit that there's a problem. Like it's not good to be so it's sort of a form of neglect in a way or negligence. Yeah. 22:47 Because this process has just been going ever. There was, there was a previous era where we did 16 or 17 soft forks before SegWit. And in that era, there was really no controversy. And so there was no need to have some kind of like, I mean, there was not, it was just, it was a 95% threshold because you didn't want any miners to accidentally be left behind. 23:15 So it was kind of just a courtesy for everyone. So everyone would know, this is how about how long it takes for people to upgrade their software. 23:24 So it wasn't really like intended as a vote or as a governance process. And it was. So that's why it was 95 in the past. And in that era, we did very many. But now after the block size war, we've only done to SegWit and Taproot in basically the same number of years. 23:46 Maybe even more so. 23:49 So the ratio has plummeted. And the question is, is that, you know, we're all going to pretend like it's working because I don't think that it is. But a lot, a lot of people say, sure, it's great. A Bitcoin is perfect. 24:07 We can't fix it. 21 million infinite infinity divided by 21 million. It doesn't matter that there's no plan to scale. It doesn't matter that people use custodial lightning and that wallet of Satoshi is pulled, you know, like from US customers. 24:23 It doesn't matter that, you know, all the lightning people are quitting. It doesn't matter that all these altcoins are now doing all these R&D and that people have stopped using the word Bitcoin. 24:34 People used to only use the word Bitcoin. And now crypto is the big word. Like, I don't know. I just think it's an unnecessary risk. So I just think that the first step is admitting you have a problem, but maybe mining pools disagree. 24:51 I mean, doesn't it? But this is why I say smoking gun, because I say it's a situation where Jeremy puts out 119. It's a perfectly harmless, perfectly good idea that he's going to front. He does all the work for this. He invents it. He codes it. He makes his website. 25:09 He's doing all the work, really, and getting all this, you know, let's call it peer review. It's a euphemism. Abuse and even threats. He has had, you know, some of this he has shared with me that he is like some of the things he had to forward to the FBI and anti-Semitic abuse. 25:36 So he's doing all this for free. And then all to produce an idea that people will later determine is necessary for ARK, necessary for onboarding. If we don't do BIP300, it's the only thing that will possibly onboard people to actual Bitcoin. So far out of everything proposed. I mean, other than things that are very similar, such as TxHash. 25:56 And so this is the idea that he produces. And then he tries to further do the hard work required to get it activated. And he has run out of town and then quits. And then now everyone says it's the best thing ever and we need to do it. So kind of like at a certain point, yeah, you kind of think like the miners are hanging people out to dry here because they could just at any moment. 26:22 Well, let's stop him and break down. Like there's personal abuse that he's enduring from trying to improve Bitcoin within the lane of his expertise. And then there's like a more passive harm, I guess you could say, that is occurring where the beneficiaries potentially of some of these changes. 26:52 By improving Bitcoin's monetary utility. I'm talking about the miners. They may not even be aware that this is happening. They're not aware that they're being asked to vote for something or research something and form an opinion and signal that it's something that they believe is useful. 27:10 And neither are the users. I mean, neither the users nor the miners are being solicited in a way to opine on these changes or understand these changes. 27:29 Well, it's just like there's an anarchy. There is no governance because there's a lot, there's very many directions, because that's a very important point. It's almost even more extreme than that, because you say neither are the users, but then it's actually it turns out that it's very clear that most users also have no idea. 27:54 Like the people who are signaling for SegWit and for Taproot. These would be that you would think the informed people, but many of these people that clearly had no idea. I mean, as far as I'm concerned, I can give many examples, but many people signaling for SegWit had no idea it was a block size increase. 28:12 People still think it makes the transactions packed in more efficiently when they're actually more inefficient. For Taproot, people are describing it as like a smart contract upgrade and that it would improve privacy, which it only does in this extremely limited lightning interpretation, which is not like, you know, it's not like ring signatures or something. 28:33 So I think it's a lot. Many of the users don't understand. And I don't know if it's the type of thing where people outside of the area of expertise will be able to understand. I'm kind of bearish on that idea also. So it's quite a little bit of a mystery. 28:57 And so the idea of soliciting miners, this goes back to the scaling war where that is what the large blockers tried to do for their hard fork. And as a result, it became seen as sort of scandalous to solicit miners. 29:15 But then this in a way, then the miners are also kind of responsible for or someone, I don't know how to phrase it, but it's like you have it. It's like, you know, it's a catch 22. It's like you're not being told you are being told. Should anyone tell anyone? Should people say nothing? 29:37 Ultimately, what's best for the project is if definitely more reliable knowledge is created and diffuses among all the different participants. So I don't know how to make that happen. 29:52 Yes. I mean, that seems to be the key problem. Ignorance, I would say, is the key problem here, right? It is that there's no method for Bitcoin users to receive this information and vote. It's not organized in a way that's easy to access. And the same is true for miners. 30:15 It's weird also that launching a new coin is also seen as like an unforgivable crime. Although I now kind of think that that is what everyone should do. Like you should just launch 119 coin. It should just like exist because that's the best test. But this is also seen as like that would be seen as like an unforgivable betrayal of Bitcoin. 30:43 It's just baffling. Like, you know, it is. It's really because, you know, it also would be considered an unforgivable betrayal of Bitcoin would be if you if you actually knew you had the technical knowledge and you did nothing as Bitcoin was sort of replaced by something else. And then the project was defeated. 30:58 You could create a Bitcoin governance token where if users went and and reviewed some governance proposals and some BIPs and and then they signed a transaction that included their vote in a way that was easy to to signal and they voted on chain. 31:24 If they did that, then they could get some kind of token. And that would probably get people to vote. People will do anything for tokens. But really, those people are not Bitcoiners. Or if they are Bitcoiners, they have to hide their love for shit coins for fear of expulsion from the. 31:47 Yeah, I think what certainly strikes me that it's something like the FDA. We have like a kind of a problem like that where. 31:55 It's like if you vouch for something and it's bad, you get the blame versus if you if you are too cautious, then at least you look like you can virtue signal. 32:11 So you look like you really care about protecting Bitcoin. And so you get a lot of brownie points for that. So in a way, I don't know. We need something that kind of like. 32:23 Would you know anyone who looks like they're caring about Bitcoin is like you have to like kind of like correct for this bias somehow, but I don't know if it's how feasible it is, but something like all the people who opposed CTV would just be like, you know, disenfranchised to like the people two years ago who were against it. 32:48 But I don't know if that would be that's the right way to go either. 32:52 It definitely should come from the miners. And if you think about it right now, mining is more decentralized. 33:01 Then it has ever been. And I know that's a super controversial statement, but let's let's examine pre 2020 versus post 2020 equity ownership in mining companies. 33:16 Pre 2020, those the equity ownership in those companies was probably concentrated amongst a handful of wealthy Chinese fellows, some Western and international participants, but still, you know, I would wager not many of those companies had more than 300 shareholders. 33:41 Now, Riot and Marathon alone, and probably CleanSpark have millions of shareholders represented by the index funds that own them. 34:00 And so the actual ownership of the equity of Bitcoin miners has skyrocketed to now exponential number. 34:12 And perhaps the way to address some of these governance challenges is through corporate law and Delaware corporate law in America, where you put it to vote, put it to a shareholder vote. 34:32 That'd be that'd be an interesting way to solve the problem. 34:35 Go and put a bunch of endorsement of various, a variety of different BIPs on the shareholder agenda for Riot and Marathon and see what the shareholders think. 34:46 It might be but you know, I studied a little bit of corporate governance back in school for what that's worth, which is not very much. 34:55 But it's like, you know, the sort of what you might call the voter turnout rate is very low and I would get things to I owned like US Steel at one point and they'd send you like something and it's like vote on the board of directors vote on whatever and you just like, you know, you just throw it away. 35:11 You don't really like because you don't you throw it away because you have a small percentage of the vote and also because you know, you just say, I admit that I don't. 35:20 I don't actually have enough information about this esoteric matter. And my vote is as likely to do harm as it is to do good. 35:29 So that that could be a good idea. 35:33 Or it could just be the same problem of uninformed people. 35:36 I don't know. I think maybe we're just brainstorming here. There's no bad ideas. 35:46 So that's that at least I mean, I think from the miners is the way to go because everything else is has extremely suspect ulterior motives. 35:57 Like, what is everyone? What are these people doing? Like, whereas the miners, it's kind of cut and dry. They want to make more money while mining Bitcoin. 36:08 So so that's that's at least something versus nothing. 36:13 I think maybe they could form like a kind of research group or something. 36:20 And then they would not it could never be like totally one sided. 36:24 It would be very adversarial where they have like devil's advocate and stuff like that. 36:29 But I think that would be kind of a good that would be a very positive development. 36:34 I think I think I certainly agree with you that there's no way that miners realize the probably the enormous amount of pointless damage they're causing by kind of staying out of it. 36:47 And also the amount of money they are leaving on the table by by staying out of it. 36:53 And so maybe a really healthy development would be like some of these mining conventions that meet once a year or twice a year. 36:59 They just like bolt in. 37:02 See, the thing is, these software things are sort of more collective. 37:06 It's like all the 51 percent of the network must upgrade versus the other things are more competitive. 37:12 Like this different immersion cooling machine or, you know, whatever, different ASIC. 37:18 So so there's a little bit of a different flavor of a kind of thing. 37:22 But I think that would be that's definitely worth doing. 37:25 I mean, we're not even at the point, though, where most most miners don't realize like that, why that would even, you know, help them. 37:33 I think I think everyone's just focused on electricity price. 37:38 You know, hash price or whatever. 37:40 So so I'm not sure. 37:43 It seems like there's a question here. 37:47 Why not talk about CoreDAO.org? 37:52 Why not talk about CoreDAO.org? 37:56 It seems like it's a shit coin. 37:59 Wow. 38:01 Maybe it helps, whatever it is. 38:03 I'm not sure. 38:04 It has 2.1 million Twitter followers and it is a Bitcoin powered EVM compatible blockchain that combines delegated proof of work and delegated proof of stake. 38:15 Great. 38:16 They got a free commercial. 38:17 Well, I mean, that's a big deal. 38:19 If they've got two million followers, why are they slumming it down here with us? 38:23 I don't know. 38:25 Actually, I've seen this before because somebody messaged me this in a telegram chat and said, holy shit, these guys have 2.1 million followers and no one had ever heard of them. 38:39 I'm struggling to remember anything specific about this. 38:42 You know, there's been many, many DAOs. 38:44 Throughout the years. 38:46 None as funny as the DAO, which was one of the funniest things ever to happen. 38:52 But back in 2016. 38:56 But yeah, I don't know. 38:57 It's like all ideas. 38:59 We should, we should let people try it and we should also just not bank on it succeeding. 39:08 But yeah, I don't know. 39:11 But yeah, I don't know. 39:13 Yeah, these DAO things end up having people like this, like voting. 39:19 The type of thing that is needed is someone needs to get outsized credit for being the first to adopt an idea that is good. 39:26 First, a champion idea that is unpopular, but good. 39:29 And then we need all the people who like a prediction market type thing. 39:33 I don't know if that would be for this case, but I'm just saying it has the property that. 39:38 A couple of pivotal people shifted from being unpopular to popular and then they should get all the credit. 39:47 And then people should lose credit if they say, if they are shooting down an idea and then later it turns out to be inaccurate. 39:55 They should not be given any credit for being like extra careful or whatever. 40:00 They should just be told, no, this person was wrong. 40:03 And the fact that they were wrong early just means that they're worse. 40:09 They're a worse person. They derailed the process longer. 40:12 So that's the type of thing that I think would fix the. 40:16 But I agree with you that why even do it? 40:19 Like, why care about what happens on social media? 40:21 Shouldn't the miners just want to 40:27 take responsibility for this since it directly affects how much money they will get? 40:32 Yeah, it could potentially destroy, you know, 40:35 it's a remote possibility, but it's possible that I mean, 40:38 if we get more and more dysfunctional every year and all these other projects 40:43 are trying very hard, as hard as they can to take over the world. 40:47 And everyone's learning more about blockchain technology and hardware and 40:50 everything is changing. Yeah, I think it would only be a matter of time before. 40:54 We've got to get a USTT is more popular than Bitcoin. 40:58 UIA. 41:01 UIA asks, what about BIP16? 41:05 He wants to hear some commentary on BIP16. 41:09 Wow, you know, I thought I knew all the BIPs like the back of my hand, 41:13 but BIP16, I'm going to have to maybe look that one up and refresh my memory. 41:17 Let me see. It's already been activated. 41:20 It's the P2SH output. 41:25 Ah, yes, yes, it is. 41:27 I wonder what the question is. 41:28 OK, I think probably what they're referring 41:31 to is this one had a very funny story about it was sort of rushed. 41:36 And as a result, there is a couple of mistakes and little bugs in it. 41:42 And it's it has many hilarious features, 41:45 but it's just sometimes held up as an example of not of not of how not to soft 41:50 fork and if memory serves, this is the one that people tried 41:57 to activate by a flag day, like on a certain day. 42:00 But it not enough miners had upgraded by then, 42:04 so they just pushed it back to a different day. 42:06 So this is a very funny example where this is like one of the times when it was not 42:10 miner signal activated, but it ended up being de facto. 42:14 I'm not sure which of the many facets of this BIP. 42:17 I don't remember. 42:19 I don't know what the person is interested in. 42:23 Inquiring about the most. 42:27 Let me see here. 42:30 I believe that's the context under which the question is asked, is this this is 42:35 a reference to why you shouldn't soft fork? 42:41 Well, I mean, I don't know if anyone would say that. 42:44 We have no P2SH, we'd have no multi-sig, we would never have gotten down. 42:48 We've never started down the path of lightning at all. 42:51 So I don't know if anyone would say that. 42:53 Plenty of people use it. 42:54 So I don't know if anyone would say that. 42:56 Plenty of people use P2SH and they're 42:58 very happy users of it since 2013, you know, back when it activated. 43:03 So. 43:05 So that's certainly 43:08 I don't know if anyone would say that. 43:09 I mean, I would almost say it's the reverse again. 43:12 You could reverse, reverse, reverse like an Uno game. 43:14 But you could almost say, well, that was the worst thing that ever happened. 43:19 And it really wasn't that bad at all. 43:21 We still got something out of it and we could just. 43:24 We could just do we could just do a different. 43:27 You know, pay to script hash and we did 43:30 with SegWit, there was pay to witness script hash, so it's like it's not like. 43:35 You know, it's not like anyone died over this. 43:37 It's just like we had like a kind of quirky thing for a little while, 43:43 but something that worked for and probably, you know, all the big stuff is 43:48 secured with multi-sig and every lightning channel is a two or two multi-sig. 43:53 So there would be a, you know, a SegWit one after SegWit. 43:57 But 43:59 I'm just trying to paint a picture that it's not exactly a. 44:04 That was better than what we have now. 44:06 I would much rather have that. 44:08 I mean, wouldn't everyone? I don't know. 44:09 Is it really like this is what we're going to do is it's going to be like this 44:13 is extremely academic, clean room style thing. 44:16 And we're going to try so, so, so, so hard to make it free of bugs. 44:20 And then it's. 44:24 And then it will still have unintended 44:25 consequences, so. 44:29 So, yeah, I don't know. 44:32 Yeah, I mean, that's the thing is like. 44:36 Yes, it was sloppy, it may have been sloppy 44:39 and yes, there may have been bugs, but. 44:42 Ultimately. 44:44 Valuable thing to add strength in Bitcoin and. 44:50 Most people were unaffected by any of those issues. 44:58 Now, something like drivechains. 45:01 You can understand why. 45:04 You know, that's it's a bit it's a bit more controversial and it does seem to be 45:08 touching on a third rail of controversy, which for better or worse is, 45:13 I think. 45:14 Pretty misunderstood, 45:17 which is the mining incentive and and tinkering with the mining incentive 45:24 apart from. 45:26 Its existence in current form. 45:31 Now, when you listen to someone like Peter Todd say 45:35 mining pools need to be decentralized and mining needs to be as decentralized as 45:39 possible, Peter Todd is and I know you and Peter Todd 45:44 are very adversarial and just go on the record here. 45:47 I mean, Peter Todd is is thinking about 45:50 Bitcoin in the lens of twenty twenty twelve Bitcoin, where the idea of a small 45:57 user mining and and that, you know, the consensus being made up of. 46:03 Hundreds of thousands or millions 46:05 of small miners who are running a few machines. 46:10 That is really an outdated notion. 46:13 And to 46:16 to contemplate the strategic roadmap and strategic vision for Bitcoin. 46:22 And be anchored into those notions is it's really ignoring the present reality, 46:29 and so it seems to me very counterproductive. 46:33 So I just want to give a few points on this to sort of explain my perspective as 46:37 as an operator in a mining company, the Coleman has an exahash of mining 46:42 capacity, we're still relatively small compared to some of the mining giants out 46:46 there, but, you know, the minimum viable scale. 46:52 In order to be able to pay a price for mining rigs where you will have a chance 46:58 of earning a better return than you would from just buying Bitcoin 47:02 is probably three hundred to five hundred petash. 47:06 The minimum viable scale to get an 47:08 electricity cost where you will be able to mine profitably and survive through 47:14 halvings and and periods of reduced mining difficulty or mining profitability is 47:21 similar on in your debate with him. 47:24 Paul, Peter says. 47:27 And all these biblical names, very funny 47:28 talking about you, too. 47:30 But he says, you know, energy is inherently distributed and solar power is 47:35 everywhere. Anybody can can build solar and the sun 47:39 shines all over the world. 47:40 And this is just it's a great the reason why I bring it up is it's a great example 47:44 of why he's thinking about this in such a naive way. 47:48 It's completely unconstrained by the 47:51 realities of corporate formation and entity formation. 47:55 The cost of having like a minimum viable 47:59 financial organization or a minimum viable energy procurement strategy 48:03 now saying solar is widely available. 48:05 You want to talk about decentralizing mining. 48:07 If you want to buy a megawatt of solar 48:09 panels, which is less than 100, well. 48:14 It's less than 100 petahash at current prices. 48:18 That's a million bucks right there. 48:20 And you're only getting eight hours of power a day. 48:22 So so to say, oh, well, so the sun is ubiquitous and solar is everywhere. 48:28 And so, you know, energy is naturally decentralized. 48:31 You ignore the fact that energy generation is not. 48:35 And investing in energy generation, 48:38 investing in the infrastructure required to either build your own generation or 48:43 access a wholesale electricity market is a seven figure investment. 48:46 No matter who you are, where you are, it just does not occur otherwise. 48:51 And so the reality is, is that mining is centralized. 48:55 It's a it's a kind of a dirty secret. 48:59 But economies of scale, miner pricing, 49:02 electricity costs and operating costs to run a small enterprise. 49:07 Those things are tremendously centralizing forces. 49:10 And it's OK that mining is slightly 49:13 centralized because the incentive alignment between miners and the protocol 49:17 is such that if miners ever do anything out of line 49:22 or that's not in the best interest of Bitcoin, then the value of Bitcoin will go 49:26 down and miners have the least liquid position of any participant in the Bitcoin 49:32 ecosystem. You can't go and sell a mining operation quickly, 49:36 especially when when conditions are not favorable from a price perspective. 49:40 Many miners traded well below the book value of the investments that they had 49:44 made during the FTX, you know, the months surrounding the FTX collapse. 49:48 So these are not liquid Bitcoin positions. 49:52 They're the least liquid Bitcoin position of any participant in the ecosystem. 49:56 And that that incentive is what I think keeps the industry healthy. 50:03 And so what I would say to Peter Todd is, Peter, spend some time 50:08 brushing up your knowledge on Bitcoin mining and on energy generation, 50:14 economics and the current state of affairs, and then revisit some of your objections 50:20 to anything that might add a little bit of cost, such as verifying a sidechain, 50:26 which in the great in the grand scheme of things, it's like it's a drop in the bucket 50:30 compared to. Yeah, I mean, that's what his thesis is, 50:34 that you're that you may at some point feel a desire to have more confidence over 50:40 the state of the sidechain, and you may be encouraged to run 50:44 free open source software that other people are running for free. 50:49 You know, other people, participants in the sidechain network who aren't even 50:52 miners, so they're basically zero percent miners, the regular full nodes. 50:57 You're going to run their software or have some kind of. 51:01 Communication with those people, 51:02 and his view is that that is going to be what significantly, 51:06 you know, moves the needle on which which mining companies go bankrupt and which 51:12 don't, and that will have a permanent, permanent impact on the ecosystem 51:18 of Bitcoin mining or something, which I think that likelihood is about zero 51:22 percent of that being the case. 51:27 Yeah, 51:29 and this solar thing is so funny, too, because the sun shines everywhere. 51:32 Yes. I mean, it actually doesn't literally. 51:34 I mean, the North or South Pole only on one particular day of the year or two. 51:39 The two equinox doesn't actually shine everywhere. 51:43 Well, and then even at a different angle, 51:46 it's got to come at point blank range like at the equator. 51:49 So you get a lot more solar energy there. 51:51 So let's let's walk through the circuit. 51:53 Let's say, OK, what one megawatt is 51:59 somewhere between 30 and 50 petahash, right? 52:02 So you want to build a megawatt of solar 52:04 panels, and that's why it's decentralized, because you want to build a megawatt 52:09 of solar panels, you get eight hours of electricity per day. 52:13 And so actually, if you want to have one 52:15 megawatt of just solar powered mining, you actually need three megawatts of panels 52:20 and two megawatts of batteries because you will be generating when the sun is 52:25 shining and and then you'll be storing your energy in your batteries and you'll 52:30 be releasing it into your Bitcoin miners after the sun goes down from your 52:34 batteries. Now, the question that probably Peter does 52:37 not realize to ask is, well, why do I need batteries? 52:42 Why don't I just only mine when the sun is shining? 52:44 And then you say, OK, Peter, we'll go and look at the cost of of a bit main machine 52:50 or a micro BTE machine, even at the upper echelon of the wholesale 52:53 market where firms like Riot and Marathon are paying 52:57 fourteen dollars a terahash for the newest bit main machines. 53:01 A retail user is paying twenty five dollars 53:04 a terahash for that machine just as a starter. 53:05 They're paying 60 percent, 70 percent more because they're not buying a huge quantity. 53:10 And in order for you to earn a positive 53:12 Bitcoin denominated return on that miner at present 53:18 Bitcoin price and difficulty conditions, you have to run it 24 hours a day, 53:22 maybe 23 hours a day. 53:24 Cormitt's uptime is eighty seven percent. 53:27 And that's what gives us an extremely low cost of power because we're 53:31 arbitraging against the electricity grid. 53:33 We are probably at the absolute lowest 53:36 of uptime that you can run at eighty seven percent. 53:39 And so the fundamental misunderstandings of the reality of the mining business, 53:43 I think it invalidates Peter Todd's ability to criticize proposals 53:48 on the premise of centralizing mining because it just doesn't understand 53:52 to say, oh, solar is everywhere. 53:53 The sun shines as if you just go outside and point your miner towards the sun 53:58 and the energy just flows in and it spits out Bitcoin. 54:01 There is so much capex that would go into making that a reality. 54:07 And that's just the nature of the industry. 54:11 So 54:12 in my mind, the ship has sailed on. 54:16 Mining decentralization, where you're going to have millions 54:18 of people running one or two rigs and instead you should focus on 54:23 the health of the mining incentive so that the miners are on their absolute best 54:28 behavior and and are always behaving in the best interest of Bitcoin because 54:34 they want to earn the remainder of the block subsidy that will come out and they 54:37 want to earn the fees that will hopefully continue to be a material part 54:42 of their revenue stream. 54:44 Yeah, and I was struck that that was the only thing the only critique you really 54:48 had as far as like the how does it 300 affect Bitcoin? 54:53 It was only this indirect effect on miners costs. 54:57 And I've always been of the opinion that anyone who cares about that is actually 55:01 against upward difficulty adjustments and they're actually against proof of work. 55:06 They may not realize that they are, but but that's you know, that's what makes 55:10 the revenues go up and the costs go, the difficulty goes up and the. 55:14 Miners costs go up, and so it's just something that as Bitcoin becomes more 55:20 successful and as the exchange rate climbs and as the fees climb. 55:26 We'll just be living in a world where you. 55:31 You need to generate an enormous quantity of money to be able to do that. 55:37 You need to generate an enormous quantity 55:40 of hashes and you need to do whatever you can, you mix whatever fixed to variable 55:45 costs, take advantage of whatever scale economies are out there 55:49 so that you are part of the set of optimal mind, a set of surviving miners. 55:58 Right, so that's what he's saying is that this is so important that it's enough to 56:03 block the sidechains idea, which is, 56:06 you know, an enormously beneficial idea for Bitcoin, to say the least. 56:10 I mean, it would immediately unlock 56:12 planetary scale and Zcash privacy, which you would think 56:16 that would be complete game changer like the next week. 56:20 But it's really I think that we can all 56:23 see that it really has nothing to do with BIP300 itself or even with any BIP. 56:29 It is the soft fork process 56:32 that has just broken down 56:34 and a lot of people want to take credit for things or something. 56:38 It's just a the process is just a tough process. 56:43 And it it's I think the biggest factor is 56:46 just that it requires an enormous amount of specialized knowledge to figure out 56:51 what is going on in these BIPs. 56:53 How does Bitcoin even work anyway under the hood? 56:56 And I have, you know, enormous disagreements 56:59 with people, I think, that are really brilliant. 57:01 I think I mean, I think Luke is also very misguided, 57:05 but I think Luke is a genius in many ways. 57:08 And a lot of people are very 57:10 Luke is a very smart guy. 57:12 I don't think he understands 57:14 mining either, but I think that and I don't I disagree with him about he has 57:18 these various essentialist claims like what what does it mean for Bitcoin to have 57:22 succeeded or what does it mean, you know, to for mining to be centralized 57:28 or, you know, when when is a who activates a soft worker? 57:31 So he's he's a lot of black and white thinking. 57:35 But, yeah, I mean, I'm just trying to say 57:36 that I disagree with a lot of smart people. 57:38 And so if if if the people who go to like Tabcom and people who go to scaling 57:44 Bitcoin for the last type of thing for like 10 years, 57:50 if we can't get our story straight, then how can we expect? 57:55 A less experienced, less specialized people to automatically. 58:02 All agree on the right answer, that seems unlikely, so. 58:08 So I think it's just a difficult thing, but it's an interest, it's an interesting 58:12 thing because. 58:15 We all suffer as a result of not accomplishing this task, so you think 58:20 that more and more people would be kind of like hard at work trying to make it 58:24 happen, which to some extent there is, there are people at Jamison Lopp or 58:28 whatever, people write like what is 119, but it doesn't kind of take, you know, 58:33 people just stay to kind of think about it and then they forget next week or 58:37 something, you know, let's dive into that a little more. 58:40 When I was 58:42 on, I was the kind of. 58:44 Advocate for. 58:46 Being more intense about driving fee 58:49 revenue on Peter McCormack's What Bitcoin Did podcast, it was me, 58:55 Peter McCormack, Thomas Pachia of Pubkey and Marty Benn, 59:00 and the three of them were of the opinion that 59:06 the concerns about fee revenue were overstated. 59:09 And I was the, you know, the proponent of 59:14 thinking more long term and. 59:17 And experimenting with some alternative 59:20 methods to scaling Bitcoin that had 59:26 a specific contemplation of. 59:29 How miners were going to participate in the. 59:33 The transaction throughput improvements on the layer two. 59:36 And, you know, my contention is that 59:40 lightning does not pass through 59:45 revenues to the layer one miners in an adequate way. 59:49 And lightning is also somewhat poorly designed in that 59:54 channels have difficulty opening and closing in a high fee environment. 59:59 And so. 1:00:00 And you see the reaction of the lightning community to this little spat of high fees that we've have been having, you know, there's there's an outcry and. 1:00:09 The three of them agreed on the counterpoint to all the points that I brought up on that, which was why are we worried about this now? How is this going to affect me now? It's we're so early and you don't need to worry about this and we don't need to do anything drastic or change mining incentives. 1:00:28 Right now, because it's so far down the road that that this is not an issue. 1:00:36 To be to be worried about now, and I found that answer frustrating, but I kind of understood it because from the perspective of a non-miner or a non-developer of a sidechain software like yourself. 1:00:50 The current status quo seems OK, and it obviously does make sense for miners to be fixated on fee revenues and for miners to be the ones who are investing in potential avenues to adopt Bitcoin scaling that account for passing fees through to layer one. 1:01:08 And so I think that's that's kind of where the issue is going to live. 1:01:13 The broader Bitcoin community will probably be accurately represented by people like Peter and Thomas and Marty, where they're like, you know, that's not really worried about this gross electricity usage to secure Bitcoin continues to go up. 1:01:29 Gross mining revenue denominated in USD continues to go up, you know, and all of the metrics, as do transaction fees, continue to have an average increasing trend line. 1:01:41 And so for us, what looks potentially like an alarming future is something that for them seems like a an unnecessary thing to worry about right now. 1:01:55 I kind of do get that, but I also agree that I'm doing the exact right thing that I should be doing, which is thinking about this and intending to deploy capital into solving this problem or making strides forward. 1:02:10 Yeah, well, I certainly also agree. 1:02:12 I mean, I understand where people are coming from, and I've been in Bitcoin a long time and I often get a question. 1:02:18 I get it kind of from both ends. 1:02:20 People are like, why don't you pursue this more aggressively? 1:02:24 And, you know, your idea or whatever. 1:02:26 And I'm like, well, you know, Bitcoin has been doing pretty well. 1:02:29 It's been basically the best performing asset in the history of capitalism. 1:02:34 It has totally rooted out most of its critics and they have been humiliated and defeated. 1:02:44 And it's very important. 1:02:48 You know, it's the basic on-chain banking service, for lack of a better word. 1:02:56 It works. 1:02:58 I think that but I do think there is a couple of concerning things. 1:03:02 So with lightning, we have to mention that lightning has become something that is more concerning than merely a badly designed idea. 1:03:13 Which is, I mean, we had Antony Riard on like two weeks ago or three weeks. 1:03:18 I don't remember how many weeks, maybe only one week. 1:03:21 But in any event, you know, he was very jovial and sort of polite. 1:03:29 But the actual content of what he said, I would think would be sort of devastating, which is where he was saying that he was quitting lightning. 1:03:39 And it's not like he quit and he had like something lined up to do. 1:03:43 Like where he was bought out by whatever, you know, Deloitte or something. 1:03:49 He's just like quitting, going to take some time and think. 1:03:52 And he was saying that, you know, a lot of people are afraid to admit they were wrong. 1:03:59 The VCs don't want people to invalidate their investment thesis. 1:04:04 So I think everyone should go listen for themselves if they doubt my interpretation, which is fine. 1:04:11 But it has become a kind of like deception machine. 1:04:16 And now we're all self-deceived and deceiving each other about it. 1:04:22 And that's more of a problem because then it seeds many other problems. 1:04:28 Which brings me to the other thing I wanted to say about, you know, being patient. 1:04:34 Which is to say that, well, that's also kind of a tough nut to crack. 1:04:38 Because if you're really patient, then maybe you never even embark down. 1:04:45 You never even go down the road. 1:04:46 Like maybe if I was as patient as these people, I would never have gotten involved with this sidechains problem. 1:04:53 And so drivechains wouldn't exist. 1:04:55 The 300 wouldn't exist. 1:04:57 And what if more and more people followed that example? 1:05:00 Then there would just be nothing waiting there for anyone to discuss or adopt or think about adopting or modify. 1:05:10 I do agree. 1:05:11 As I was thinking about potentially bringing this up today, 1:05:16 I was thinking how there's a little bit of dissonance in the idea of don't worry about it. 1:05:26 It's so far in the future being an antagonistic principle with the idea of low time preference. 1:05:33 Which is, you know, it's an accepted orthodox mantra of, you know, the current Bitcoin old guard, right? 1:05:42 Is we're low time preference. 1:05:44 We're not worried. 1:05:45 We're saving money. 1:05:46 We're saving Bitcoin. 1:05:47 And we're on the Titanic. 1:05:49 We plan for the future. 1:05:51 Yeah. 1:05:51 And we're building a big cathedral that's going to take 400 years to complete or whatever. 1:05:55 You know, that's what we're supposed to be doing. 1:05:57 And I have to mention a second thing, though, is that once something's been invented, it's out there. 1:06:02 You know what I mean? 1:06:03 So this has happened also already, where some of the stuff, the roll-up stuff and the Ethereum stuff, 1:06:10 is I think maybe even indirectly based on maybe even a drivechain or other just sidechain type ideas. 1:06:18 So it's like you're in the community. 1:06:21 It's like you're playing like a, you know, a civilization or like some game or something. 1:06:24 And like people are researching like gunpowder and stuff. 1:06:27 And you can't just be like, you know, once the idea is out there, it's out there for everyone. 1:06:36 And so you might think, well, we don't need to worry about gunpowder yet. 1:06:42 But that doesn't square with just like, you know, it's like open source software. 1:06:47 No one can release anything. 1:06:49 Anyway, we have a Julian who's made it up onto the stage and has a hand up. 1:06:54 So hello. 1:06:55 Hi, Paul. 1:06:56 Thanks for putting me on stage. 1:06:59 I thought what James said earlier about the corporate interests and the stockholders was 1:07:04 interesting and I wonder what you think of these sort of, I don't think that the shareholders would 1:07:10 actually do anything, but they just follow the recommendation of the board and the board may do 1:07:13 some diligence and sort of start to actually be a stakeholder and influence the direction and 1:07:20 be a voice in the governance or take over the governance and 1:07:23 send us in the sort of different direction at least. 1:07:28 Yeah, well, we certainly need someone whose job it is to like do the diligence 1:07:32 because they can't, if they're just going to show up on Twitter, glance around and say, 1:07:36 well, this is, this seems like what's getting the most Twitter likes. 1:07:39 I mean, that's exactly why we have due diligence because of, you know, 1:07:42 Theranos and all kinds of Enron and a million other things. 1:07:46 Right. 1:07:47 And if you think about who these people are, you know, versus someone like you or someone like me 1:07:53 or Paul, these are, I bet you half these people don't even know what they own. 1:07:58 And I think half is way low number. 1:08:00 I think 99% of these people have no idea what equities they own inside of their, you know, 1:08:07 their Russell 2000 position, index fund position, or it's just in their 401k plan and they have 1:08:18 no clue what it is. 1:08:19 So it's an interesting kind of change that's not really talked about right now is that 1:08:27 although the number of distinct mining firms has probably not increased dramatically. 1:08:34 And I would say the forces of economies of scale and specifically the cost of equity capital in 1:08:41 the North American public markets is a factor that will make it unlikely that firms who are 1:08:48 not public can compete against public firms, which favors obviously massive scale because 1:08:54 the cost of going public is tremendous. 1:08:57 The, while that is true that there may be fewer firms, the governance of those firms 1:09:04 will be subject to one of the most powerful forces in capital formation that's ever existed 1:09:11 in the species, which is, you know, the United States rule of law and the Delaware Sea Corporation 1:09:18 as a corporate structure. 1:09:19 And so it could open the door to some really interesting governance where, 1:09:26 I mean, the amount of capital that's been mobilized via the Delaware Corporation and 1:09:30 the amount of economic prosperity that that's created in this country is enormous. 1:09:36 And now that governance structure is effectively, I mean, I don't know if it's there yet, but it 1:09:45 will be pretty close to controlling a huge portion of hash rate. 1:09:49 Now, the flip side of that, if you're a Bitcoin purist, of course, is that 1:09:54 that could be a regulatory attack factor and it definitely could. 1:09:59 And I still don't think that I understand that thinking, which is if, you know, if it's 1:10:07 in the fiduciary best interest of the executives, the board and the shareholders, well, you 1:10:13 know, the board and the officers have the fiduciary interest, but, you know, the shareholders 1:10:17 obviously have their interest. 1:10:19 Why would they go along with a change to Bitcoin that would make their holdings less 1:10:22 valuable in the long run? 1:10:23 I still don't really see how you connect those dots. 1:10:26 I think there's just a natural suspicion amongst Bitcoiners towards anything big, corporate 1:10:33 governance, you know, the large institutional money managers, I'd rightfully be suspicious 1:10:38 of those. 1:10:38 But I think this actually opens up some new avenues for governance that had not previously 1:10:44 been contemplated and only really recently have occurred. 1:10:47 Right, that these guys could overturn the old guard and it doesn't matter what they 1:10:50 think anymore. 1:10:53 Yeah, that is true, though. 1:10:54 This could actually become a real financial revolution where the amount of, I think it 1:11:04 happens in two really interesting ways, is the Bitcoin mining infrastructure gets even 1:11:10 more deeply integrated into electricity grid and electricity systems. 1:11:14 As the buyer of last resort for power and this great form of organic demand response, 1:11:20 which is already happening. 1:11:23 And, you know, then you have this real bottom up monetary revolution where a form of money 1:11:30 that's a better savings vehicle for the vast majority of humans on Earth who are not skilled 1:11:36 financial money managers also has the highest monetary value. 1:11:42 Also has the highest monetary utility and the highest monetary utility is enabled in 1:11:47 a way that it drives a continued mining incentive to install more hashrate and, you know, and 1:11:56 respond to the demand for block space. 1:11:59 So it's it could definitely unseat the old guard. 1:12:02 And I think to your point and probably Paul's point is it may be time for that transition 1:12:07 to happen. 1:12:08 But who knows, you know, probably get crucified for saying that. 1:12:13 Well, yeah. 1:12:14 And then the cynic in me wants to say once you get rid of that problem, you can get rid 1:12:19 of the 21 million cap and whatever else you want as well. 1:12:23 The proof of work. 1:12:26 What's to stop you? 1:12:28 I think the day that that the hypothetical day where 21 million was removed as a supply 1:12:33 gap, the mining equities would drop 50 percent and all of the executive team would be fired 1:12:40 and everyone would dump Bitcoin. 1:12:42 So it's, you know, that's that's what we want to avoid. 1:12:46 Right. 1:12:46 We want to have Ethereum like demand for block space where there is variable but consistently 1:12:55 strong on average demand for block space. 1:12:57 Yeah, I think the idea is of due diligence would be that people would look into it and 1:13:04 they would say, is this actually going to increase the value of Bitcoin or the transaction 1:13:11 fee volume? 1:13:12 And you can see how you could make an argument for that. 1:13:17 You could make an argument that if you change the 21 million coin unit, people would get 1:13:21 very annoyed by that and flee the coin and maybe stop using it. 1:13:26 So you would have significantly increased the likelihood that both the exchange rate 1:13:30 would go to zero and the fees, long term fees would go to zero. 1:13:36 That's my guess. 1:13:37 You just need a good marketing campaign to sell it. 1:13:40 Yeah. 1:13:40 But here's the thing about that is we already have a marketing campaign that that's the 1:13:45 issue is that we already have a marketing campaign for Bitcoin. 1:13:49 That's the issue is that we already have a marketing campaign that's ruining and may 1:13:54 kill Bitcoin. 1:13:56 Just like kind of in reverse. 1:13:58 So that's why we need someone to do diligence to actually research the facts and make it. 1:14:04 It's also why the institution of the soft fork is a completely different. 1:14:08 The idea that Satoshi added all these op nops, essentially really 10, but essentially an 1:14:14 unlimited number of the blank op code and also the block version number, which can count 1:14:20 to like 4 billion or something. 1:14:22 And the transaction version numbers can count to 4 billion. 1:14:26 And these are all just things that where you can. 1:14:33 These are all things where it's a blank op code that is designed to be a slot for a future 1:14:40 upgrade. 1:14:42 And so the idea that an opt in optional repurpose of a completely unused op code that was 1:14:49 reserved exactly for that purpose by Satoshi and that we've already done many times, the 1:14:55 idea that that is on par with like some other thing that would like break Bitcoin is. 1:15:02 Untrue, I would say. 1:15:06 Yeah. 1:15:06 I do like the steel man, you know, that that monetary utility through something like lightning 1:15:15 will become so high that we'll never even have to worry about fees because everyone's 1:15:19 hyper Bitcoinization will happen. 1:15:21 I just think what it looks like. 1:15:23 Yeah, I hope those people are right. 1:15:24 I hope those people. 1:15:25 That's what I always say, too. 1:15:26 I hope those people are all right. 1:15:27 Yeah, I hope they're right. 1:15:28 I don't think they're going to be. 1:15:30 I don't think it's super well thought out. 1:15:32 But it is true to principles of sovereignty. 1:15:37 And I think that's something admirable in attempting to maintain a nice connection to 1:15:47 sovereignty, self-sovereignty through scaling Bitcoin for as long as possible. 1:15:53 But what I think a healthy ecosystem looks like is open competition for scaling. 1:16:00 And, you know, not a single chosen path and accepted orthodoxy and orthodoxy and everything 1:16:07 else is taboo. 1:16:08 You know, it is a healthy push and pull between different scaling solutions and ultimately 1:16:14 the market wins. 1:16:16 But we have to acknowledge there's a reality where the market wins and the scaling solution 1:16:20 that is designed has a fantastic user experience and it onboards the market. 1:16:26 A huge number of users, but it's not mindful of maintaining the layer one incentive. 1:16:31 And, you know, tragedy of the commons ensues where the layer one incentive becomes a commonly 1:16:37 owned good for all of these layer two users. 1:16:39 But because nobody owns it directly, the whole thing falls apart. 1:16:44 So, yeah, I mean, we're pro, we're pro, like, Bitcoin doing really, really well as it stands 1:16:52 with no, with no extra attention given to. 1:16:55 I mean, that would be great if it turns out Bitcoin in its current form really is perfect. 1:17:04 And it's like, at a certain point, you know, I have been going to, I've been talking to 1:17:09 form really is perfect, then that would be great. 1:17:15 I think the people who say that, 1:17:20 they don't seem to know a lot about the details. 1:17:23 And it's like at a certain point, I have been going to, I've been talking to a lot of 1:17:29 people and speaking and presenting at technical conferences for just a long time. 1:17:35 I know what other people know. 1:17:37 you see, like the chief critic of Drivechain, Peter Todd, is like complaining about, 1:17:41 you know, it may affect costs sometimes if the miners feel like they 1:17:47 want to run 1:17:48 a node which already, that is already an extremely inexpensive thing. 1:17:54 as the, as proof of work continues to, as difficulty continues to increase, so the 1:18:00 exchange rate continues to increase, total miner costs will also skyrocket. 1:18:04 the idea will just as a tiny percentage. 1:18:06 So like, that's like the state of the 1:18:14 I'm not sure 1:18:19 if 1:18:27 But if anyone else wants to come up, please come up. 1:18:32 If you have any great questions or comments. 1:18:43 I have a question. 1:18:45 could a sidechain implementation progress 1:18:51 without the necessary dips? 1:18:56 Like, how could you do this in a way that removed the bottleneck 1:19:02 of... 1:19:04 the current BIP approval process. 1:19:11 the easiest way is to do something like, you could call it BitVM, though I don't know 1:19:17 if it would be called that. 1:19:18 what you do is what I was thinking is you have Bitcoin Core 1:19:23 run unmodified and then you have two additional pieces of 1:19:29 basically it's like one is a giant tray for filters 1:19:35 and blocks are to travel through each filter. 1:19:39 So one of the filters will be Bitcoin Core and then one will be this 1:19:43 thing that is only BIP300, 1:19:45 Now, in this case, you're leaving Bitcoin Core totally unmodified, 100%. 1:19:51 But the filter tray thing is going to call invalidate block on anything that doesn't 1:19:55 pass the other filters. 1:19:56 So then the filters can be like BIP119, CTV, opcat, whatever. 1:20:04 And then this way you can activate soft forks 1:20:09 without changing Bitcoin Core at all. 1:20:11 you still need to get, in this scenario, still need to 51 % hashrate to 1:20:17 run the new software. 1:20:19 But now it is something that it's like 1:20:22 a driver, like a Apex thing. 1:20:27 don't know. They don't have names because this is just a weird idea, there's like the 1:20:32 BIP300 filter that is not Bitcoin Core. 1:20:37 It just checks BIP300 rules. 1:20:40 then there is this. 1:20:42 so basically miners have to switch from only running Bitcoin core to running this this 1:20:47 thing this filter tray thing and then that would do it for them 1:20:52 and that would be very carefully written to only the only thing that's doing is 1:20:57 invalidating a block is doing the mempool and it invalidates 1:21:01 blocks if someone breaks the 300 rule. 1:21:05 then if 50, as soon as 51 % of the mining pool world is running that, 1:21:12 then the salt fork is upgraded de facto for the entire network. 1:21:16 this is even in a weird way, this is exactly what many people suggest. 1:21:20 example, 1:21:21 Francis Puyo has suggested that you should never merge the BIP into Bitcoin Core. 1:21:27 He's like a militant, toxic small blocker guy. 1:21:31 And I've known him for many years. 1:21:32 Fascinating character. And he thinks that you should always release an alternative 1:21:37 client. 1:21:39 And although he doesn't think, 1:21:40 he is definitely in the camp that says you should not collude with miners. 1:21:44 in a way, that leaves us nowhere, because what it means in practice is just something 1:21:50 like no one should ever talk to the miners, so the miners can never get informed, which 1:21:54 that's also moving in the wrong direction. 1:21:58 But anyway, that's one way of doing 1:22:00 it without modifying Bitcoin Core, 1:22:05 software, then you explicitly say that this is not a modification 1:22:11 to Bitcoin Core, software, even though it is an upgrade to the Bitcoin protocol. 1:22:16 And then I mean, it's kind of anyone's 1:22:20 game how that is interpreted. 1:22:22 People may interpret that as something bad or people may interpret it as something 1:22:27 good. don't know. 1:22:29 It's hard to say. 1:22:30 But I do think that what's definitely not working is this weird limbo 1:22:34 where everyone has a veto just because they have a Twitter 1:22:39 account and they're not even, you know, not even a... 1:22:43 So, rando bought Twitter account, it's not even like with a name, so 1:22:48 that doesn't seem like it's going to work because as far as we 1:22:54 know, these are saboteurs from Ethereum or something. 1:22:59 I think so that would be a That's a creative way of getting around it. 1:23:04 But that still involves the mining pool switching over their software, which they may 1:23:10 they may be very hesitant to do because it may, I don't know how people would interpret 1:23:14 it. 1:23:19 Some of them, mining pools do not. 1:23:25 Very rarely, think, do they actually just use a regular Bitcoin core. 1:23:28 have like special modified versions that do special 1:23:34 mempool things or special tricks as to if a block has just been 1:23:38 found, switch the template over, temper a mind, and empty block temporarily. 1:23:45 I don't know. 1:23:46 They probably already all run custom software or most of them, although I don't know. 1:23:50 and it'd be interesting to know if Foundry did because they're sort of relatively new, 1:23:56 but also relatively big, and I don't 1:23:58 know if they... 1:23:59 someone like a brain's slush pool, it would also be interesting to know if they did 1:24:03 because they're very purist but they're also very old so they would know all the the 1:24:08 Jedi tricks. 1:24:12 would be interesting question. 1:24:13 But anyway it is theoretically possible to do it only by having a few 1:24:17 pools switch and without modifying Bitcoin. 1:24:20 The reason why I say that's like a BitVM thing, it'd be like a BitVM instead of for an 1:24:25 individual transaction just for like an entire block. 1:24:27 like a thing that invalidates the... 1:24:31 There's an extra thing running on top of Bitcoin that invalidates the block and that 1:24:36 thing is 1:24:37 like a BIP300 enforcing software. 1:24:40 I don't know if that made any sense to anyone, but it is theoretically possible to do 1:24:44 that instead. 1:24:47 And that's another thing that's probably a good practice if people would put that out 1:24:52 so that they don't have to deal with... 1:24:56 Because the 1:24:56 people who work on Bitcoin Core, the software, they have their own ways of doing things 1:25:01 and they are very justifiably so. 1:25:03 They don't really want a completely new person to just come in to their house and start 1:25:08 moving the furniture around. 1:25:10 They just don't like that, which is kind of understandable. 1:25:14 it's actually, but then, you know, what else are they supposed to 1:25:16 do if they want to have, you know, like one of these, like if they want to do TX hash 1:25:22 or even op cat or something, you have to do something. 1:25:26 So it's probably a good idea. 1:25:27 That's an interesting if that were a best practice to do that and then release 1:25:31 something like a coin that 1:25:36 is just that or something, I'm not sure. 1:25:38 so that is an idea for just getting around the process. 1:25:46 People may hate that idea, though. 1:25:48 don't know. I'm not sure. 1:25:51 Who knows? It's a question what's also right and wrong. 1:25:54 I just 1:25:55 realized I'm coming from shitcoins and this is highly political what you're doing. 1:25:59 I see people like you are leading the world in the future. 1:26:02 It's really impressive to listen to you and it's a big process to gain knowledge. 1:26:07 To hear people like you, it's really impressive and I'm coming from shitcoins and just 1:26:12 realize what Bitcoin really is. 1:26:14 And I 1:26:15 I think we also just have to try some things because it's not, 1:26:20 how Paul said, it's a political question and because it's based on network effects. 1:26:26 in any case, 1:26:28 you don't know what happens in the future. 1:26:31 Every try we do can lead to something very big 1:26:35 it's everything in that work effect, and we should try. 1:26:43 Yeah, I'm like IAC kind of, basically. 1:26:47 mean, you know, they're right about like, you know, if we accelerate the arrival of 1:26:50 future that will mean you know more 1:26:54 medical inventions, everything. 1:27:00 basically, I think that's right. 1:27:03 it's weird because I had always thought that people would, would explain the idea. 1:27:07 then that is part that is the... 1:27:11 It's easier to do that than build the 1:27:14 software, but I thought once people get the idea, there'll be many more people just 1:27:18 working on the software instead of me. 1:27:24 I guess it doesn't really work out that way. 1:27:28 mean, I've also read one or two books where they say that anyone who invents 1:27:33 a software idea must write the code for the implementation because you just don't 1:27:39 realize how many things are assumed by you. 1:27:45 But then no one else will actually get. 1:27:48 So apparently this is a common thing. 1:27:52 But in any event, it 1:27:53 that's almost the way to go at this particular 1:27:59 juncture because it's not so much about even 1:28:05 activating any soft fork as it is about we have to 1:28:11 stop letting people get rewarded 1:28:12 for doing the wrong thing, which is what we currently have, where people are rewarded 1:28:18 for just... I mean, there's nothing like you're not defending Bitcoin if you 1:28:23 are attacking Jeremy Rubin for proposing 1:28:29 $1.19. this is not the 1:28:35 I got to go in a minute, but Ulaya, guy who brought 1:28:41 up the BIP16 question, says, is like gold. 1:28:45 Complaining about people that add alloys into it is a waste of time. 1:28:50 P2PKH is 24 karat gold. 1:28:52 gold, P2SH is 18k, BAC32 is 12k, and Lightning is k. 1:28:59 I'm not really sure what exactly he means by that. 1:29:02 thanks everyone for coming, and I don't know if you're going to sit around Paul, but 1:29:06 I've got to go talk to more lawyers and keep the meter running. 1:29:11 We've got to keep the 1:29:11 rent going. Thanks, everyone. 1:29:14 for coming. still have one question. 1:29:19 sorry if I'm coming in between. 1:29:21 I'm just wondering, it's maybe a philosophical question, could you imagine that it 1:29:26 would be possible that a program could be built that in general every 1:29:31 people on the world could get free wages to survive on basic needs and then they still 1:29:36 can speculate on ideas. 1:29:39 something like this possible? 1:29:41 you imagine the world... 1:29:44 that has been suggested that's the universal basic income idea. 1:29:47 and this could which is one of few it's like a 1:29:50 very, very socialist, communist style idea, but I actually don't think that it is, even 1:29:56 though it's painted that way. 1:29:57 think actually what it would do, I mean my hope is what it would do, is if this were 1:30:02 tried. 1:30:04 Well first of all, think it should, if people have more children, they should get the 1:30:09 money, know? 1:30:10 We should be giving it out to everyone. 1:30:15 The kids included. 1:30:18 right now, for fertility, many nations in the world faces this big fertility 1:30:23 crisis. But I think what I would hope would happen is that it would make the 1:30:29 recipients of the money 1:30:30 as a group, sort of more like Republican, for lack of a better word, or libertarian, 1:30:37 which is to say that they, you would no longer need to complain. 1:30:40 You're going around and you'd say, oh, life is so hard. 1:30:45 I can barely make ends meet. 1:30:47 But then with the UBI world, 1:30:49 everyone would just say, 1:30:52 well, I mean, you get UBI like everyone does, you can make ends meet. 1:30:57 it kind of, it would reduce all the wining of the world, would be my hope. 1:31:02 Or at least people would no longer take wining as seriously. 1:31:05 would just kind of discredit people who want, you know, like the crazy Marxist people 1:31:14 I mean, it's a pretty radical thing that people should probably experiment with on a 1:31:20 small scale before moving it up. 1:31:23 I think it's, I mean, a lot of people have suggested that this idea would be a lot 1:31:28 better than 1:31:29 what the government currently does, they try to spend, let's say Milton Friedman would 1:31:33 say, they're spending other people's money on other people. 1:31:36 It's like when you spend your own money on yourself, you care a lot about whether or 1:31:39 you want that thing and whether or not you can afford it. 1:31:46 But then when the government spends money, they don't really care if you 1:31:48 want, like, did you want another library? 1:31:52 they definitely don't care about the cost. 1:31:57 So, yes, now we have some more speakers. 1:32:00 Klaus, hello. 1:32:03 Hey, Paul, up? 1:32:04 doing today? I'm doing great, thanks. 1:32:07 How are you? 1:32:08 I'm 1:32:08 pretty well. just want touch on you describing an alternative in terms of 1:32:14 scaling or updating Bitcoin. 1:32:18 Probably a minutes ago. 1:32:20 I think we spoke in probably a month ago. 1:32:22 Did you have a chance of looking at GLS? 1:32:24 think I mentioned it you about a month ago. 1:32:26 Oh no, I haven't looked into it. 1:32:29 the the 1:32:37 the the of skin which see because with 1:32:43 Chia the farmers make the blocks unlike the pole which makes 1:32:47 it more decentralized. 1:32:49 I think CTV is somewhat like it. 1:32:55 I tagged you in a post about a couple of minutes ago, explaining it, the internet 1:33:00 basically. 1:33:02 So it uses hard drive to secure the network. 1:33:05 Right, right. And we had an 1:33:07 Nakamoto Conficiency is about 70. 1:33:10 So it's high -speed thing right now when 100,000 nodes worldwide. 1:33:16 I feel like it's now for like probably a year now. 1:33:19 Yeah, look at it and then I will... 1:33:22 Yeah, would definitely look at it. 1:33:25 because I don't know. 1:33:26 yeah, I remember Group of Space and Time and Bram Cohen. 1:33:32 Interesting guy, that guy, know, he has a lot of handheld puzzles that are 3D printed 1:33:37 out of metal. 1:33:41 And yeah, 1:33:43 landed me one at one point at scaling one, but 1:33:46 I couldn't solve it. 1:33:47 Yeah, he's actually working on something new right now in terms of like poker on chain. 1:33:53 It's a Yeah, it's called mental paper, think. 1:33:57 It's a very interesting idea, That would be cool. 1:34:01 Yeah, it's like some high bringing activity stuff. 1:34:05 was looking at that day. 1:34:06 Between him and Richard Kiss, who helped him wrote a shield list? 1:34:12 Cool, great. Okay, also have a Pierre. 1:34:18 Hello Paul. How you doing? 1:34:21 Hey. 1:34:22 So you recently posted about job negotiation 1:34:28 being a scam, right? 1:34:31 I did, yeah. 1:34:33 I just had a thought and wonder if maybe you could help me understand. 1:34:37 But if there would say like asymmetric MEV, 1:34:42 MEV, where like one mining pool has extra value, then only they like 1:34:48 say a contract with someone. 1:34:52 Wouldn't that then make there not be one appropriate template? 1:34:57 yes, it would. 1:34:58 But that would be true of anyone. 1:35:00 doesn't matter if they're a mining pool. 1:35:02 You 1:35:02 know what mean? 1:35:02 could be some guy would have Jeff somewhere. 1:35:06 He's the only one who can assemble the block this way. 1:35:10 So it's not a rebuttal that's specific to 1:35:16 the relationship between hashboards and pools. 1:35:18 just some guy has a... 1:35:19 It's Liquid is kind of the same way. 1:35:21 All the money goes 1:35:22 to block stream wallet. 1:35:24 there's nothing anyone can do to get. 1:35:26 So is that, you know, is that MEV like in a way, 1:35:32 but yeah, that's right. 1:35:33 Yeah, you're right. 1:35:34 Yeah, and I was thinking though, like if miners don't have an easy option, right? 1:35:40 I agree with you. 1:35:41 Yeah, I use 1:35:42 the pool as the in the question because most miners 1:35:47 don't have an easy option to create their own template. 1:35:52 yeah, me as a miner, I was willing to wait however many blocks it would take based on 1:35:57 my hashrate, I could extract that. 1:35:59 that was just a clarification that 1:36:02 I was wondering. 1:36:03 then also your idea around the filter or the trays you're 1:36:09 calling it, is that something? 1:36:11 Yes. You're thinking more hardly because that seems... 1:36:15 You think that's a better way to go? 1:36:17 Well, it almost seems like that's the inevitable direction. 1:36:22 you know, one thing that always bothers me is that I don't see, because what I was 1:36:25 saying is that I have kind of deliberately taken the route 1:36:32 where there's so many things I want to say, you know, and I tend to ramble about them. 1:36:37 But basically, it was because of the weird cultural damage of the block size war that 1:36:41 people stopped having the idea of like, build something and present it to the miners. 1:36:47 it's not just that that became taboo. 1:36:50 also like, I really feel like it affected people's minds, where they would not even, 1:36:55 this type of idea wouldn't have even occurred to most people. 1:36:59 And then when Jeremy Rubin finally did 1:37:01 like a tiny version of it, people freaked out. 1:37:05 Nonetheless, 1:37:07 so I kind of was like, as I was sort of trying to mention before, was like, I've always 1:37:11 avoided actually giving, like I avoided actually producing a piece of 1:37:17 software to give to people to run. 1:37:20 because 1:37:21 I thought maybe that is too extreme, but at the same time, without that, there's no 1:37:26 call to action. 1:37:28 almost everything that I say is pointless because the only thing you can do is read the 1:37:34 BIPs, download the testnet software, which runs on $16.99, which is not 1:37:40 up 1:37:41 not up to date, like with the current Bitcoin core. 1:37:44 It's, you know, to date in other ways, but, so there's like nothing to do except like 1:37:49 try to get more support, but I kind of had thought like, what I'm trying to give an 1:37:53 impression is that that was the, the prevailing Bitcoin culture kind of slots 1:37:58 you into that, that MO 1:38:01 of like, just make a website and then talk about the idea. 1:38:07 then for to build something and take it to the miners is like whatever kind of 1:38:11 declaring war or something. 1:38:13 It really isn't though. 1:38:14 course, it's a silly thing to do. 1:38:16 Imagine any other mining context where it was like, you were going to like you have a 1:38:20 new immersion cooling thing, 1:38:21 and you're like, how dare you market it directly to the miners. 1:38:26 should instead talk about it on the Bitcoin Dev mailing list. 1:38:29 you know, with, you should talk about it on the mining dev mailing list against all of 1:38:33 your competitors, really. 1:38:36 So you can see like all the good that would do, which is like nothing. 1:38:40 So but I think, 1:38:41 yeah, definitely that's I think I'll code that up and we'll just see. 1:38:44 We'll code that up and then we'll just put it out there and then we can all get a good 1:38:47 look at exactly what that is. 1:38:52 I think then how you go about like, quote unquote, activating it outside of the 1:38:58 core, you know, whatever that process 1:39:01 would be it just don't like I said, it seems necessary and I agree with a lot of 1:39:07 hypocrisy Because I think of something like covert a sick boost right? 1:39:11 Like that's something that was created and kept secret and 1:39:17 Seen is very evil. 1:39:18 So if you create something for miners, I 1:39:22 it's a matter of perspective, think. 1:39:24 yeah, there'll be hate coming from probably a lot of very outspoken people, like I 1:39:30 said, seems necessary. 1:39:32 Well, there certainly is also another, there's like a game theoretic angle that goes 1:39:35 something like this. 1:39:36 It says, well, I already didn't do anything. 1:39:41 Their hate is already present and misinformed. 1:39:45 So it's like, I'm already unpopular with those people. 1:39:47 So now I will not get any more unpopular with the same people. 1:39:54 know what I mean? 1:39:54 a good sacrifice to Chespies. 1:39:57 That's great perspective to have, I would think. 1:40:00 yeah, 1:40:01 it couldn't get any worse. 1:40:03 to me, like, it seems less extreme than starting an altcoin, because you are 1:40:09 attempting to remain part of the development of Bitcoin, because that's where you're 1:40:14 trying to progress. 1:40:16 Like, the more extreme, say, oh, I'll go make my own coin. 1:40:20 But 1:40:21 it's a tough problem solve right thanks ball yeah because people say like yeah okay 1:40:26 yeah welcome but it's like people would say like 119 oh it should be on bitcoin 1:40:31 inquisition which it is but I mean who who was ever really persuaded by 1:40:37 that I think no one so this 1:40:41 is the supposed thing that you're supposed to do, but it doesn't do anything. 1:40:48 I think everyone, in their heart of hearts, 1:40:53 they really know that the process is broken, and everyone also 1:40:58 thinks that that's partially a good thing, 1:41:00 including me. Everyone thinks like, okay, it shouldn't be easy to 1:41:06 get involved with Bitcoin and injecting your ideas in. 1:41:12 yet, it just doesn't, it would be fine if it was, I wouldn't really care about this so 1:41:17 much if we already had immense privacy, 1:41:21 user -friendly, multi -sig, planetary scale. 1:41:24 If Lightning was working great, I really wouldn't care so much if it was just 1:41:30 smooth sailing from here to hyper -Bitcoinization, then I would just think, okay, then 1:41:35 it's fine. it's like, unfortunately, I know better. 1:41:38 have an RJ. 1:41:39 Hello. 1:41:41 .J. Nomad. Hey, Paul. 1:41:44 How are you? 1:41:44 Really? 1:41:46 I'm great, thanks. 1:41:48 How are you? 1:41:49 I'm good, man. 1:41:50 Thanks for having me here. 1:41:51 Hello, everyone. 1:41:53 GMGM. 1:41:56 And Paul, before I come to the Drivechain part, would just 1:42:01 I was there on the week's show 1:42:07 as a couldn't participate because I was into something or maybe I didn't have much to 1:42:12 add at that time. 1:42:14 But I really like the way you were asking people to come up first of all because I mean 1:42:19 there is a lot of literature that 1:42:20 you have already created around Drivechain, your blog, there are multiple videos that 1:42:24 you can find. 1:42:26 But this open forum, you know, it really helps. 1:42:29 I wanted to say that first. 1:42:34 Now, coming back to the last discussion that we were having and I told you that, I'll 1:42:38 go back and, you 1:42:40 about it more. 1:42:42 did it. So there's a small story that I want to tell you. 1:42:45 And I just request you that you can just guide, if that makes sense to you. 1:42:51 And finally, if I've understood the peg. 1:42:54 So like, I want to launch a Drivechain and I log 20 BTC on 1:43:00 Bitcoin and I issue 200 tokens on my Drivechain. 1:43:05 So I'm using these 220 BTC just to make the mathematics simple. 1:43:11 So by this calculation, one token of my on my Drivechain is 0.1 BTC. 1:43:17 Now after some time due to adoption and 1:43:20 whatever utility that I create out of it, the value of my token is equal 1:43:26 to X. what is this X is, this is basically the value which is equivalent to one 0 1:43:32 .12 BTC, which is basically my project is doing good. 1:43:36 And you are right that if if this is happening, then why would someone 1:43:40 try to take a withdrawal? 1:43:43 mean, you know, someone still want to say that, no, no, I want to get into 1:43:49 BTC. 1:43:51 So for example,.1 BTC is $4,000 and my token is trading at 1:43:56 $4,800. 1:43:59 So there is no 1:44:00 way I want to get out of it back into BTC because if I take a withdrawal, 1:44:06 I will receive the value only which was there at the time of initial peg, is 0.1 BTC. 1:44:13 So, is it a correct understanding first of all that no matter how good or bad your 1:44:17 token is doing, if you trying to get back 1:44:20 to BTC, will get whatever value is the initial pick. 1:44:24 Yeah, the software is kind of like an ATM where if you put a $20 bill 1:44:30 in, an ATM, 1:44:32 we use the phrase like withdraw $20 from my checking account. 1:44:37 But that's a little loose because 1:44:40 although that is what happens, it's an abstract $20 that travels. 1:44:46 you really, get $20 worth of cash, you get something different. 1:44:51 Your checking account balance goes down by $20. 1:44:56 Now, of course, that's the whole point is that you need to convert between one and the 1:44:59 other. 1:45:00 But they are kind of a different thing. 1:45:02 And you could even go to like a laundromat and you could say, 1:45:05 you put a $1 bill into the change machine and you get four quarters. 1:45:11 you get $1, you lose $1 in $1 bills, and you gain $1 1:45:16 in quarters. so the 1:45:20 software under the hood is swapping. 1:45:22 When you have four BTC, you deposit that in the sidechain. 1:45:27 The sidechain software will credit you with four coins over there, four side 1:45:33 BTC. And when you do the withdrawal, 1:45:37 sidechain is going to 1:45:40 you know, now you're owed 4.2 BTC. 1:45:45 That 4.2 number, that's like, you know, the ATM is going to convert it for you. 1:45:51 you have 4.2 coins that you get deleted off of LayerTwo, and then you get 4 1:45:57 .2 BTC. whatever the US dollar, 1:46:00 either of them could be whatever trading at any US dollar value. 1:46:03 If the L2 coins are trading at a higher value, then you will have 1:46:08 lost some purchasing power, some net worth 1:46:14 by doing the withdrawal. 1:46:16 But you'll lose 4.2 coins on 1:46:19 L2, and then you'll gain 4.2 coins on L1. 1:46:23 So the BTC amount will be the same. 1:46:26 It's very implausible that the sidechain coins would be worth more, because anyone can 1:46:31 always deposit instantly. 1:46:32 That always works. 1:46:34 that is not. 1:46:36 So if that were really the case, people would buy a bunch of 1:46:39 L1 coins, deposit them instantly, and start using them in whatever way gets them 1:46:45 $48, $100 worth of value or whatever the numbers were. 1:46:52 But it's always possible that the peg will dip below one to one, or even go to 1:46:58 zero to one if the sidechain 1:46:59 The thing 1:47:01 is, buy 1:47:06 a 1:47:09 can a 1:47:12 BIP1, BIP1, BIP1, BIP1, They buy 1:47:18 with only 0 1:47:20 L1 coin. 1:47:23 .7 they buy one L2 coin and then they when they withdraw, as I just told you, when they 1:47:28 withdraw using BIP300, not using the swap. 1:47:33 Because the swap could be anything, when they withdraw with the, know, swap was like 1:47:36 the open market immediately. 1:47:39 So there's like, 1:47:39 they're going out there and buying up everyone's, the coins are trapped on L2, but 1:47:44 miners buy them all up and then walk them back. 1:47:47 when they walk them back, they will get 0.1 L1 coins. 1:47:52 So it's a big machine that says you start with 0.7 L1 coins and you end with 1.0. 1:47:59 0.7, 1:47:59 .7, swap for one L2 coin, then you withdraw it. 1:48:02 So that's why, you know, that's kind of why I think the peg is likely to hold. 1:48:06 Of course, there's no guarantee that all this will work. 1:48:10 It all may fail spectacularly, but so can everything else, so can, you know, the 1:48:15 Lightning Network is already, it's interesting that the way this works is kind of a 1:48:19 little bit 1:48:19 more communal, all or nothing, 1:48:23 where it works perfectly for everyone, or it will explode and not work. 1:48:29 will suck for everyone. 1:48:31 Whereas lightning is kind of more divisible, so it's breaking into 1:48:37 pieces, in the sense of 1:48:39 people switching to feel worried about the payment routes fail and then they switch to 1:48:44 custodial lightning and then they if all the Satoshi gets pulled and it's all 1:48:50 goes to five LSPs so I don't know if that's so is this is this answering your question 1:48:54 at all so like what 1:48:59 I'm trying to say is like you said that 4.4 L1 coins is equal 1:49:04 to 4 L2 coins initially. 1:49:08 Then after a time you can say that 4.2 L2 coin is equal to 4 L1 coins. 1:49:14 Now when I'm taking a withdrawal in terms of BTC, 1:49:19 a... Yes. I mean, I would... 1:49:22 can I get 4.2 BTC when all I stayed was 4? 1:49:28 mean... Okay. 1:49:30 with the deposits and the withdrawals, that's like the ATM. 1:49:34 So that will always give you one -to -one or whatever the fixed rate is. 1:49:39 So you always give you a one-to-one in terms of L1 coins. So, uh, and, but that has the feature that the 1:49:48 withdrawals take three months and you have to join with everyone else's withdrawal and ride back. 1:49:55 Now, in addition to using the ATM, there's an instant deposit, but three-month withdrawal. So like the 1:50:04 withdrawal is like a big envelope slowly comes out with everyone, like 20,000 people's money, but maybe 1:50:11 you're not wanting, maybe, you know, you missed the train, so to speak. And so in addition to doing that, 1:50:16 regular people walking around, just like you can sell someone a hat or a sandwich, people can swap L1 1:50:23 and L2 coins whenever they want. They can even do HTLC, cryptographic swap. So they can go on Coinbase. So 1:50:31 they can do, they can do it in innumerable ways. They can just meet and I can send you X L1 and you can send 1:50:38 me Y L2. Right. Does that make sense? Do you see the difference between these two modes? Does that make sense 1:50:46 or no? Because one of those, when you use the deposit withdrawal system, you are changing the quantity of 1:50:51 coins on the sidechain. When you deposit, it's going up. So you have 21 million coins and they're all on BTC on 1:51:00 day one, but then some of them flow to sidechains. When you deposit, you're moving that the global number 1:51:06 worldwide, people are saying, oh, the Zcash sidechain is getting more usage. That number is going up. And when 1:51:12 you withdraw, the numbers goes back down. If everyone withdraws all the coins, then it'll go down to zero for 1:51:16 everyone. And no one will, the sidechain will be abandoned. 1:51:19 Okay, so I'm withdrawing, I'm diminishing the, sorry. 1:51:22 Total quantity of coins on that sidechain, which is a globally available number. You know, everyone knows that 1:51:29 there's 4 million coins on the Zcash sidechain. I'm just making this up. Is that making sense so far? 1:51:36 Yeah, but 1:51:37 now that you say, yeah, it's completely different from the swaps. When you swap, you are not doing that. If 1:51:47 there's 4 million coins on the Zcash sidechain, there will be 4 million after the swap, 4 million before, during, 1:51:53 after, etc. So this is just two people meeting, and them saying, you know what, I wish I had Zcash coins. And 1:52:02 the friend is like, Oh, I have some. It's like you, it's like you and a friend, you, one of you wants cash, and 1:52:08 but you have Venmo. You know, you say, Okay, listen, I need some cash. And your friend says, Okay, I have $20 1:52:14 worth of cash. And they say, Okay, I'll Venmo you. So the person Venmo, a Venmo is $20 to the person, then you 1:52:24 slide the $20 bill across the table. So in that case, there is no deposit or withdrawing happening. It's just a 1:52:30 swap. It's just switching one thing for another. 1:52:33 It's pair to pair transactions. 1:52:35 Yes. 1:52:37 You just described shareless. 1:52:39 Or there could be there could be a middleman in the case of Coinbase, where you deposit to Coinbase, and you buy and 1:52:45 sell and they have a middleman to do the liquidity and plenty of people probably do that. 1:52:50 But won't they take a fee out of that? 1:52:53 They will. Yes, yes, yes. 1:52:55 That's my only issue right now. 1:52:56 You know, of course, they have to feed but think about like this way, when you swap with a friend peer to peer, there's 1:53:02 also kind of an implicit fee because you don't know that your friend is always going to be there for you. And they're 1:53:07 always going to have like the right amount of cash that you want or something. So I'm just trying to emphasize that 1:53:12 these two things are very different. And in only one of them, can the exchange rate float to deposits, withdrawals 1:53:21 cannot. So deposit withdrawals, the withdrawal takes three months, you are using the BIP300 rules, you are changing the 1:53:28 global quantity of coins on the sidechain versus on L1. And that thing, the exchange rate is fixed. In the swap, the 1:53:37 exchange rate is you know, you can imagine sitting down with your friend and you say, Listen, I really need $20 worth of 1:53:45 cash. And your friend says, Oh, I have $20. But I need it. I'm taking it to whatever, I don't know, the strip club. And I 1:53:53 really, really need it. And then you're like, No, no, no, I really need the cash, I have to go to whatever place that only 1:53:59 takes cash. And so that eventually, the friend says, Okay, listen, I'll give you the $20. But you have to Venmo me $30. So 1:54:08 you see that now that now it's floating around. So that's what I mean, when I say the peg may, it may slip from one to one to 1:54:15 something else. But if it does, miners will buy up that one of the things that might happen is that they would, they would buy 1:54:21 it up, they'd say, Okay, I'll, I'll spend $20 to get $30. Because when they walk it back, it's one to one again. So I don't 1:54:29 know if that is making any sense. But 1:54:32 yeah, let's say you're going to come right now. In the end, you probably still have to pay some form of fee when you're doing a swap. Is 1:54:39 that the same? 1:54:43 The atomic swap has the advantage that since it does not rely as much on trust or identity, it's probably pretty easy to just, you 1:54:53 know, you just show up and you can connect to anyone on the internet and offer them the HTLC swap. And since the two of you 1:54:59 don't really need to know each other, you don't need Coinbase to facilitate and you they also can't scam you and they're also 1:55:06 probably widely available because if you're free, you know, you don't you don't just you're not just beholden to the one 1:55:11 friend, it can just be anyone on the internet. So that those are very desirable. The atomic swaps, they may be the optimal way 1:55:19 of doing that. Or maybe not. I don't know. It may depend on the person. I'm not sure it depends on the scenario. Probably also 1:55:25 Coinbase would be great because you know, the fees they are pretty low. I mean, not Coinbase is maybe but the crack and fees even to 1:55:33 move like I was just glancing at them. It's not that I was paying such fee magnitudes, but like to move, you know, swap like $10 1:55:41 million or something is like, it's really not that much, you know, compared to like a broker in normal stock brokerage universe 1:55:50 where you get charged a fortune. I mean, some of it is a highway robbery. I mean, I, my trade by is mostly in the vanguard world, you 1:56:02 know, where, where, where fees are not especially low. And I knew a little bit about some of these places that you can go, you know, 1:56:11 it's like, for a stock trade, it would be 30 $50 flat plus a percent of something. And I just it's hard for me to imagine stuff 1:56:23 costing that much. This is all just a fleece fleecing, fleecing people with money. Anyway, I hope this is clearing it up slightly RJ. I 1:56:32 don't know. I hope it is a little is that is it making sense? Maybe you can restate it if it's not clear. 1:56:39 So, a lot better, first of all. So, what I'm saying is that if you are removing certain supply by doing a withdrawal to L1 from L2, so for 1:56:54 example, I diminish a certain supply of L2 by taking a withdrawal. So, I'm also unlocking a certain proportion of that BTC that I've 1:57:02 logged at the time of you know, when I launched the drivechain. Is that correct? 1:57:09 It is. Yes. 1:57:11 Yeah, yeah. Now making much more sense. So, Paul, would it be would it be right way to say that, just like we have a gold 1:57:19 standard, this truly can be a way of having a BTC standard, where you have just like you print dollars or INR or whatever, using 1:57:30 gold standard, you can have multiple sidechains using BTC standard. 1:57:36 I think so. Yes. I mean, I have a 1:57:38 I mean, everybody is it, you know, in the gray area right now, should it be a transacting currency or should it be a store of 1:57:47 value? So, I mean, this is a lot making sense to me, especially in terms of, you know, drivechain, having a BTC standard for 1:58:02 issuance, of course, that can go here and there based on the demand. And would it be right to say that if there is no chance 1:58:11 that an L2 coin can go to zero, it can the minimum it can go is the minimum ceiling, which is the initial peg, which is one on one 1:58:20 peg with the BTC. 1:58:23 I think a lot of that is right. I mean, it can theoretically where it would go to zero would be if something happened and the all of 1:58:31 the coins were stolen, like they were missed withdrawal, or it's just impossible to run a sidechain node. So it's impossible to 1:58:38 determine who the rightful owner is of the coins at which point, you know, there'd be anyone would own them and miners would maybe take 1:58:45 them or something. But the I think it is I do think of it as like, I think I think money is inherently very hierarchical, which people don't, 1:58:57 they don't really appreciate or we kind of subconsciously are aware of it, but it's kind of goes something like this. You, you go to the 1:59:08 restaurant and you buy food, but you pay with a Visa card. So it's like Visa is we sometimes you say like an intermediary or middleman, but 1:59:19 it's really, they are kind of above. They're not just in the middle, they, they are more central location on the hierarchy, you know, so you go 1:59:31 you pay with Visa, and they get paid in Visa, they have Visa credit card services, they get paid. And Visa has a bank account. And you have a 1:59:40 bank account, like I could write a check to someone who, you know, to like, I don't know, a plumber or something. And the check, they cash the 1:59:52 check at their bank, and their bank might be the same as mine, in which case, it's just like Visa, or the it might be a different bank, in which 2:00:03 case it goes through 2:00:05 it would have been a clearing house. So what sometimes still is because there are still these private clearing houses, but it could also go through the Fed. So the Fed, it's a big pyramid where the Fed is, it depends on where you stop. It depends on the scale. So like worldwide, it's the Bank of International Settlements, which is like a Fed of feds. And then the Fed would be in the United States, the top of the pyramid, and then it goes down to all the member banks. And then we all have ever we all of us have accounts. 2:00:35 at these, these member banks. And so it's a big, it's a big pyramid. And that is their own federal banks. 2:00:45 Yeah, the L1 would be like the Bank of International Settlements. 2:00:49 Except that anyone it's, you know, much more open because anyone would be able to have, 2:00:54 right now we all do we all have an account on L1. 2:01:00 But I bring this up because most people go their whole lives without really knowing anything about 2:01:06 either the Fed or the Bank of International Settlements. So it just goes to show 2:01:10 that the tip top of the pyramid is something that most people can ignore. 2:01:15 And that is why I like to mention that the BIP300 sidechain like scaling idea, 2:01:24 it involves people just onboarding to the sidechain and then offboarding from it directly 2:01:29 without going through L1. And because there's not enough space on L1. But people sometimes 2:01:35 they're worried about that. But I'm saying this the world you already live in. You already live 2:01:40 in a world where none of us have an account at the Fed. And the other thing is no one, 2:01:45 no one has ever seen really a reserve. We have cash, we have like maybe a federal reserve note, 2:01:51 but that's not the same thing. Reserves at the Fed are just they're their own thing. They're 2:01:57 like what I was saying before about switching a $20 of checking account for a $20 bill or 2:02:04 switching $1 bill for four quarters. The reserve is its own type of thing. And I don't know, 2:02:10 I'm not aware of anyone having ever really paid for anything with a reserve. Although that's an 2:02:15 interesting academic question that I would love if someone can produce some kind of link to 2:02:23 something about that. But I don't know, like maybe during the financial crisis, 2008 or 2:02:27 something. But I'm not sure. I think it's like its own thing. Like you can imagine it as if it 2:02:32 were like a red $20 bill. It's like its own weird thing that only the Fed uses, you know. 2:02:41 And then but the Bank of International Settlements would also be using, you know, 2:02:46 it's kind of a little it gets a little maybe arcane and technical, but I'm just trying to 2:02:51 sketch it out that the money is already hierarchical. So you asked about can we 2:02:54 make this into like a kind of thing where this stuff is settling on L1 and then the other stuff 2:03:01 is on the sidechain. So that is what I would imagine. That's like the part of the idea. Yes. 2:03:08 I don't know. Maybe it's a long winded answer. So sorry about that. 2:03:13 No, no, no. Thanks a lot. It makes a lot of sense now. And, you know, I just like to share that 2:03:22 at the starting of the year when ordinals came, a lot of people were of this opinion that great, 2:03:28 this has solved a problem for miners. Now we have a way of earning, you know, making them on more 2:03:33 transaction fee. It's good for the chain. But right now what's happening is it's clogging the 2:03:38 chain. It's making it more expensive. So if we see a timeline of 5, 10 or maybe 15 years, it will 2:03:48 be practically impossible for a retail customer to transact on Bitcoin if the same thing goes. 2:03:55 So I feel that drivechain would be a more natural shift of people who will actually start 2:04:04 to think in this way that, okay, L2s are, you know, layer 2 solutions are one of the 2:04:13 way of doing it. But second way of doing it could be drivechains also. 2:04:20 I mean, all the traffic, all the transactions are happening on L2s. On L1, literally nothing 2:04:27 is happening just other than just mining and creating a concrete block timeline. 2:04:35 Well, I think that, yeah, I mean, I agree. But I mean, I think that, 2:04:39 I think drivechain is a layer 2. In fact, in a way, I think it's one of the few. 2:04:45 I think almost the Lightning Network is not a layer 2 because you cannot onboard to it. You 2:04:51 can't join it without doing something on L1. You have to declare your key or whatever on L1. 2:05:00 So I think it's sort of almost half not an L2 because it's too tightly connected to L1 actually. 2:05:13 So it moves in lockstep with L1. And so I just think actually it's not, I think this is just 2:05:18 part of how the whole community has gone in the wrong direction where we allowed ourselves to get 2:05:24 brainwashed by Lightning. And, you know, people are trained for so long to just think of like, 2:05:30 oh, everyone who is against Lightning is like a big blocker or something. 2:05:37 And that's just how silly everyone is. I mean, I'm in favor of shrinking L1 block size. 2:05:43 And I always have been. You can even see it. I presented this in October 2016 at Scaling 3 2:05:50 about shrinking the L1 block size. So I'm probably the most consistent and smallest of blockers. 2:06:00 But it's just like everyone is slotted into these views, these simplistic views of just 2:06:09 where Lightning is just supposed to be great. And anyone who criticizes Lightning is just 2:06:15 immediately interpreted as an evil person who must be up to something. And that is exactly why 2:06:22 Lightning has successfully destroyed most of our culture. The people who originally created it were 2:06:28 not even, you know, like Taj Draja and Joseph Poon. They didn't even think it was that great. 2:06:33 And they quickly went along, quickly along to inventing the L1 block size. 2:06:37 Quickly along to inventing other things. Taj Draja went on to uTreeXO, which is actually way 2:06:43 cooler than the Lightning Network. And Joseph Poon did like Plasma and other stuff. So 2:06:53 it's just, we're all trapped by this mind virus. It's like the woke mind virus, except 2:06:59 Lightning instead of woke. 2:07:01 So this is this L2 thing. It's like, everyone's like, oh, L2, like they can't think of an L2 2:07:05 that's not Lightning, even though Lightning is not a good L2. 2:07:11 No, I agree with you now that DriveJ is not exactly the L2, that Layer 2 solution that we need. 2:07:20 Yeah, we seem to be down. Yeah, if you have more questions, I'd be happy to. We seem to be down to 2:07:25 only 18 though. So. 2:07:27 No, no, I'll take a rest. And we can have, we can ask other people to, you know, come up. 2:07:35 Yeah, come on up, other people. I see Moon Settler. 2:07:41 Moon Settler, come on up. CTV is a message of hope. We have not given up on scaling Bitcoin. 2:07:48 Remember this, when fees run insane high in the coming bull and the priests are telling you to 2:07:53 use custodial wallets. 2:07:56 See, so Moon Settler wisely said in a previous space that 2:08:04 people are always complaining about rushing things when in reality, things are basically 2:08:09 as far from being rushed as is possible. It's like just, it's just like unbelievable. And he's 2:08:18 just like unbelievable. And he's also saying, of course, he said like, well, it's a lot easier to 2:08:22 solve a problem when you've been working on it for a while and you have the solution ready 2:08:27 versus when there's some kind of emergency. That's when the, that's when the, 2:08:35 that's when the real attack will happen during the emergency that we didn't prepare for. 2:08:41 Anyway, Moon Settler doesn't seem to be coming up. So I guess he has 2:08:45 nothing to say in this space, but he is trying to get CTV activated as we discussed earlier. 2:08:54 And there is nothing wrong with CTV. It's perfectly safe. What's wrong is the soft fork process. It is 2:09:03 you know, Kafka-esque and absurd. And it's not, it's not in anyone's best interest, except for 2:09:10 a few people who are using it to virtue signal. And 2:09:19 so UAIA, I think he tried to come up here and was a speaker at some point, 2:09:24 but then I kept seeing it say connection, connecting, and he gets demoted again. 2:09:31 I don't know if he wanted to explain about the different carrots. I mean, I kind of understood 2:09:35 a little bit of a message that Bitcoin worked very well in the past, like a Merchant Popescu 2:09:43 type of a thing where it worked well in the past. And a lot of people are kind of 2:09:51 adding in new stuff and maybe diluting it to some extent and maybe, but maybe also increasing it 2:09:57 because, you know, 24 karat gold, I know one or two things about gold, just a little. And it's, 2:10:04 you know, it actually is, it's very, very easy to like bend or even, you know, if the gold is too 2:10:11 pure, that's not necessarily always the best thing. You can kind of like easily, it's like, 2:10:20 you know, it becomes like butter. But anyway, UAIA is here. So hello. 2:10:36 He's here, but he is muted. So, and he's connecting again. I don't know about you 2:10:43 guys, but I don't know. I have a new phone and everything and still this app just, you know, 2:10:48 I don't know. I seem to be really the only one who has these problems though. 2:10:53 I think it's UAIA side because everybody else is able to connect. 2:11:00 Now I see a double diversion of him. So I don't know. Maybe he will connect, maybe not. 2:11:09 So Paul, if you just give me a few seconds more, if someone else is not sure. 2:11:13 Sure. Sure. Sure. I feel the biggest resistance for drivechain is first of all, the enormous, 2:11:22 you know, size of it, of the change. I mean, it's, you know, people fear change all the time. 2:11:31 It's a philosophical change, but yeah, under the hood, it's really not a big, it's just 2:11:36 counting up to 13,000. If you actually read the BIPs themselves, you can kind of see that 2:11:42 what it's doing is really like, not that it's not like, it's just like a bunch of rules that 2:11:50 are just followed. And I don't know, but it is a big, it's a philosophical change because everyone 2:11:55 has been trained on thinking to compare Bitcoin versus Ethereum or Bitcoin versus Zcash. And then 2:12:04 we have all these, these post hoc rationalization, you know, nonsense that we say, well, we never 2:12:11 really wanted Zcash level privacy because we always wanted the, the most important thing is 2:12:17 to have the chain be auditable. And even on a sidechain that would, so it's like a bunch of 2:12:25 fakes. We never wanted Ethereum style, smart contracts. We never wanted Nick Szabo. 2:12:31 You know, we never wanted ring signatures. So we never wanted, we never wanted, it's all sour 2:12:36 grapes. You know, we never wanted to scale to 8 billion people. Bitcoin should only be for 2:12:41 the elite. And you're like, okay, is this a really a belief or is this just some story we invented? 2:12:49 You know, to, yeah. So, but that's the sense. That's the only sense in which it's a big change. 2:12:57 Under the hood, it's a very small change. It really is. It's just an opcode that'll unlock 2:13:01 some money if. As you said, it's a philosophical change and philosophical changes are much harder 2:13:08 to implement in a team or in a company rather than, you know, technically it's like you said, 2:13:14 it's not much of it, but philosophically it is. And it needs us someone who is very stubborn and 2:13:24 ruthless, you know, so I think that you are a correct person doing it at every platform. 2:13:32 And as the journey goes, more and more people will, you know, join you, try to learn this. 2:13:37 And from my experience, learning drivechain, reading about it through your blogs and videos 2:13:42 only. I mean, once you try to understand it, try to, you know, get away from the fear of 2:13:49 this philosophical change. It really makes sense. So, yeah, I'll rest. Thanks. Thanks. 2:13:59 Cool. Thanks. Well, anyone, if they want to come up, try to come up. 2:14:04 But if you don't come up, then we will end this space. So, going once, going twice. 2:14:14 It's a pretty good space today. 2:14:23 Was nice to hear Jamie say that he just completely and totally, he as a miner himself, 2:14:29 he completely and totally disagreed with everything that Peter Todd said. So, 2:14:35 that was good. Mark, we got a Mark that huddle here. 2:14:39 Hey, Paul, how you doing? Hey, we're listening to the conversation and I got a few questions. 2:14:42 Does your project in any way overlay with BitVM or Taproot or any of those technologies? 2:14:51 Well, that's an interesting question. I would say that Taproot is kind of a different thing. 2:14:57 BitVM, the creator, Robin Linus, has tweeted publicly that he kind of, one of the reasons 2:15:06 he created BitVM was because we could not get BIP300 quickly. So, he wanted like a workaround. 2:15:12 It's basically his way of achieving BIP300 without a soft fork, which I regard as kind of 2:15:19 silly because what does that really mean in practice? It's just the soft fork is just asking 2:15:24 51% of the miners to upgrade. But it's also asking Bitcoin Core to merge the code because it's like, 2:15:32 it's kind of an awkward thing to either ask miners to run a completely different piece of 2:15:38 software that's not Bitcoin Core. That's kind of a big ask. And it's also just to create an 2:15:44 alternative client that's also big. And it has to be totally compatible with all the things that 2:15:49 people expect Bitcoin Core to do. So, it's not that, certainly not easy, but I just, I find the 2:15:57 idea that we're going to do all these and logic gate thing. But yeah, so I think there is some 2:16:06 overlap in that sense. And I think also, yeah, okay. BitVM may have other problems such as 2:16:15 we had Super Testnet on the one after Thanksgiving and he compared the two. 2:16:20 And so, you could listen to that. Oh, yeah. 2:16:24 Were you on that? Should I, which? Yes, this is our thing on, I think if you go to layer2labs.com 2:16:32 and scroll down and find the spaces to be able to find it, it's a record space. And yeah, so 2:16:39 BitVM is very interesting, but it has a few disadvantages rather than BIP300. 2:16:45 Yeah, they're interesting projects. But can I also ask you another question? 2:16:49 They came up with an argument, I think it was Shinobi or somebody like that, 2:16:52 that the miner extracted value is going to be impossible to calculate under drivechain. 2:16:57 How would you, is that a true statement? Or would you say that? 2:17:01 No, I don't think that's true. I think that's just made up. I think Shinobi and there's a few people, 2:17:06 so like Peter is smart, Peter Todd. It's like Peter Todd, Alex B, Shinobi. 2:17:13 They are just, they refuse to like seriously engage with the idea and they have just, 2:17:18 they've hated it for years. And at this point, it would just be too humiliating for them to 2:17:22 change their mind. And I don't think they have any kind of rational basis for objecting the idea. 2:17:29 And I think they're kind of a lost cause. But to address the substance, the MEV, 2:17:37 what they're saying is that something like, I think, well, there really is no way to, because 2:17:46 let me sort of reset it for a second. Like the way blind merge mining works is it kind of 2:17:50 replaces the MEV with just an L1 transaction fee. So if there is MEV, 2:17:58 a sidechain, then it, that makes absolutely no difference. It's just layer one miners just 2:18:04 collect more money and they don't even see it because the whole blind merge mining part, 2:18:08 you can imagine a really bizarre scenario in which you get some kind of premium where this 2:18:13 enormous amount of stuff is happening across different chains. This is like, basically, 2:18:20 you know, this is very silly, but theoretically possible. And in that case, you need to run all 2:18:26 the different nodes in order to extract the most value. But after you do that, you will still 2:18:33 blind merge mine them all, which is the way of getting the most money. And so then the miners 2:18:37 will still not need to see it at all. So there is no MEV with drivechain. There is no MEV problem. 2:18:42 And the only people, Alex B wasted everyone's time with this for like two different spaces in a row 2:18:50 that he, both of which he later deleted, where he brought this issue up and then he just blah, 2:18:55 blah, blah for a long time. And what he ended up saying, he ended up saying that MEV is equal 2:19:00 to L1 fees going up. So that's how he ended up defining MEV. And the whole thing was a big waste 2:19:06 of everyone's time, especially mine. And, but so I just, I don't know if people can, uh, uh, I, 2:19:13 and I put down, I saw many times I told him just, why don't you write down an actual example with 2:19:18 numbers? And then he said that he would, and he never did that. And I could keep asking him and 2:19:23 then he just doesn't do it. So the whole thing is a, is a troll and just a waste of everyone's 2:19:27 time. But why don't you ask you, you can ask anyone who, who wants to raise that issue, 2:19:33 ask them to write, write it down on a piece of paper with the actual numbers and we'll see the 2:19:38 MEV. And plenty of people have actually messaged me to say two people messaged me to say, and then 2:19:45 one of the two people messaged Fiatjaf to say, he told me so through the grapevine, I've got four, 2:19:53 four people said that they originally agreed with Alex B and then they were so confident that they 2:19:58 set out to write down the example themselves. And when they wrote down the example, they saw that 2:20:03 in fact, uh, I was right. And. 2:20:06 They were completely wrong. So then they were, they kind of flipped. So anyone who actually undertakes this task will see, um, you know, that it's, it's not real. 2:20:19 I believe you. And I like what you said about lightning and being kind of a mind virus there. I do believe there are still technologies yet to be developed in Bitcoin and your technology along with BPM, I think are the leaders of this, um, technology in the domain. And I'm here to help you guys. Thank you. 2:20:36 Is it working now? 2:20:37 Cool. 2:20:38 Yeah. So we hear you UAIA. Here you are. 2:20:40 You made it. 2:20:41 Finally. Okay. It's good for me just to, to know that it's working. I'll get to a point as soon as I hear it. Just continue. 2:20:55 Yeah, sure. Or maybe didn't you say something about the different carrot gold, like the, um, pay to pub key hash versus being diluted lightning zero. Okay. Didn't Jamie say that you had said that, or was that someone else? 2:21:10 Yeah, I said that it's, uh, it's an old fault of mine. Anyway, it seems quite weird for me to, to hear you guys talking about money. So what exactly is money? My definition of money? I mean, in my language, I have two, two different words. We have money and we have currency and there's a big, a huge difference about that. 2:21:39 So when it comes to money, the money is that financial asset that you pass it to the future generation and understand that Bitcoin is it's, it's a new type of money. It's just the money of the current times. 2:21:57 So going back to the, to the association of, of gold and Bitcoin having different purities and having the, the pure Bitcoin that is, uh, that's on the, um, how do you call it? 2:22:19 I think that the Bitcoin purity is just how you hold it. You hold it in the legacy uncompressed addresses. That's the pure Bitcoin. Uh, you have the first of April, 2012, uh, the beta script that's less pure Bitcoin. You have the SegWit in 2017, that's 12 carats Bitcoin, 12 carats gold. 2:22:47 So it's not a problem for people to wear their necklace and earrings or whatever they want and having a less pure Bitcoin. That's it. Not sure if you, if you get it or if it makes sense. Okay. 2:23:08 Sure. I mean, money, how do you define it? Uh, I think the, to me, the difference between money and currency is a little bit overblown. Like I've heard this, the speech before, and I think there's something to it, but I think what normally this is coming from people who like want to push. 2:23:32 It's coming from like a libertarian critique of like gold is money and paper notes are just currency. And, uh, I don't know. I don't know if I really, I mean, I, I certainly believe a lot of libertarian economics, but I certainly, I don't know if I really go for this one. Like, does it really mean anything? 2:23:49 Um, I think that money is the method of payment. This is what I think. So I actually think if you go up to a, a washing machine, like the laundromat machine, and it only takes quarters and you only, you don't have any quarters, you only have bills, then you actually, you have no money and you have no, you have no ability to persuade the washing machine to say that. 2:24:11 Those are the, the specific of currency because you need to be a medium of exchange to be portable, visible, fungible, but anything can be used as money. If it has the, how do you call it? To, to keep value over time. 2:24:37 So the USD euro doesn't keep value over time. So that's the idea. That's the difference between. 2:24:45 But don't you say that the euro, most people would say, not necessarily meaning that what most people say as it goes, but most people would say that both the US dollar and the euro are both money. That's what most people see the question of what, what does the word mean? 2:24:59 It has two different directions you can go, which is one, as you can say, you can try to drill down to the essence of it. You know, like what, what is love? You know, what is justice? Which is sort of what we try to do here, I think. 2:25:16 But it's also, in a sense, money, the word is, what does the word mean? It's like, what do, what does it mean when they say that? Like when they say, you know, like in Spanish, they say, you could say me, my name is, but they say, they call me, you know, they call me. 2:25:37 But it's like, what does it mean? And if, you know, like, that's Amore, the song in Italian, like, what does it mean when they say it? It's like, 2:25:46 It doesn't make sense to care about what people think. We are having a discussion right now. If people don't get a difference between money and currency, people don't get a difference between using legacy addresses and using a lighting network. It's their problem. 2:26:04 I agree. 2:26:05 But I think we, in that play, in that situation, we might as well just, since it doesn't matter, like a definition can never really be wrong. It can only be inconsistent. So you might as well just carve out a new word. 2:26:17 If you say most people think that the euro is money, because what people seem to be wanting to do is what they seem to want is to do something like this, where they say, this is Bitcoin money. Oh, yes. And then once it achieves this, this, this threshold, then it switches from not being money. 2:26:38 Like maybe we have something where we don't want EOS or FTT. We don't want like shares of FTX or something. The point of defining the word is to sort the money things from the non money things. So it's kind of seems like what people are trying to do is they want to set up the game so that Bitcoin crosses the line, but a lot of other stuff does not cross the line. 2:27:02 And that's fine by me, but I'm just saying what they seem to then want to do is to tell the world, to tell the people who think that the euro is money. Listen, Bitcoin is also money because of such and such. And I just don't know if that – are we really getting anywhere if we do that? I'm not sure. 2:27:18 I'd agree with you. You have a life expectancy of 24 Bitcoin, of 2.4 billion seconds. You get no advantages talking about other people. You get no advantages worrying about other people not getting the drivechain or whatever payment system you try to invent. 2:27:42 For me, it makes no sense. We have payment systems. We have currencies. But when it comes to money, there was gold, maybe silver or maybe real estate. Otherwise, why would you spend your precious time worrying about other people? 2:28:04 Well, you're the one who asked about the definition. I think there's a lot of reasons to care about what other people think. And one of them is because there's only a limited amount of thinking that we can do by ourselves, and especially if you wanted to do the cutting edge. 2:28:18 Certainly, I think that participating in Bitcoin has been very interesting and has made me a lot of money. So I think I've gotten a lot out of it. I wouldn't really say it was wasted. The way other things, maybe with hindsight, I could regret spending time on this or that. I'd say this is a better thing to spend time on. 2:28:38 So how come that 15 years after Bitcoin was launched, you care about building a payment system and not raising awareness about Bitcoin? Nobody does that. Or maybe there are people trying to raise awareness about Bitcoin. 2:29:00 But I'd say that most of you, you're looking to make more money. At the end of the day, it's just your wallet and having more seconds in it, more satoshis in it. 2:29:13 Well, I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're asking. Why try to get people excited about... I mean, I would be a user of many of the sidechains. I would want to use the Zcash sidechain for privacy. I would want to use the payment sidechain. 2:29:39 And I feel dishonest shilling Bitcoin to people when it cannot scale to meet the whole world's demand, because that makes it vulnerable to replacement and going to zero. 2:29:54 You said earlier that it's not necessary for 8 billion people to own Bitcoin. 2:30:02 To own L1, but they would own Bitcoin on L2. 2:30:06 Do you think that just Bitcoin existing will reshape the world? Not even that most of the people are willing to use it. Just having a better form of money will affect what's going on on this planet? 2:30:25 It already has. Certainly, yes. It already has. 2:30:31 But I mean, you could say the same thing about the internet. You could say just having the internet, we have like dial-up internet, and we have internet from 1993 or earlier. We have Usenet. 2:30:44 Hasn't Usenet already changed the world? And sure, of course, the answer is obviously yes. That's not the point. The point is where all of us are missing out on the things that would later be invented, such as YouTube gives people the ability to learn anything they want to learn almost for free. 2:31:06 And then, of course, Bitcoin could not have been invented if computer technology, internet technology had stayed where it was. So we want better technology, and that includes even more ossified Bitcoin L1 that is not disturbed by altcoins or hard fork campaigns. 2:31:27 So I don't really see how it follows that just because Bitcoin is a good idea, then there's not lots more room at the top to make it much better. In fact, it's already so defective an idea that if the right amount of replacement ideas is combined, it will probably be replaced. 2:31:47 And then the project will fail, and it will go to zero. So we don't want that to happen. 2:31:53 I'd say that you get more advantages from raising awareness of Bitcoin, a new type of money, instead of trying to build the payment networks on top of Bitcoin. 2:32:08 We already have exceptional payment networks. Just trying to implement a new payment system to your local grocery stores, it's not efficient. 2:32:25 Yeah, but that's not what I'm trying to do. 2:32:29 What you are trying to do? You're trying to move shitcoins on the main chain or link shitcoins? 2:32:36 No, of course not. 2:32:38 Then what's drivechain? 2:32:40 Maybe you should research that a little before making all these weird assumptions and coming here and asking these bizarre questions. 2:32:51 Drivechain is a different L2. It's like a version of... I don't know what you already understand, so I'm not sure how to phrase it to you. 2:33:02 You're the author of drivechain. I don't need to read the book if I am able to speak right now with you. 2:33:11 Well, it allows you to send Bitcoin to a different piece of software and back. So that software could be its own blockchain. 2:33:21 This allows us to, for example, send it to Zcash-style blockchain where there is no Zcash altcoin on it at all, but it's the same software. 2:33:30 It's the same Zk-SNARK software. So you get a reusable Z address and the sender and the receiver and the amount are all private. 2:33:39 And just by sending to a... 2:33:43 How does it improve my life? 2:33:45 Well, do you... I mean, I don't know. Maybe it doesn't for you in particular, but for probably 8 billion people, I think it probably would. 2:33:55 How? I don't see how it will improve 8 billion people, their lives. 2:34:04 Okay, well, what about the privacy? Do you think privacy is important on Bitcoin or no? 2:34:10 You talk about transparency or the opacity of transactions, because it's a huge difference. For me, it doesn't make sense to use different addresses. 2:34:24 At the end of the day, you won't be able to seize my Bitcoin, whatever, if you know that I own those coins or not. 2:34:33 If they put you in jail and say, we will not let you out of jail until you send us these coins that we know that you own, that wouldn't be enough? 2:34:45 If they put me in jail, it's all good. I have Bitcoin in my mind. You can just give me some drugs and probably you won't be able to extract those coins from my brain. 2:34:57 I know, but wouldn't that be... you're saying the privacy sort of doesn't matter because... but I'm telling you that for many people, it does matter. And this is an exact scenario where... 2:35:15 You're wrong. For most people, it doesn't matter. They hold their value in their bank accounts. Their bank accounts can be seized any moment. 2:35:26 When it comes to Bitcoin, yeah, you can take an individual, put it in jail and force it to give you the private key. 2:35:34 Well, if you think that privacy is not important for Bitcoin, then I don't know, maybe it doesn't... maybe this project doesn't help you. 2:35:50 At the end of the day, I'd prefer to have money, no matter if you know that I own those coins or not. 2:35:58 Yeah. Do you think that money has network effects? So people prefer to use the money that most other people around them are using or no? 2:36:11 Not sure. No, they don't because they use different currencies. 2:36:20 Like when you go to Japan, like it's just a weird coincidence that everyone there is... all the people are all using yen at the same time and place. 2:36:28 It just clumps up at different times and places. Like in a region of space-time, everyone is like using the same money. But that's just like some weird coincidence. 2:36:38 I can use my Bitcoin in Japan. I can use... I buy things with Bitcoin even right now. All my purchases are Bitcoin. 2:36:51 Great. But that's not what I asked. Do you think money has network effects? Like why is it Bitcoin and not Feathercoin or like something even more obscure than that? 2:37:08 I understand that Bitcoin is not made to be spent. Bitcoin is a store of value. It's something that you're not able to find in any other forms of money right now in the current time. 2:37:24 But why does something, whether or not something is a store of value, that's completely unrelated to whether or not it's a medium of exchange? 2:37:34 It can be a good store of value and a bad medium of exchange or it can be a good store of value and a good medium of exchange or vice versa or whatever. So what difference does it make? 2:37:44 You're just like avoiding all these very clear questions that I'm trying to help you out here. 2:37:48 I don't get what... 2:37:50 Does money have network effects? I told you what it means. That people prefer to use the money that people around them are using. It's the same like language. 2:37:58 They all speak Japanese in Japan also, by the way. And they don't like to speak random languages. 2:38:05 You asked me to tell you my opinion about what other peoples are thinking. I'm not able to do that. I can tell you what I understand, not about other people. If you want to find the answer, just ask them. 2:38:21 Well, I mean, I don't plan on going to all the people in Japan and asking them. 2:38:27 To me, other people are not a complete black box. You know, there's plenty of things that all people want. 2:38:36 Because it's a pretty normal thing to want. Like they all want enough food and enough... 2:38:42 Okay, well, whatever. I don't know. Listen, you seem like you've got everything figured out. So good for you. 2:38:47 But nothing that you've just evaded all these simple questions like privacy is good. 2:38:53 Having more people be able to transact via cryptography and not via a custodian. 2:39:01 That is good. More mining revenue is good. The ability to ossify L1 and move software development to L2s. 2:39:11 That is good. That is what this project does. So you should look into it. 2:39:19 And also, all these monies compete. So if people become too complacent, the project will suffer. And if it suffers enough, it will just be replaced. 2:39:33 There's only enough room for one money at the end, in the endgame. 2:39:38 There is one single money right now. One single type of money right now that is efficient. It was gold before. Now it's Bitcoin. 2:39:49 I see that you focus a lot on the payment systems. You can use Bitcoin on top of Visa. 2:40:00 As Coinbase does. I send Coinbase my Bitcoin and they give me the opportunity. 2:40:07 But don't you understand that this is how gold works? 2:40:11 Gold has lost its place because it's not as good as Bitcoin. 2:40:14 What's the difference between you think that the reason why 2:40:18 you think that the reason why Bitcoin is going to replace gold 2:40:20 is because it is a better store of value? 2:40:24 You can check the numbers and you can find these out right now. 2:40:29 I'm not saying that. I know that it is a better store of value. 2:40:32 But are you saying that Bitcoin is going to replace gold 2:40:35 because it is a better store of value and not because it's also possible 2:40:39 to transact it directly? I haven't said that. 2:40:42 I'm asking you, though, ask it again. 2:40:48 Why is Bitcoin going to replace gold? 2:40:51 Because he's a better store of value. 2:40:55 But for no other reason. 2:40:57 That's the definition of money. 2:40:59 This makes the difference. For no other reason. 2:41:01 Yes. Just you can just say yes or no. 2:41:03 You don't have to evade every question. 2:41:05 Yeah, no. 2:41:07 That's it. It's a better store of value. 2:41:11 So that's the only criterion. 2:41:13 So if we if we created a fork of Bitcoin 2:41:17 that where the money supply shrunk. 2:41:20 Every year, because a certain percentage of the transaction 2:41:23 fees are just destroyed, according to you, 2:41:27 that would with absolute certainty that would replace Bitcoin. 2:41:32 I mean, it would be a better store of value. 2:41:33 You can say if you if you talk about the amount of Bitcoin 2:41:38 just to be doubled, you can say the same thing about gold. 2:41:42 Go to the moon, extract some gold and bring it back. 2:41:46 That's the idea of money. 2:41:50 It's scarce. I'm not interested in what is. 2:41:53 Is it the case that we can make a different version of Bitcoin? 2:41:57 We'll call it. 2:41:59 Call it whatever you you coin you a coin. 2:42:04 And it is the same as Bitcoin, but it's a better store of value 2:42:09 because it's the money supply actually shrinks every year 2:42:12 because a certain some 10 percent of what's collected in transaction 2:42:15 fees is destroyed. 2:42:17 According to you, this is the only criterion that makes any difference at all. 2:42:21 So it doesn't matter about recognizability or. 2:42:25 You know, anything like that, network effects don't matter. 2:42:29 So you're saying that it's certain that Bitcoin will be replaced by that 2:42:32 and Bitcoin will just go the way of gold. 2:42:34 I understand that it won't be replaced. 2:42:37 This is it. This is all. Why not? 2:42:40 Because why not? Is this a better store of value? 2:42:44 Give me an example. 2:42:45 You said there's no value. 2:42:47 You said I just gave you a direct example. 2:42:54 I don't get it. 2:42:56 Yes, you do not get it. I agree. 2:42:59 All right. Well, maybe you can get it later. 2:43:00 So now we have home home slash Paco is here. 2:43:05 Great. Hello. 2:43:09 Yeah, I have my friend that I can call. 2:43:11 That's so much. 2:43:14 It was kind of difficult to hear you a little bit, but it's not impossible. 2:43:18 But. Try to repeat what you said. 2:43:21 Now, listen carefully. 2:43:25 OK. 2:43:26 You hear me? 2:43:29 You hear me? 2:43:31 OK, it's not great, but you're going to hear it. 2:43:36 I do have a comment and a question. 2:43:40 So what's right now? 2:43:42 So if you could read it, it's actually for that guy. 2:43:49 I don't I really did not hear that very well. 2:43:51 But maybe he will find a quieter room or I don't know. 2:44:01 OK, well. 2:44:04 Anyone else? 2:44:07 What advantages you get from developing drivechains? 2:44:15 It doesn't matter to you, it doesn't matter, because you think that all this is going to be 2:44:19 replaced when a new cryptocurrency comes out, but that has slightly smaller supply. 2:44:25 I don't say it's a new. 2:44:28 Sorry. You hear me? 2:44:30 Yes, we can hear you now. 2:44:31 Yeah, it's a little quieter now. 2:44:33 I was only telling you, asking you if you could read the comments. 2:44:36 I had a comment asking something to that guy. 2:44:40 So I cannot talk too much right now. 2:44:45 OK, I'm going to read them now. 2:44:47 It's kind of weird, my app is really buggy enough as it is, I don't know why. 2:44:54 But I'm going to try to find him. 2:44:55 Here we go. 2:44:57 Comments, comments, comments. 2:45:00 I don't know. 2:45:03 Check the comments. 2:45:04 I'm trying. 2:45:06 I found a comment that says check the comments. 2:45:08 I don't know. 2:45:09 For some reason that I can't go through. 2:45:12 Doesn't really. 2:45:17 Why not, Cordell? 2:45:20 To the people who say drivechains bring shit coins to Bitcoin, why do L2s get a free pass on that? 2:45:25 Why does liquid get a pass to? 2:45:27 Yeah, this is this is an important comment. 2:45:31 I will expand on this, which is to say that there is zero sense. 2:45:38 That there is zero sense whatsoever that that drivechain brings shit coins to Bitcoin. 2:45:44 It's already possible through things like ordinals or counterparty or colored coins. 2:45:50 It's already possible to bring new coins. 2:45:55 New tokens, new shit coins to every chain, which includes the L1 chain and every sidechain. 2:46:03 And all of that has been possible since 2014 or whatever. 2:46:09 So I don't know what. 2:46:13 This is just the thing. 2:46:14 You can see how bad the critique is, though, that it's something that's completely and totally false. 2:46:21 Not a shred of truth to it at all. 2:46:24 But this is something people will repeat to each other on Twitter. 2:46:28 And that's, of course, what this drivechain is really about is deleting all the shit coins 2:46:34 because you make a new chain that has no shit going on it, but it only has Bitcoin on it. 2:46:40 So this is just a weird thing that it's just an example of this psychosis and, you know, 2:46:46 and how unreasonable people are and just further evidence of why they should really just be ignored. 2:46:52 But I don't know if there's any. 2:46:57 Anyone would like to come up or come back up? 2:47:11 What's the problem? 2:47:12 What are the issues that you're not able to put to drivechain online? 2:47:19 Make it possible. 2:47:22 Drivechain is a soft fork. 2:47:25 And so historically in Bitcoin, you kind of talk about those before you circulate them from the blockchain. 2:47:35 Historically in Bitcoin, you kind of talk about those before. 2:47:41 You circulate them for like peer review, although I don't even know if this is, you know, 2:47:45 this would be how it's described after the SegWit Taproot era. 2:47:51 Peter Todd said it quite interesting. 2:47:55 When you are not able to block a technology, you win by modifying the implementation of it. 2:48:12 If I'm not wrong. 2:48:14 What do you mean by that? 2:48:21 Oh, you think that this is going to block Bitcoin somehow? 2:48:26 No, I'd say drivechain. 2:48:29 I'd say drivechain is just a way to raise people's attention about what happened in Bitcoin before. 2:48:38 And I talk about what happened on the 1st of April 2012. 2:48:45 When Gavin introduced pay to script. 2:48:50 Yes. 2:48:51 So what is your point about that? 2:48:55 My point is that giving up an opportunity, changing the protocol, changing the way Bitcoin works. 2:49:05 It makes less efficient for people to understand it. 2:49:12 I agree with that. 2:49:13 I find it very annoying that people that we push so many complicated changes into Bitcoin. 2:49:19 And I think that it's no good. 2:49:22 People don't run a node, but also it doesn't make any difference because the nodes don't really explain to like a human what they're doing. 2:49:30 And so the node is a black box anyway. 2:49:33 And I don't I don't see what the point of that is. 2:49:36 So I I'm pro simple L1. 2:49:42 I'm in favor of that. 2:49:43 I'm in favor of that. 2:49:47 What makes you. 2:49:48 I don't think pay to script hash. 2:49:50 I don't think pay to script hash is that confusing. 2:49:52 Pay to script hash just says that. 2:49:55 You will hash the. 2:49:57 The person is going to provide a script when they want to spend the money and then you hash that instead of hashing it before. 2:50:04 Instead of hashing it preemptively, you hash it when you spend it. 2:50:08 So that's not really that. 2:50:09 That's not really that. 2:50:11 That's not that mystifying. 2:50:12 It's a possibility that is a possibility for miners just to fork and get back to the Bitcoin version before pay to script. 2:50:25 Well, it's theoretically possible, but in practice, it's not really possible because. 2:50:31 But it's theoretically possible. 2:50:32 But why would you want to do that? 2:50:33 I mean, do you actually do you actually dislike pay to script hash or do you just dislike the idea that something has happened to L1? 2:50:43 I'd say that something happened to L1 in 2012 when pay to script was introduced. 2:50:51 Yes, but what is what what do you dislike about pay to script hash? 2:50:55 Doesn't give me an opportunity to to be my own bank to to. 2:51:04 Just just give me having it gives me the opportunity to use multisig. 2:51:10 Doesn't make sense for me to use multisig. 2:51:14 I know, but do you personally think that like if someone is going to share if someone if Elon Musk is going to ship a car, 2:51:22 to someone else, you personally have to use the the radio and windshield wiper, cleaner fluid lever and stuff. 2:51:32 It's like, what about what other people want? 2:51:36 Again, I'm not able to read other people's minds. 2:51:41 But I'm not asking you to do that. 2:51:42 I'm just saying, is it good for. 2:51:46 Like, why do you think that I am talking about that? 2:51:48 Because what I'm just talking about is. 2:51:51 Providing a feature like an option for other people to use. 2:51:56 I'd say that you just try to raise people's attention, just raise their attention about what happened with Bitcoin. 2:52:05 Yeah, but that is caring about what's in other people's minds. 2:52:08 It is the most efficient way I've seen it in this space. 2:52:13 I can agree with that. 2:52:18 You're not a big, you're not a big blocker. 2:52:24 My. 2:52:26 I'm wrong. 2:52:30 I don't know what you're saying at this point, but I'm not a big blocker. 2:52:36 Didn't I just say earlier in the space that I consistently for a smaller box. 2:52:44 I'm not a big blocker. 2:52:47 I'm not a big blocker. 2:52:48 Didn't I just say earlier in the space that I consistently for a smaller box. 2:53:00 So, yes, as I already mentioned in this space. 2:53:04 You can look up at scaling three, my talk, and I say we should shrink the L1 block size, and I still say that. 2:53:11 I'm one of the few people with a consistent block size shrink target. 2:53:21 So I don't know who you are, but you seem like a very confused person. 2:53:27 The issue with money is more than a store of value. 2:53:31 A store of value is only one of its three functions. 2:53:35 And this is like, you know, a couple of things in life, they need to have like a language, for example. 2:53:44 It needs to have many different functions. 2:53:46 So one is it needs to be accurate. 2:53:49 Like when we use words, we need to know what the other person is saying. 2:53:53 But it also needs to be somewhat parsimonious, which is like the languages of the ants in Lord of the Rings. 2:54:00 I don't know if you know what I'm talking about, but it's a fictional creature. 2:54:05 I haven't seen it anyway. 2:54:08 They have a very funny language where it takes them a very long time to say something. 2:54:14 And that's funny because it's a work of fiction. 2:54:17 But in the real world, it doesn't work. 2:54:19 So it's simply false that money can only be saved and never spent. 2:54:26 And in fact, there are two sides of the same coin, because you can just say when the money is storing a value is moving it through time. 2:54:36 But you have to eventually move it to something. 2:54:39 Otherwise, it's just destroyed. 2:54:41 And it's at the bottom of the ocean. 2:54:44 The same thing is whenever it's spent, you can just say, well, how long was it since it was last spent? 2:54:49 And it was stored until then. 2:54:51 So saving and spending are sort of the same thing. 2:54:53 Anything can be used. 2:54:55 In any event, there is no such thing as money that is only a store of value or only a medium of exchange. 2:55:04 Anything can be used as money if it follows seven conditions. 2:55:10 It should be a medium of exchange, accounting unit, be portable, be durable, be divisible, be fungible, and retain value. 2:55:21 When it comes to currency, the currency doesn't retain value over time. 2:55:27 Why do you butcher that thing? 2:55:33 Moon, you made it. 2:55:35 I don't know. 2:55:36 Hello, guys. 2:55:37 I don't know what he's talking about. 2:55:39 I don't know either. 2:55:40 But it was funny hearing that, can we undo pay-to-script? 2:55:46 Because that's kind of how Bitcoin was born. 2:55:49 So no, we can't really undo pay-to-script. 2:55:51 Pay-to-script hash was actually just a little bit, you know, turning it around. 2:55:59 Can you undo ordinals? 2:56:01 Because if you were able to undo ordinals, you would be able to undo pay-to-script. 2:56:07 We can't undo ordinals because ordinals have been possible since day one. 2:56:13 The only way to undo ordinals would be to hash for Bitcoin into having confidential transactions because that would pretty much make it impossible to count satoshis. 2:56:26 I agree. 2:56:28 I heard people say that, Moon, but actually I was wondering if they couldn't, I think to me, probably they would be able to invent a way of counting them anyway. 2:56:44 I'm not sure, but I think you could always say like the order of the public keys in the ring signature determines who's, maybe you don't really know. 2:56:53 But I think actually they'd probably be able to. 2:56:56 You could maybe come up with another thing, but the current ordinal system would be completely broken by confidential transactions. 2:57:08 So how is the CTV, whatever you want to call it? 2:57:15 We already got Luke to say that it's an attack on Bitcoin. 2:57:18 No, no, no. 2:57:20 What happened was that we are all Bitcoiners and Bitcoiners can't fucking agree on anything, like anything whatsoever. 2:57:30 So in the CTV activation chat, everyone is just shouting at the others that they are fucking stupid and that's not what we should be doing. 2:57:41 And there is this guy, FDO or FD0 or the floppy disk guy, I'm not sure if you know him. 2:57:49 So he is basically, he is like a force of nature, there is absolutely no controlling him. 2:57:56 And he just went ahead and wrote up a speedy trial activation client for CTV. 2:58:03 He simply doesn't give a fuck about what other people want. 2:58:06 And Luke considered that an attack on Bitcoin because he thinks speedy trial is an attack on Bitcoin, not CTV. 2:58:13 It has nothing to do with CTV. 2:58:15 And other people have been arguing for days about LOT equals true or false. 2:58:21 And there is absolutely no consensus on it because again, Bitcoiners can't fucking agree on anything, like anything whatsoever. 2:58:29 Even on a fucking true or false activation parameters. 2:58:32 And so people are probably going to create like a bunch of activation clients and everyone will just do whatever the fuck they want. 2:58:43 Yeah, that sounds like it would be confusing to miners who are going to, because of course the miners will have to look at the situation and decide. 2:58:53 I don't know, this will be great. 2:58:55 I think we'll all benefit from this experiment. 2:58:57 So I cheer it on. 2:58:59 I think we'll all learn something. 2:59:02 I just don't understand Luke. 2:59:04 Luke just really, really, really, really, I think Luke's belief is insane. 2:59:10 But I applaud him for his consistency. 2:59:13 But his belief goes something like this. 2:59:15 If you don't run the latest version of Bitcoin, you aren't, not only you're not running Bitcoin, but you are like, if the people who behave like you reaches 20%, then you have killed Bitcoin. 2:59:29 And he, Luke always does this where, you know, you could say, on one hand, is it language games or is it hypnosis or is it just brainwashing or is it insanity? 2:59:42 I don't know, but why would someone kill Bitcoin, which is like, that already has a pretty defined meaning of like, no one uses it, its price is zero, the project is dead. 2:59:53 Listen, Luke has his own axiom system, he has his own logic framework and he's unbeatable in that. 3:00:00 If you go into that and play his game, he is going to win because he's unbeatable in that. 3:00:05 If you reject his axioms, if you reject his framework, then you will think he's insane and he doesn't make any sense. 3:00:13 So that's the situation with Luke. 3:00:15 I don't think he believes he's lying. 3:00:18 Like, I don't think he ever states something that he does not believe to be true. 3:00:21 But what he is saying sounds pretty insane at times. 3:00:27 So, yeah, so that's his position on what it means to run a full node and what it means for Bitcoin to be alive. 3:00:35 And, you know, I have actually examined it a little bit and it is insane, but I've said stuff like, what if we start with 80,000 nodes and then someone runs 500 million nodes of a new protocol 3:00:47 and then now you're the attack on Bitcoin. But, you know, as you can imagine, he's got a weird way of answering all these questions and I don't buy it. I think it's all nonsense. 3:01:00 But he's he has this view that there is only one. It's kind of a very religious view where there's only one full node that is the real one, like the real religion and anything else is a heresy. 3:01:16 And it's like so to. So he cannot tolerate like a kind of disagreement, like he cannot tolerate like the idea that some people would want CTV activated, whereas other people would just wait and they only upgrade their full node like every three years. 3:01:36 And they're kind of indifference to this. That does not really work for him, so I don't know. 3:01:42 Listen, we tried speedy trial. I mean, not me, Jeremy. Jeremy gave a speedy trial ago and there was a huge pushback. So it seems like the Bitcoin plebs, they don't actually want speedy trial. 3:01:56 They are pretty much against it at the moment. And of course, there is absolutely no consensus on that. But it seems like more people support BPAYT activation with LOT equals true than not. 3:02:13 And frankly, what I'm hoping is that if we go with that, then everyone who wants to argue with us, we have to argue with Luke. And you really don't want to do that. So I'm kind of going with Luke on this one. And we will see how it goes. 3:02:33 Okay, great. We had a hamster wheel, but he got knocked off. Maybe he will get back. I don't know. But I saw him go to connecting and then listener. So I don't know if that is the app or whatever. 3:02:58 This activation thing, by the way, is completely insane. I think people are literally insane in Bitcoin. 3:03:10 What it is, is it's set up in a way where, first of all, no one argues about the content of the idea. So no one actually has an opinion on CTV. It's all about the activation. And everyone wants it to just be something where it goes through them so that every single person needs to personally, whatever. Jeremy Rubin has to suck everyone's dick or whatever. Or else they're not going to do it. And that's the whole thing is just set up for that. 3:03:39 Not only they don't have an informed opinion on CTV, but they don't even know what they are talking about when they are discussing activation methods. 3:03:50 And I thought I know what I was talking about. But again, in Luke's framework, it turns out I did not because I thought that be paid with LLT was true is a USF. But Luke apparently said that no, that's not a USF. So that got me completely confused on what is going on. 3:04:07 So I don't even want to figure out who thinks what about this anymore, because people are just literally insane. 3:04:18 Only uninformed opinions. 3:04:21 We got the hamster back. 3:04:23 Hello. 3:04:24 Hey, Paul, I just wanted to obviously with the facebox, a lot of spaces, people are complaining about fee increases. I just wanted to have you dive a bit more on your position of why the block size should shrink when a lot of people now starting to argue whether there's. 3:04:41 Yes. 3:04:43 Yeah, so I think that because of the because of the future, I imagine involves many different merge mine sidechains. 3:04:54 I think people transact over there. And I have published a post called a thunder. If you search like truth going that info thunder, you can read in detail my my exact position and it has actual numbers and it has an appendix with like costs and things. 3:05:11 But my view is that most people will not use L1. And in fact, I think you can think like the I don't know if you were around for the whole metaphor that I gave about like the Bank of International Settlements and then the Fed and then the small bank commercial bank that we all have an account with. 3:05:28 And then the individual people who transact. So at the bottom of the pyramid, so to speak, there's the end user. And we do many transactions with like Visa or like with just cash or with a debit card. 3:05:40 And in comparison that many of these transactions net out, and so the banks themselves, they don't do that many as many transactions as the individual people do. They do a ton, but they don't do as many. It must be orders of magnitude less. 3:05:56 And by the time you make it up to how many transactions does the Fed actually do using the Bank of International Settlements with other banks? 3:06:03 And how many so like the gold fix or something, the actual how many times do you actually ship a battleship worth of gold between countries? 3:06:16 It's orders of magnitude less. And already the L1 blocks, it's 1000 blocks a week. And so in its 2000 something transactions a block. So that's already, you know, just multiply that out 2 million plus. 3:06:34 So that is already an enormous quantity. That's a huge amount. And we don't need those at the top. The top ones are just settle among the lower layers. And so my vision is for very low fees all around low fee rates, but a high quantity of fee paying transactions on different merge mine sidechains of which we only run a few. 3:07:03 So that is the that is the goal is to get get people off of the expensive L1 and get them onto the cheaper L2. And I think that is that is the only configuration that works unless you want to have any large blocks on L1. 3:07:20 Or if you just want to give up with that model, is it is there any reason for the user to have the blockchain of the L1 if they're all operating on the L2 wouldn't it just be the L2? 3:07:34 No, the way that it works. 3:07:39 Sorry, go ahead. 3:07:40 I was just gonna say it doesn't that it in my mind, I probably haven't got a good grasp of it. But it just the rationalization for smaller blocks is that anyone can download the blockchain. So if, if it's only the large companies that are using that base layer, why would it be that you'd need to have smaller blocks? 3:08:01 The, well, the small everyone will prefer to be on the lowest level if they can, because that's always the it's more redundant, it is around the longest, it is more fundamental. So like we would all we would prefer to be on people prefer to be on that. 3:08:22 To run the L2 node, you need to run an L1 node, they are asymmetric and hierarchical. So you must the only way the L2 node will work, for example, is that it must know when people have deposited coins from it to it from L1. 3:08:41 So every L2 node needs a full L1 node. Otherwise, it just won't, it will never detect any deposits, it will never detect anything, it'll just, it will be confused. So that is the key. So that it and that is in fact why you have the L1 be very small, and you have the L2 be very large block. Let's say for that exact reason. 3:09:07 Perfect. Thanks so much. Cheers. 3:09:11 Thanks. So yeah, I don't know, Moonsettler, it's, it's people are crazy, of course. And I don't know. But I think this is this is what you have to do. I mean, you and I together, and everyone who cares about Bitcoin, we have to like just, you know, like hold up a shine a spotlight on how absurd the process is, because 3:09:36 it is very absurd. And I don't understand what it's talking about. If you think LLT true. Why? Because it has miner signaling. So what exactly does... 3:09:46 So for the audience, maybe we should catch up on this. So BIP9 is speedy trial. And everyone seems to be claiming lately that is an attack on Bitcoin. Although the Bitcoin Core developers and also the Bitcoin developers, highly technical people prefer BIP9, because they know it's less risky. 3:10:09 And I like BIP9. BIP9 is how we activated many, many soft forks. And so what I like about it is it already works. And there's no bike shedding, because it's the status quo. And we just we just ignore what happened with the block size debate. And we just go back to this. But, but anyway, 3:10:27 So the developers usually prefer BIP9, except for Luke and a few others who claim it's an attack on Bitcoin. And it shouldn't be so because the miners have a choice of not activating the fork, even though it's always implicit, as James O'Bernie and other people pointed out. 3:10:51 It's always, always implied that if BIP9 fails, if the speedy trial fails, then we are just going to UASF anyhow, if the fork is important. But it's the lowest risk way of activating something quickly. 3:11:07 But there are a few preconditions to be this that that seems to be like the people require. And again, it's more popular in core developers and a lot of people are claiming that this is an attack by core and it shouldn't be used. 3:11:29 And the interesting logical impossibility of this all is, as I like to say, is people are so mad about the possibility that the miners won't activate something that they could activate, is that they would oppose it so that the miners can't activate it. 3:11:51 It doesn't matter. Think about 2017. 3:11:57 Just think about 2017. Miners have no controls on your value. 3:12:06 They can. 3:12:07 No, this is nothing. I don't know. This is a kind of like a weird guy. I don't know. But he's. 3:12:13 Come on. 3:12:14 This 2017 is widely misinterpreted as saying the miners tried to change Bitcoin and they failed. But really, what actually happened was in 2017, was that there was a miner activated. 3:12:27 We have five million bitcoins stored on on batch 32 addresses. Based on what you're talking, you can afford back. And those five million coins will be just anyone can spend. And that's it. 3:12:43 Well, you don't seem to believe in the any. I mean, you're saying that miners do activate those softworks. 3:12:52 No, no, no, no. 3:12:53 But for the miners, they would all be lost. And the only thing that's keeping them in force is that miners only build on. So you're saying you actually take a pure miner view. 3:13:03 Miners are not able to if they want to fork all good. I'll have my coins. I have my my value stored on the main chain in the in the legacy and compressed addresses. And I have value on the forked chain. It happened in 2017. If you want to do it again, please do it. Free money for me. 3:13:28 What are you referring to? 3:13:30 Anyway, I don't know. This guy's a weird guy, but details about that. 3:13:34 What actually happened in 2017 was that we actually activated SegWit with a miner activated soft fork pre-UASF. And then separately, there was a spinoff Bitcoin Cash that had nothing to do with mining. Like at all. It was an August 1st. Completely different. So I don't know. 3:14:00 The bizarre thing is that it is, in fact, required that everyone who is running the new. I think about it like this. Satoshi introduces Bitcoin in 2009. And then after that, the Bitcoin miners of 2009, they're the ones who built the blockchain of 2009. 3:14:18 2008. 3:14:20 So there's no way for there to be any people in building the like the miners must upgrade in order for the soft fork to activate. Someone may not be the same miners, but they must upgrade to get profits to continue to get profit. 3:14:41 This is a complete clusterfuck, by the way. 3:14:43 In 2017, the miners switched to the Bcash chain because it was more profitable for them to mine that chain. 3:14:53 They switched back and forth. 3:14:54 Yeah. 3:14:56 But it's a complete clusterfuck because people assume that miners are running the software. But in reality, almost none of them do in the signaling period. 3:15:08 So in the signaling period, they are just signaling readiness or willingness. I don't know what. But as I heard, very few of them actually run the new software. 3:15:17 They don't switch so easily over. So they just flip the bits and fuck with us and let us have our fun with the activation drama. 3:15:25 But they don't actually touch the node software. 3:15:28 So this is an interesting tidbit to all of this, but it is beside the point. 3:15:32 So what I wanted to say, so BIP-9 is speedy trial and in BIP-8 you have two options. 3:15:39 And one is L-O-T equals false and the other is L-O-T equals true. 3:15:44 And the difference between them is that L-O-T equals false is kind of similar to speedy trial in that if the miners do not signal readiness to the threshold in any epoch, then basically the software will not force to activate. 3:16:04 And in L-O-T equals true, you will have a lockout, locking on timeout time date or whatever you want to call it. It's actually a block height. 3:16:14 So you have a block height at which the upgrading node software is starting to do a filtering. 3:16:22 Like they will not propagate blocks that do not signal and stuff like that. 3:16:29 They keep track of those blocks and they don't block the other clients, but they deem it invalid. 3:16:34 They won't advance that change state and they don't propagate the non-signaling blocks. 3:16:38 And this is how they try to force the miners to signal. 3:16:41 So that is what people refer to as a UASF. 3:16:45 Of course, you could do a UASF with a simple deadline activation. 3:16:49 Like you could program the node software to simply start enforcing the rules at a certain date. 3:16:55 But most developers feel that actually having the miners being able to communicate with each other in a peer-to-peer fashion and being able to signal readiness and stuff is actually valuable. 3:17:09 So that is why we have this whole circus with the miners signaling thing. 3:17:14 So I just wanted to give a recap to people to understand that BP8LOT equals false is kind of forcing, trying to force the miners. 3:17:26 And the problem with that is, of course, if the miners would connect to each other through the Bitcoin peer-to-peer network, the peer-to-peer relay network, then this would be a very, very powerful tool. 3:17:39 Because imagine if the nodes are not propagating your blocks, then you would be in a real bad position compared to other miners whose blocks are getting propagated. 3:17:49 It would be a huge and enormous economic pressure. 3:17:52 The problem is the miners have their own high-speed relay network, and they don't actually depend on PLEB nodes to do their block relaying. 3:18:00 So they don't actually give a fuck about that. 3:18:02 I'm just trying to highlight the fact that it actually is – the software doesn't actually activate until there are miners running the new software. 3:18:14 Because you can just imagine a scenario where it's impossible for any miner to run the new software. 3:18:19 Right now, the chain will just stall. 3:18:21 No one will ever find a block. 3:18:24 So that's a weird scenario. 3:18:25 But people try to say – people like Luke, they try to say miners never activate the soft fork. 3:18:31 But really, that is the only necessary and sufficient condition. 3:18:35 The whole origin of the soft fork is just if miners only build on blocks that extend the rules, we don't need everyone else to upgrade. 3:18:43 So the whole thing was very – Luke has a very different view. 3:18:46 The whole reason the soft fork was invented was because people knew that not everyone would do the Dasherian thing, the Lukian thing, of everyone running the latest version. 3:19:01 If everyone was always running the latest version, we'd have our own other more severe problems, like who's releasing this version, and why do they have this godlike power to impose their will on everyone? 3:19:12 It's the drop of a hat. 3:19:14 But I'm not going to argue with Luke. 3:19:16 I think my life is too short for that. 3:19:22 Right. 3:19:23 So anyway, I'm kind of of the opinion that you should just get 51% hash rate to – but other people, they really, really like the hats, and they like thinking you're so important. 3:19:36 I wanted to say something about the 51%. 3:19:39 So we have a decision now. 3:19:41 We are trying to determine the optimal ratio of signaling for Lukian. 3:19:51 And you would think that 51% is like okay. 3:19:56 In fact, FloppyDisk guy actually wants to go with 30%. 3:20:00 I don't know why. 3:20:01 I don't know what kind of logic goes in there. 3:20:05 Obviously, you need at least 51% to truly enforce rules. 3:20:10 If you can even believe the miners – because like I said, miners signaling is a bit of a lark. 3:20:14 It doesn't really mean anything. 3:20:16 But let's say you actually believe that it's true. 3:20:21 Even then, what is 51% at a point of time? 3:20:25 By the time it comes to the activation window with new hash rate adding to the network, it might actually not mean 51%. 3:20:31 And then you have a problem. 3:20:33 Because maybe the proof-of-work network goes one way, and the nodes that are enforcing the new rule set are simply folded off, as you said, 3:20:43 because it is not profitable or whatever reason nobody is mining it. 3:20:50 But I don't think that's a big deal. 3:20:51 This is just a noisy metric. 3:20:52 So I would just say it's 51. 3:20:54 It's 50.0000001 is the real threshold plus a bunch to account for the noise. 3:21:01 So just say it's 55%. 3:21:03 It's more like 85% is considered to be the minimum safe threshold. 3:21:09 All things considered. 3:21:11 And the recommended threshold is actually 90%. 3:21:15 And that is like a very high threshold. 3:21:17 If you think about it, the chances of getting that is very, very low. 3:21:21 And that's interesting. 3:21:25 And I'm not sure what to think about that. 3:21:28 But basically the bar is set so high that it's almost impossible to achieve like a miner activation. 3:21:36 That's why you are not able to move with your beeps. 3:21:43 Because the 51% attack already happened just running the new software. 3:21:50 The attack happened already. 3:21:54 And they are just blocking you. 3:21:56 I'm going to say this now. 3:21:58 Shut the fuck up, you retard. 3:22:04 It is very difficult to understand. 3:22:06 You don't know what you are talking about. 3:22:08 You have no idea what you are talking about. 3:22:09 Shut the fuck up. 3:22:13 I have to go at 430. 3:22:15 So this has been a lot of fun, though. 3:22:20 I actually do agree with Moon, though. 3:22:23 I don't understand what you are talking about most of the time. 3:22:27 But it is a very interesting point of view. 3:22:36 I should really leave now. 3:22:38 I have a little thing to do. 3:22:40 So I have to go. 3:22:43 This has been great. 3:22:44 Merry Christmas to all. 3:22:45 I hope to see everyone back again. 3:22:49 Merry Christmas to all who celebrate Christmas and also the other holidays that are great. 3:22:56 Happy Solstice. 3:22:58 And see everyone later. 3:23:02 Bye.
