1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:14,240
Welcome to Drivechain Twitter Spaces, hosted by LayerTwo Labs.

2
00:00:14,240 --> 00:00:20,639
We are excited to have another conversation with you, our many fans and supporters, as

3
00:00:20,639 --> 00:00:30,120
well as newcomers, critics, and members of the crypto and Bitcoin communities.

4
00:00:30,120 --> 00:00:35,560
Today is Friday, August 18th, 2023.

5
00:00:35,560 --> 00:00:38,639
We're going to have another awesome conversation about Drivechain.

6
00:00:38,639 --> 00:00:49,119
Drivechain is Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 300 and 301.

7
00:00:49,119 --> 00:00:50,880
Welcome to the stage, Paul.

8
00:00:50,880 --> 00:00:51,880
Happy Friday.

9
00:00:51,880 --> 00:01:00,000
Hi, I can mostly just listen for the next 15 minutes, but then I'll be able to talk

10
00:01:00,000 --> 00:01:01,680
as well.

11
00:01:01,680 --> 00:01:05,000
All right, understood.

12
00:01:05,000 --> 00:01:11,559
So everyone who is coming to the space, welcome.

13
00:01:11,559 --> 00:01:14,360
Welcome to our many fans and listeners.

14
00:01:14,360 --> 00:01:19,599
I see familiar faces joining the audience.

15
00:01:19,599 --> 00:01:27,279
Everyone's welcome to raise your hand, come on up, ask a question, share a comment.

16
00:01:27,279 --> 00:01:31,919
People can learn about Drivechain at layer2labs.com.

17
00:01:31,919 --> 00:01:34,720
There is a wealth of information there.

18
00:01:34,720 --> 00:01:41,639
Everyone is encouraged to download the testnet software, recently upgraded and improved very

19
00:01:41,639 --> 00:01:44,080
significantly.

20
00:01:44,080 --> 00:01:50,599
There's a lot of stuff you can learn by reading essays on Drivechain written by Fiatjaf,

21
00:01:50,599 --> 00:01:59,639
SuperTestNet, John Light, Paul Sztorc, and many others.

22
00:01:59,639 --> 00:02:04,919
I like to call it the Drivechain canon, the essays by those four people.

23
00:02:04,919 --> 00:02:06,040
Everyone should read those essays.

24
00:02:06,040 --> 00:02:12,279
If you're non-technical and participating in a testnet feels like a challenge to you,

25
00:02:12,639 --> 00:02:19,080
you can read those essays and develop a strong understanding of the incredibly powerful economic

26
00:02:19,080 --> 00:02:22,119
potential of Drivechain.

27
00:02:22,119 --> 00:02:31,360
Drivechain leverages Bitcoin's monetary policy and miners for new networks, enabling innovation

28
00:02:31,360 --> 00:02:36,080
and experimentation built on Bitcoin.

29
00:02:36,080 --> 00:02:40,279
Drivechain would open up a renaissance of development on Bitcoin.

30
00:02:40,279 --> 00:02:46,639
It would be potentially one of the best things ever in Bitcoin's history, transformative,

31
00:02:46,639 --> 00:02:52,279
enormous value accrual potential to Bitcoin's blockchain.

32
00:02:52,279 --> 00:02:58,039
We believe this is number-go-up technology like people have never seen before, potentially

33
00:02:58,039 --> 00:03:02,479
huge value accrual to Bitcoin.

34
00:03:02,479 --> 00:03:11,119
Just as important, value accrual to Bitcoin's block space, bringing fee revenue to the miners.

35
00:03:11,119 --> 00:03:17,479
Despite the halvings, we think that Drivechain can boost fee revenue enormously, strengthening

36
00:03:17,479 --> 00:03:24,479
Bitcoin's mining community, strengthening Bitcoin's economic security.

37
00:03:24,479 --> 00:03:33,880
Yes, I think the better thing, though, is that this should be like a Q&A.

38
00:03:33,880 --> 00:03:49,440
So if anyone with the audience should suggest a topic, it shouldn't just be a robotic reading

39
00:03:49,440 --> 00:03:53,479
of Drivechain talking points.

40
00:03:53,479 --> 00:04:02,440
So if anyone has something they want to talk about, then they should.

41
00:04:02,440 --> 00:04:12,080
I think we could also go over events of the week, but I'll do that in a couple of minutes

42
00:04:12,080 --> 00:04:12,919
when I get back to my house.

43
00:04:23,480 --> 00:04:24,480
Thank you.

44
00:04:24,480 --> 00:04:25,480
Thank you.

45
00:04:25,480 --> 00:04:26,480
Thank you.

46
00:04:53,480 --> 00:04:54,480
Thank you.

47
00:04:54,480 --> 00:04:55,480
Thank you.

48
00:05:23,480 --> 00:05:24,480
Thank you.

49
00:05:24,480 --> 00:05:25,480
Thank you.

50
00:05:25,480 --> 00:05:26,480
Thank you.

51
00:06:23,480 --> 00:06:43,480
So, hey, guys, can you hear me?

52
00:06:43,480 --> 00:06:48,480
Yeah, I can hear you.

53
00:06:49,480 --> 00:06:50,480
Sure.

54
00:06:50,480 --> 00:06:54,480
So I have a slightly technical question regarding the...

55
00:06:54,480 --> 00:06:58,480
So there's 2.6 slots for Drivechains.

56
00:06:58,480 --> 00:07:03,480
But I also know that you can do Drivechains in Drivechains.

57
00:07:03,480 --> 00:07:06,480
But I'm trying to figure out exactly how that would work.

58
00:07:06,480 --> 00:07:10,480
So we have a limited Drivechains, basically.

59
00:07:10,480 --> 00:07:13,480
But I'm not sure exactly how that would work with the miners there.

60
00:07:13,480 --> 00:07:16,480
So yeah, interesting to know about this.

61
00:07:18,480 --> 00:07:19,480
Thank you.

62
00:07:19,480 --> 00:07:21,480
Thank you.

63
00:07:49,480 --> 00:07:50,480
Thank you.

64
00:07:50,480 --> 00:07:51,480
Thank you.

65
00:08:18,480 --> 00:08:31,480
I don't hear anything from Hampus.

66
00:08:31,480 --> 00:08:34,479
No, I don't hear anything.

67
00:08:34,479 --> 00:08:35,479
Hello?

68
00:08:35,479 --> 00:08:36,479
Hello?

69
00:08:36,479 --> 00:08:37,479
Yes.

70
00:08:37,479 --> 00:08:38,479
Can you hear me?

71
00:08:38,479 --> 00:08:40,479
It's definitely extremely buggy.

72
00:08:40,479 --> 00:08:41,479
Okay.

73
00:08:41,479 --> 00:08:46,479
I was just trying to be connected for a while or something.

74
00:08:47,479 --> 00:08:52,479
I started to hear someone ask about 250 slots.

75
00:08:52,479 --> 00:08:53,479
Okay.

76
00:08:53,479 --> 00:08:54,479
I tried.

77
00:08:54,479 --> 00:08:57,479
I said I could look, but maybe it didn't come through.

78
00:08:57,479 --> 00:09:01,479
Let me try it again.

79
00:09:01,479 --> 00:09:02,479
That's kind of weird.

80
00:09:02,479 --> 00:09:04,479
Hopefully it works again.

81
00:09:04,479 --> 00:09:05,479
See, now it says...

82
00:09:05,479 --> 00:09:08,479
As soon as he started asking, he says connected.

83
00:09:08,479 --> 00:09:09,479
I don't know.

84
00:09:09,479 --> 00:09:10,479
I'm going to be home.

85
00:09:10,479 --> 00:09:11,479
I'm going to be on my Wi-Fi soon.

86
00:09:11,479 --> 00:09:14,479
So maybe I can be notified.

87
00:09:15,479 --> 00:09:16,479
I don't know.

88
00:09:16,479 --> 00:09:19,479
So you can hear it now?

89
00:09:19,479 --> 00:09:24,479
Sometimes.

90
00:09:24,479 --> 00:09:25,479
Hello?

91
00:09:25,479 --> 00:09:30,479
I can hear something now.

92
00:09:30,479 --> 00:09:33,479
Hello?

93
00:09:33,479 --> 00:09:36,479
I'm hearing you.

94
00:09:36,479 --> 00:09:41,479
I had a question regarding the 90% threshold.

95
00:09:41,479 --> 00:09:46,479
Will it be changed after the fact, if nothing's getting approved?

96
00:09:46,479 --> 00:09:51,479
Well, since I happen to have already pulled over to explain this, I think...

97
00:09:51,479 --> 00:09:56,479
The thing is, any hash rate threshold is really a 51% threshold,

98
00:09:56,479 --> 00:10:05,479
since they can always take the so-called nuclear option of orphaning anything that doesn't signal.

99
00:10:05,479 --> 00:10:12,479
And so the...

100
00:10:12,479 --> 00:10:17,479
It's always like not a...

101
00:10:17,479 --> 00:10:18,479
It's always 51%.

102
00:10:18,479 --> 00:10:20,479
It's the actual number always.

103
00:10:20,479 --> 00:10:23,479
So I think that was based on...

104
00:10:23,479 --> 00:10:31,479
Back in 2015, there was a BIP-9 signaling, which was 95%.

105
00:10:31,479 --> 00:10:34,479
And so this is just a little lower.

106
00:10:34,479 --> 00:10:43,479
I think it's a good idea for the miners to endorse the sidechain, so it sort of makes it more unreasonable.

107
00:10:43,479 --> 00:10:52,479
Because people have to believe that the sidechain will work when they make the deposit.

108
00:10:52,479 --> 00:10:53,479
Does this make any sense?

109
00:10:53,479 --> 00:10:56,479
Like, they want to already...

110
00:10:56,479 --> 00:10:59,479
They'll be worried about whether or not anyone actually cares about this sidechain.

111
00:10:59,479 --> 00:11:03,479
So you want to kind of kick it off with like a vote of confidence.

112
00:11:03,479 --> 00:11:07,479
There's no reason for miners not to add most sidechains.

113
00:11:07,479 --> 00:11:14,479
I think we're slightly biased because of the...

114
00:11:14,479 --> 00:11:19,479
I think we're slightly biased because of the world we live in today is very conservative.

115
00:11:19,479 --> 00:11:24,479
But I don't think it would be like that once the idea is actually out there in people's heads.

116
00:11:26,479 --> 00:11:28,479
My worry is just irrelevant.

117
00:11:28,479 --> 00:11:32,479
Some people not actually caring about voting for the sidechains.

118
00:11:32,479 --> 00:11:36,479
But if they don't care, then it's probably a bad sidechain.

119
00:11:36,479 --> 00:11:38,479
Because the miners have an incentive.

120
00:11:38,479 --> 00:11:45,479
They get more transaction fees for free, and they get more exchange rate price for free.

121
00:11:45,479 --> 00:11:47,479
But I'm going to be like...

122
00:11:51,479 --> 00:11:53,479
I'm going to be unavailable for like 15 minutes.

123
00:11:53,479 --> 00:11:55,479
But then I'll be listening, though.

124
00:11:57,479 --> 00:12:01,479
So maybe don't ask me a question.

125
00:12:03,479 --> 00:12:04,479
I don't know what I'm saying.

126
00:12:04,479 --> 00:12:06,479
I'm going back to my Wi-Fi at my house.

127
00:12:06,479 --> 00:12:07,479
I'll be there soon.

128
00:12:32,479 --> 00:12:33,479
I'll be there soon.

129
00:13:02,479 --> 00:13:25,479
One point on that might be that miners currently should probably care about drivechains, but haven't tried to activate.

130
00:13:25,479 --> 00:13:37,479
From my speaking to some people that publicly traded miners, this is not really a focus of theirs.

131
00:13:37,479 --> 00:13:39,479
So that's why I was concerned.

132
00:13:55,479 --> 00:14:21,479
Is anybody speaking?

133
00:14:21,479 --> 00:14:27,479
Is anybody speaking or is my instance just buggy?

134
00:14:29,479 --> 00:14:31,479
No, I'm speaking.

135
00:14:34,479 --> 00:14:36,479
Yeah, the software's gotten really buggy.

136
00:14:36,479 --> 00:14:42,479
I think you might see more of attention paid.

137
00:14:42,479 --> 00:14:49,479
Well, one thing is it definitely seems that the amount of discussion around drivechain has really picked up recently.

138
00:14:49,479 --> 00:14:51,479
We're probably like 100x over a year ago.

139
00:14:52,479 --> 00:14:58,479
And of course, the halving is coming up and barring some big price rise.

140
00:14:58,479 --> 00:15:07,479
And I think those historically have tended to happen with some gap afterwards, whatever it is, six or 12 months.

141
00:15:07,479 --> 00:15:14,479
But either way, it's definitely going to put a major squeeze on miners.

142
00:15:14,479 --> 00:15:19,479
And the mining industry is very different than it was four years ago.

143
00:15:19,479 --> 00:15:34,479
There's a lot more publicly traded miners that are going to be thinking, I don't know, more short term and then have a much more shareholder minded point of view.

144
00:15:34,479 --> 00:15:51,479
And so they very well may come to their realization much more quickly than we think that drivechains potentially can boost their revenues.

145
00:15:51,479 --> 00:15:57,479
I think four years ago, there might have been, I'm not even sure if there were any publicly traded miners.

146
00:15:57,479 --> 00:16:08,479
Do you know if any of these miners are currently running Lightning nodes to earn fees?

147
00:16:08,479 --> 00:16:12,479
No, I don't know.

148
00:16:12,479 --> 00:16:24,479
But I think that the revenue generated from Lightning nodes is pretty trivial right now, even for major routing hubs.

149
00:16:42,479 --> 00:16:55,479
So if there's not a lot of conversation, I want to go back to that last question about the 10%, or I guess the 90%.

150
00:16:56,479 --> 00:17:12,479
To me, it seems kind of like there could be 12% of people that are just kind of not miners that don't really want to invest in the question.

151
00:17:12,479 --> 00:17:15,479
So they just say no, unless it's really over the top convincing.

152
00:17:16,479 --> 00:17:24,479
It's like when somebody hands you a clipboard at the grocery store and says, you know, put this measure on the ballot and you're like, I don't know.

153
00:17:24,479 --> 00:17:28,479
And they're like, well, what's the harm? You're just putting it on the ballot.

154
00:17:28,479 --> 00:17:32,479
You're like, well, I don't know. I don't just sign off on everything.

155
00:17:32,479 --> 00:17:37,479
So I think, I mean, there could be something around this. I don't know what the number would be, what the magic number is.

156
00:17:37,479 --> 00:17:41,479
But this comes to mind as some possible concern.

157
00:17:42,479 --> 00:17:48,479
I think that's definitely possible. I don't know. There's not any magic number.

158
00:17:48,479 --> 00:18:03,479
People say 90 and 95% based on kind of the, I don't know, the standard that was discussed with the Speedy trial or with the SegWit activation and all that.

159
00:18:03,479 --> 00:18:20,479
But I think if we get, you know, even if we get to 51%, that it would like it would technically be an activation because you can have 49% of mining or of hash indifferent.

160
00:18:20,479 --> 00:18:28,479
And they would just kind of abstain from the process of upvoting the withdrawal transactions.

161
00:18:28,479 --> 00:18:36,479
And the 51% is active and is upvoting, you know, the valid withdrawal transactions.

162
00:18:36,479 --> 00:18:49,479
That should even though very much more slowly than designed, but that should kind of be enough for the network to have the peg outs functioning.

163
00:18:49,479 --> 00:19:05,479
But obviously, you know, there's some politics to it as well, where if you get 90% of miners activating, it's a pretty powerful wave, politically speaking.

164
00:19:19,479 --> 00:19:34,479
Could you just like expand on that a bit on how the 51% could actually activate a sidechain?

165
00:19:35,479 --> 00:19:39,479
Well, no, that would be that would be through a soft fork.

166
00:19:39,479 --> 00:19:49,479
But if you have 51% of hash power of miners representing or even or more specifically pools representing 51% of hash power.

167
00:19:52,092 --> 00:20:12,092
Of hash rate, and they were to activate, well, the way that the withdrawal transactions work is it requires 51% of blocks to upvote or affirm the proposed withdrawal transactions within a six month period.

168
00:20:12,092 --> 00:20:38,092
So if you were to have 100% of hash rate, and you assume a valid withdrawal transaction, then that would happen in three months because the transactions expire after six months, and they need 13,500 blocks or something that is the equivalent of three months worth of blocks.

169
00:20:38,092 --> 00:20:56,092
So if you had 49%, and I should say miners can also abstain, or they could downvote the transaction, which would you know, the so so the way you put it is like the withdrawal transaction needs like a score it needs it needs 13,500 points.

170
00:20:56,092 --> 00:21:12,092
So if a miner upvotes it or confirms it, it adds one point to the scoreboard, and the miners can abstain and add no points or they can actually downvote the transaction and and kind of take a point off.

171
00:21:12,092 --> 00:21:38,092
So if you had 49% that were just indifferent, or abstaining from from from the 300 completely. So when they mine a block, they would they wouldn't be they wouldn't be adjusting the counter at all, they would just be ignoring these transactions, or at least ignoring the difference in these transactions.

172
00:21:39,092 --> 00:22:04,092
The BIP300 scorekeeping functionality. And so it fit but a 50 plus 1% were were were moving the counter up, then in six months, you would get that 13,500 upvotes.

173
00:22:05,092 --> 00:22:15,092
This is the same for the activation of the drivechain. I understand that's also the same way for drivechains currently in use to replace it.

174
00:22:16,092 --> 00:22:42,092
Well, that's if they were to activate it almost like without any of the status quo political or activation mechanisms, because the way I understand it is that with with with speedy trial is that if 90% were to signal, then then they all would activate together.

175
00:22:42,092 --> 00:23:01,092
But another possibility would be that, you know, you could just have, we had the CEO of Luxor say that he would signal a couple days ago. So let's just say that, you know, unbeknownst to like anybody, really, that he could just activate it himself.

176
00:23:01,092 --> 00:23:09,092
I mean, I don't think you can do that now because the pull request hasn't been released, but I think it should be released shortly.

177
00:23:10,092 --> 00:23:22,092
So let's say that that he activated it, or, you know, that that company activated it, that pool, and then you had foundry activated, then you had a, whatever it is, ant pool activated.

178
00:23:23,092 --> 00:23:44,092
And I think that those three or, you know, add one or two smaller ones, and then you get to above 50%. And they they didn't, it wasn't this that they were signaling that they wanted to activate it, but they actually just went ahead and activated it without any sort of signaling, you know, for consensus process among the pools or whatever.

179
00:23:45,092 --> 00:24:05,092
Well, because of like the nature of the soft, as we call like the softness of the soft fork, that is BIP300. The other pools don't even have to be aware of that. There's no like, there's no kind of burden on them at all.

180
00:24:06,092 --> 00:24:16,092
So the pools that have activated it can proceed to, you know, do BIP300 and go for it.

181
00:24:17,092 --> 00:24:24,092
Okay, that makes sense. Because the messages are already put onto.

182
00:24:24,092 --> 00:24:43,092
So they could do that, like around 50%. But I will be a bit careful about like, someone could make an invalid spend from the peg out, like output, that will be valid for like full nodes that doesn't support BIP300.

183
00:24:43,092 --> 00:25:11,092
So like, if you do it around 50, 51%, then those models will need to like, do a reorg or orphan the other side, like if there's an incorrect spend. So I think you want to have maybe like 70 or 80% hash power support, because around 51%, there could be a lot of ugly chain splits, like deep, deep splits between the chains.

184
00:25:11,092 --> 00:25:29,092
Just because like, if you try to invalid, incorrect spend the peg out address, like those will be, as I said, they will be valid according to normal core nodes and the minority hash power, like those that doesn't support BIP300.

185
00:25:30,092 --> 00:25:37,092
So, and you need to be cautious about doing it close to the 51% hash rate threshold.

186
00:25:37,092 --> 00:25:44,092
That's a good point. Yeah, then you would have a very contentious episode there.

187
00:25:45,092 --> 00:25:59,092
Yeah, it can be dangerous. But I do agree with your central point, though, that's like, you could do a miner activated salt fork, and you don't need to go to core, like the core development process to get drivechains.

188
00:25:59,092 --> 00:26:15,092
So like, if mining pools want to support drivechains, they could do that and activate it themselves. And I mean, it benefits them. So it makes sense for them to do it because they get the mining fee from the blind managed mining.

189
00:26:16,092 --> 00:26:23,092
So, but I will suggest that they need like a strong majority before they pursue this.

190
00:26:30,092 --> 00:26:50,092
Yeah, it does seem something that would be attractive to miners in general. I mean, from their perspective, if you think of it like just from their like fully selfish perspective, the only downside, I suppose would be the, you know, the ire of

191
00:26:51,092 --> 00:27:11,092
Like they need an SPV client for the sidechain, right, to the draftings. They don't necessarily need like a full node for the drivechain, but at least like some awareness of it, which will be pretty cheap to have, like it doesn't like, they have resources to have some SPV clients for quite a lot of sidechains.

192
00:27:12,092 --> 00:27:31,092
So I don't think that should be a problem. And then like there will be miners doing the blind merged mining for the main chain miners. So they earn extra mining fee from the drivechains. So like it's one of the only layer twos that directly benefits like the main chain hash power, which is quite interesting.

193
00:27:32,092 --> 00:27:42,092
So when I was discussing the indifference earlier, I was thinking in terms of not the whole thing, but like each individual chain that could be proposed.

194
00:27:43,092 --> 00:28:04,092
So you I mean, it's easy to imagine like this, this whole thing gets activated. And so we say, okay, great, we have a large block sidechain. Okay, but then the large blockers come up and they propose 15 different large block sidechains. And then there's a main one. And then there's another one. And then everybody has their own version of the large block sidechain. And then, you know, number 18, the miners are like, is this one important? Do we care? Do we want to add it?

195
00:28:05,092 --> 00:28:11,092
That's what I'm talking about the 90%. You know, most of the time, you don't, you might not have researched every sidechain proposal, which is going to come across.

196
00:28:11,092 --> 00:28:11,812
want to add it?

197
00:28:13,432 --> 00:28:15,332
That's what I'm talking about the 90%.

198
00:28:15,332 --> 00:28:17,152
Most of time you don't...

199
00:28:17,152 --> 00:28:17,952
You might not have

200
00:28:42,092 --> 00:28:47,752
at which is like problem solution, is like there's like a thermostat,

201
00:28:47,952 --> 00:28:52,532
like once it gets too hot, the air conditioning comes on.

202
00:28:53,472 --> 00:28:56,759
know? So I'm thinking like once something becomes too much of a problem,

203
00:28:57,319 --> 00:28:59,399
then something fixes the problem.

204
00:29:00,359 --> 00:29:06,139
my idea, like my conception of it, I mean, is that you have a

205
00:29:06,139 --> 00:29:11,425
sidechain that basically everyone wants, everyone includes 90

206
00:29:11,565 --> 00:29:14,285
% of the hashrate, so they send it through.

207
00:29:15,405 --> 00:29:17,425
then what does it look like if there's a sidechain that...

208
00:29:18,345 --> 00:29:24,225
What could it possibly look like if there's a sidechain that 15 % or 11 % of the

209
00:29:24,225 --> 00:29:25,205
hashrate doesn't want?

210
00:29:25,405 --> 00:29:26,025
Like, what does that look

211
00:29:26,092 --> 00:29:26,272
like.

212
00:29:27,912 --> 00:29:28,272
You know what mean?

213
00:29:28,552 --> 00:29:33,112
they get, they pay not, miners pay nothing and they get more free money.

214
00:29:34,572 --> 00:29:37,632
So it has to be really bad to not get 90%.

215
00:29:37,632 --> 00:29:40,412
I think people have to just really not care.

216
00:29:40,912 --> 00:29:44,472
I'm saying it could look like a carbon copy of the one they just approved yesterday,

217
00:29:44,612 --> 00:29:46,912
but with like political intervention, government.

218
00:29:47,472 --> 00:29:50,872
know, but in a way, isn't it good to have it?

219
00:29:51,112 --> 00:29:55,932
It's, it, it's because it's so easy for the miners to just add a sidechain.

220
00:29:56,992 --> 00:29:59,152
We kind of don't want there to be too much...

221
00:29:59,152 --> 00:30:01,312
we don't want there to be too much like...

222
00:30:02,092 --> 00:30:07,652
attention wasted away,

223
00:30:07,992 --> 00:30:08,592
what's the phrase?

224
00:30:11,892 --> 00:30:15,272
Maybe if it's just the same as the one yesterday with a little parameter tweaked,

225
00:30:16,092 --> 00:30:17,992
maybe no one actually needs it.

226
00:30:20,792 --> 00:30:25,312
So I don't, that's just the number that I picked, you know, it's also I picked it

227
00:30:25,312 --> 00:30:27,312
because of speedy trial kind of.

228
00:30:28,912 --> 00:30:31,012
So I'm kind of like, what is the number?

229
00:30:31,152 --> 00:30:33,112
It's supposed to kind of resemble that.

230
00:30:37,692 --> 00:30:40,752
I don't really feel that strongly about it.

231
00:30:41,712 --> 00:30:47,632
but I think, I think yeah you don't really want like all 256 slots to just

232
00:30:47,632 --> 00:30:51,512
gonna be claimed in the second day or something which I mean that's not possible

233
00:30:52,452 --> 00:30:58,252
you know what I mean I mean like there should be some pushback so

234
00:30:58,252 --> 00:31:01,372
that's why I made it 90 % those are some of the

235
00:31:02,092 --> 00:31:10,092
Does that make sense or no? Do you, like, agree or?

236
00:31:11,092 --> 00:31:29,092
I guess even if they did all, if they did all get filled fast, then you would just move on to the six month 50% anyway, right? So, to replace it.

237
00:31:29,092 --> 00:31:35,092
You're muted. If you're saying anything, didn't you just start talking?

238
00:31:35,092 --> 00:31:38,092
Yeah, sorry.

239
00:31:38,092 --> 00:31:45,092
Or maybe the app is bugging.

240
00:31:45,092 --> 00:31:51,092
I mean, I can, I can hear both of you.

241
00:31:51,092 --> 00:31:59,092
I think maybe everybody can hear you, maybe with the exception of Paul.

242
00:32:00,092 --> 00:32:03,092
Is Mika talking? I can't hear him at all. Very weird. I hear Austin.

243
00:32:03,092 --> 00:32:05,092
I wasn't talking, I stopped talking.

244
00:32:05,092 --> 00:32:06,092
Okay, great.

245
00:32:06,092 --> 00:32:11,092
Now I'm talking. Yeah, I mean, I agree that there's a number, and we don't know what that number is.

246
00:32:11,092 --> 00:32:12,092
Yeah.

247
00:32:12,092 --> 00:32:22,092
And I don't know if 90% is the best, but I think there is, there is probably, whatever number you put it, there's probably someone who can propose something which will be right about that level.

248
00:32:22,092 --> 00:32:25,092
But that's true of every number, right?

249
00:32:26,092 --> 00:32:33,092
I could probably pick a proposal that, you know, 84% of people would like, and 16% of people would not care about it.

250
00:32:33,092 --> 00:32:38,092
Yeah, I agree. I mean, in a way, the number, in a weird way...

251
00:32:38,092 --> 00:32:43,092
A statement about whether 90% is the best parameter or not is a sort of fud, I guess.

252
00:32:43,092 --> 00:32:56,092
In a way, since the sidechains don't really have any cost to anyone other than taking out people's attention, which is everything that exists in the universe could have that cost.

253
00:32:57,092 --> 00:33:09,092
But since the sidechains don't really have any cost, it really should be like, you know, it should just kind of be like 5% hash rate or something, you know, in some sense.

254
00:33:09,092 --> 00:33:15,092
But I just thought, I think it's probably just wasting everyone's time.

255
00:33:16,092 --> 00:33:23,092
I think it's better if the sidechain gets like a vote, a yes vote, like from the miners first.

256
00:33:23,092 --> 00:33:33,092
Because then it's kind of just, I feel like users will be looking to, when it first activates, they'll be wondering, like, is this project going to succeed or not?

257
00:33:33,092 --> 00:33:36,092
Does this have a future?

258
00:33:36,092 --> 00:33:41,092
So you want to kick it off with something big? That was my thought. It could be an incorrect thought.

259
00:33:42,092 --> 00:33:53,092
It's also like, you know, again, it's a speedy trial number. It was based on BIP-9 before, so I actually brought it – BIP-9 was 95%, so I brought it down to the speedy trial number.

260
00:33:53,092 --> 00:34:02,092
So it's been moving down at a rate of about 5 percentage points every 5 or 6 years.

261
00:34:02,092 --> 00:34:09,092
So maybe in 5 or 6 years, I would have moved it down, I don't know, to 80% or something. I don't know.

262
00:34:12,092 --> 00:34:15,092
So, because BIP300…

263
00:34:15,092 --> 00:34:19,092
Okay, do we have any, you know, do we have any skeptics or whatever?

264
00:34:21,092 --> 00:34:29,092
We had Mr. Hoddle last week. That was great. But his phone lost power halfway through, but it was good while it lasted.

265
00:34:33,092 --> 00:34:35,092
I'm using my mistake and I apologize.

266
00:34:35,092 --> 00:34:38,092
I can hear you. I can hear you. I think everyone can hear you.

267
00:34:39,092 --> 00:34:40,092
My guess.

268
00:34:41,092 --> 00:34:42,092
Is George speaking?

269
00:34:43,092 --> 00:34:44,092
Yes.

270
00:34:44,092 --> 00:34:49,092
Oh my gosh, I can't hear him. I'm going to restart this app or something. I'm going to restart the app.

271
00:34:49,092 --> 00:34:50,092
Sorry, I don't know what's going on.

272
00:34:58,092 --> 00:35:00,092
Thank you for being a good sport.

273
00:35:08,092 --> 00:35:09,092
Hello.

274
00:35:30,092 --> 00:35:33,092
Okay, that's good. Sorry about that, everyone.

275
00:35:33,092 --> 00:35:52,523
[Audio breakup; speech unclear]

276
00:35:52,523 --> 00:35:55,803
like to go ahead and use a sidechain.

277
00:35:56,343 --> 00:35:57,563
think you're the same page.

278
00:36:12,134 --> 00:36:14,394
effect. can someone repeat it maybe?

279
00:36:15,634 --> 00:36:18,534
I'm in the car, maybe my signal's not so great.

280
00:36:18,834 --> 00:36:20,194
Okay, I hear you pretty well now.

281
00:36:21,794 --> 00:36:27,594
Okay, just in regards to the 51 % actually being needed to activate, is that

282
00:36:27,594 --> 00:36:31,386
because BIP300 has already put the six new messages

283
00:36:31,386 --> 00:36:37,286
messages into the system, and then therefore 51 % of people can just go along with

284
00:36:37,286 --> 00:36:37,686
it.

285
00:36:38,966 --> 00:36:40,486
You mean... do the...

286
00:36:40,486 --> 00:36:42,166
we've chose the inputs.

287
00:36:43,246 --> 00:36:46,106
Do you mean to activate BIP300 overall?

288
00:36:48,266 --> 00:36:50,817
No. To activate sidechain,

289
00:36:50,817 --> 00:36:54,617
sidechain, BIP300 is already activated, it's already a thing.

290
00:36:55,597 --> 00:37:01,037
And then, I'm just a bit confused on the 90 % versus actually needing

291
00:37:01,037 --> 00:37:05,757
51%, and what that process of 51 % really is.

292
00:37:06,557 --> 00:37:10,248
Is it because the message already exists, therefore they can just go along

293
00:37:10,308 --> 00:37:13,268
and play the game anyway, of 927.

294
00:37:14,588 --> 00:37:18,308
Well, maybe it would help if we just emphasize there's three different things.

295
00:37:19,768 --> 00:37:20,628
There's the withdrawals,

296
00:37:22,288 --> 00:37:27,188
in order of how frequent they are, there's activating BIP300 overall, which would only

297
00:37:27,188 --> 00:37:29,528
happen once. Then there's

298
00:37:29,679 --> 00:37:35,279
activating individual sidechains, would happen once to claim each of the 256 slots,

299
00:37:35,539 --> 00:37:41,059
then maybe once again to reclaim a slot.

300
00:37:41,579 --> 00:37:43,359
That's in the BIP300 rules.

301
00:37:44,679 --> 00:37:48,639
And then finally, the slots all have sidechains, and then they have deposits and

302
00:37:48,639 --> 00:37:48,979
withdrawals.

303
00:37:50,171 --> 00:37:55,471
so they...

304
00:37:56,971 --> 00:38:02,411
So those are three things that miners could signal for or have some input

305
00:38:02,411 --> 00:38:07,991
in. And you're talking about the middle one, activating a sidechain.

306
00:38:08,171 --> 00:38:08,491
you're saying?

307
00:38:09,062 --> 00:38:11,902
is 90 % enforced or what is the question?

308
00:38:13,702 --> 00:38:19,682
Just how 51 % can actually activate a sidechain if, because from

309
00:38:19,682 --> 00:38:25,322
what I read, you need 90%, I'm a bit confused how it's in practice, actually

310
00:38:25,322 --> 00:38:27,973
51%. Yes, I'll explain that.

311
00:38:27,973 --> 00:38:33,573
that. what you do is you team up and you make your 51 % group

312
00:38:33,573 --> 00:38:39,493
and what you say is you have the first block where you signal and then the

313
00:38:39,493 --> 00:38:41,033
sidechain has the signaling score.

314
00:38:41,493 --> 00:38:44,093
It actually keeps track of fails instead of but it doesn't matter.

315
00:38:44,173 --> 00:38:47,353
Let's just say it's got a count up from 1 to 216

316
00:38:47,784 --> 00:38:51,444
so to It's got to to whatever that is.

317
00:38:53,884 --> 00:38:58,924
2016 is two weeks worth of blocks, and 90 % of that would be

318
00:38:58,924 --> 00:39:04,084
2016 minus 201 or 202, depending on how you round.

319
00:39:04,944 --> 00:39:06,804
So this part's clear so far, right?

320
00:39:07,016 --> 00:39:08,976
got to count up to like 19 something.

321
00:39:10,156 --> 00:39:13,676
Right? That's the 90%.

322
00:39:13,676 --> 00:39:18,536
Okay, yeah. Before the two weeks, the 2016 blocks elapsed.

323
00:39:19,376 --> 00:39:20,116
And then it times out.

324
00:39:21,496 --> 00:39:26,016
So what they would do is they just, they find the first block and they have, they go

325
00:39:26,016 --> 00:39:26,196
from

326
00:39:26,267 --> 00:39:31,347
0 to 1, and they find the second block and they find, they go from 1 to 2, and then

327
00:39:31,347 --> 00:39:35,207
maybe someone in the 49 group, they find a block.

328
00:39:35,747 --> 00:39:39,847
They find the next block, and it doesn't have the vote,

329
00:39:41,527 --> 00:39:43,547
so instead the score stays at 2.

330
00:39:44,107 --> 00:39:45,607
It should have gone to 3, but it did not.

331
00:39:46,298 --> 00:39:51,378
Well, what the 51 % group can do is they can say, I'm just going to orphan this block

332
00:39:51,378 --> 00:39:57,118
and I'm going to mine a new version of the block where the score goes from 2 to 3

333
00:39:57,118 --> 00:39:57,938
as it should.

334
00:39:59,418 --> 00:40:05,198
And if push really comes to shove and the 49 % group tries

335
00:40:05,198 --> 00:40:09,578
to compete against the 51 % group, eventually

336
00:40:09,578 --> 00:40:12,938
the 49 % group will lose.

337
00:40:12,938 --> 00:40:14,798
So it doesn't matter how many blocks they found.

338
00:40:15,518 --> 00:40:20,958
the 51 % group will have the longer blockchain, and it'll eventually be longer

339
00:40:20,958 --> 00:40:26,438
by any arbitrary amount of blocks, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, whatever.

340
00:40:29,958 --> 00:40:35,238
And so that will eventually

341
00:40:35,238 --> 00:40:37,978
win. Does that make sense?

342
00:40:38,098 --> 00:40:41,178
So they can do that over and over and over again, and it'll have 100%.

343
00:40:41,818 --> 00:40:44,618
They'll get right to 19, about 19, whatever.

344
00:40:44,738 --> 00:40:48,558
out of 19, whatever with, with 201 blocks of spare.

345
00:40:50,778 --> 00:40:52,438
Okay. Yeah, that makes sense.

346
00:40:52,698 --> 00:40:58,078
It sounds incredibly messy and like it might have some negative consequences.

347
00:40:58,198 --> 00:40:59,978
Yeah. don't think it does make sense.

348
00:40:59,998 --> 00:41:00,918
It is. Yeah, right.

349
00:41:01,391 --> 00:41:06,351
why it's called the nuclear option because it's like, it's kind of, it is messy.

350
00:41:06,651 --> 00:41:12,531
it's kind of like, if you're in this situation where they do that to someone,

351
00:41:13,291 --> 00:41:17,191
the 49 % are so screwed, because they're not finding any

352
00:41:17,365 --> 00:41:22,125
blocks that they may become desperate in their search and they can can pull people out

353
00:41:22,125 --> 00:41:26,665
of the 51 coalition by offering them a lot because they're so different.

354
00:41:27,045 --> 00:41:32,865
So it's kind of like it doesn't really work in but it's unknown.

355
00:41:33,698 --> 00:41:40,698
So maybe the 90 needs to be reconsidered because to me, 90 sounds very difficult.

356
00:41:40,698 --> 00:41:44,698
Well, I don't think I mean, again, it's kind of like you may be right.

357
00:41:44,698 --> 00:41:46,698
You may be 100 percent correct about that.

358
00:41:46,698 --> 00:41:50,698
But the way that I look at it is who are these miners that are not voting?

359
00:41:50,698 --> 00:41:55,698
Yes. Like politically aligned public miners.

360
00:41:55,698 --> 00:42:04,698
Yeah, but I think the I think the yeah, there's there's this sense and there's like there's this like West Minister.

361
00:42:04,698 --> 00:42:08,698
Governance philosophy that says it should always be 50 percent.

362
00:42:08,698 --> 00:42:12,698
You know, it should always be majority vote or whatever, which I kind of am sympathetic to.

363
00:42:12,698 --> 00:42:24,698
But I think the the politic, the whole reason there is politics in Bitcoin at all is because of the lack of sidechains.

364
00:42:24,698 --> 00:42:28,698
Now, we should never have even gone down this road.

365
00:42:28,698 --> 00:42:31,698
There's no reason to really be on this road at all.

366
00:42:31,698 --> 00:42:39,698
So if instead we had done in 2015, we had done a sidechains type thing, there would never have been a block size war.

367
00:42:39,698 --> 00:42:42,698
There would never have been a SegWit blockade. None of that would have happened.

368
00:42:42,698 --> 00:42:47,698
This would never even be in anyone's head. You know, no one would have ever even thought of this.

369
00:42:47,698 --> 00:42:51,698
This idea that the idea of political miners would never have been an idea.

370
00:42:51,698 --> 00:42:57,698
It would just never have happened. So maybe I'm wrong about that, but I just kind of think if there is sidechains,

371
00:42:57,698 --> 00:43:06,698
all the politics will kind of go away because the politics is about what which which stuff should activate on Bitcoin.

372
00:43:06,698 --> 00:43:14,698
But the way sidechains works, no one no one is ever harmed by a new feature, new option being added.

373
00:43:14,698 --> 00:43:17,698
There would be some things maybe like if two people want to do this,

374
00:43:17,698 --> 00:43:21,698
the two people each want to do a Namecoin sidechain and you don't want to have like two phone books.

375
00:43:21,698 --> 00:43:28,698
And there's so there's some. There's cases where it would affect the sidechains themselves, the drama,

376
00:43:28,698 --> 00:43:32,698
and so then they may make various appeals.

377
00:43:32,698 --> 00:43:38,698
But it doesn't harm anyone, any L1 person if something activates or not.

378
00:43:39,698 --> 00:43:45,698
Could a soft fork or multiple soft forks be done to change the 90 percent?

379
00:43:45,698 --> 00:43:48,698
That sounds like it could be messier.

380
00:43:48,698 --> 00:43:51,698
The 90 percent cannot be changed.

381
00:43:51,698 --> 00:44:00,698
But as I kind of sort of explained to you is you could do something similar to BIP 148 where you could say it is mandatory.

382
00:44:01,698 --> 00:44:08,698
To. To do the 90 percent signaling and you could do that with 51 percent.

383
00:44:08,698 --> 00:44:12,698
So in a way, yes. I don't know, maybe you're right about that.

384
00:44:12,698 --> 00:44:16,698
Maybe it should be, you know, one thing that I think also should be rethought.

385
00:44:16,698 --> 00:44:23,698
The original the originally the withdrawals were only it was like two weeks of nothing at first,

386
00:44:23,698 --> 00:44:27,698
then two weeks of voting and then two weeks later it would go after that.

387
00:44:27,698 --> 00:44:31,698
So it's like six weeks total, but it's only two weeks of voting.

388
00:44:31,698 --> 00:44:35,698
And I changed that to three months because it doesn't matter.

389
00:44:35,698 --> 00:44:38,698
Because it makes it more because people complained about miners can steal.

390
00:44:38,698 --> 00:44:45,698
But now, in hindsight, looking back, I just realized that those people probably had no idea what they were talking about at all.

391
00:44:45,698 --> 00:44:48,698
Any more than many of the people do today.

392
00:44:48,698 --> 00:44:53,698
So I thought maybe that actually is not maybe it shouldn't be that long.

393
00:44:53,698 --> 00:45:00,698
But I really the logic of it is that the length of the withdrawal does not really matter because regular people will not use that.

394
00:45:00,698 --> 00:45:05,698
They will just swap out. So. So, yeah, maybe you're right about that.

395
00:45:05,698 --> 00:45:08,698
And, yeah, you maybe you're right about the activation.

396
00:45:08,698 --> 00:45:12,698
I mean, all I can do is repeat what I said, which is that.

397
00:45:12,698 --> 00:45:21,698
In the past, pre-SegWit, pre-scaling more, there was this 95 percent threshold.

398
00:45:21,698 --> 00:45:27,698
There was a 95 percent threshold for activating soft forks that was met and there was no controversy or whatever.

399
00:45:27,698 --> 00:45:32,698
And then there was a speedy trial with 90 percent. So that's where I'm coming from with that.

400
00:45:32,698 --> 00:45:36,698
I mean, I don't know. I may be wrong. You may be. I don't know.

401
00:45:36,698 --> 00:45:47,698
I think he just got disconnected also. Hopefully he heard what I said before it cut him out.

402
00:45:47,698 --> 00:45:51,698
I think a six month or three month payout still makes sense to like it.

403
00:45:51,698 --> 00:46:04,698
So it's a slow process and people can react. But rather have it like a quick thing.

404
00:46:04,698 --> 00:46:08,698
I just did the thumbs up. I don't know. It doesn't show up on my screen, but maybe.

405
00:46:08,698 --> 00:46:12,698
Did you see it? I don't know. Buggy app.

406
00:46:12,698 --> 00:46:14,698
I didn't actually, but I trust you.

407
00:46:14,698 --> 00:46:18,698
Let's see if it did. I don't know. I'm going to say it again. I don't know if it's working.

408
00:46:18,698 --> 00:46:20,698
Yeah, no, I saw it.

409
00:46:20,698 --> 00:46:24,698
I can't see it, but I can still throw it, I guess.

410
00:46:24,698 --> 00:46:29,698
This is weird. Last two weeks, two or three weeks has been a little buggier than normal.

411
00:46:29,698 --> 00:46:32,698
I wonder why that would be. You would think it would be the same app as before.

412
00:46:32,698 --> 00:46:35,698
Are people sabotaging it? Probably not.

413
00:46:35,698 --> 00:46:43,698
Anyway, hopefully it lets us have some people come up and talk.

414
00:46:43,698 --> 00:46:46,698
All right, George, were you able to hear what I said?

415
00:46:46,698 --> 00:46:50,698
I got about half of it.

416
00:46:50,698 --> 00:46:55,698
I'm in the car. I'm a bit busy right now, to be honest. It's not the best time.

417
00:46:55,698 --> 00:47:01,698
Yeah, I know. Don't get into a car accident because of privacy. I don't like that.

418
00:47:01,698 --> 00:47:04,698
That's a bad thought.

419
00:47:04,698 --> 00:47:05,698
Appreciate it.

420
00:47:05,698 --> 00:47:16,698
I think I say that pre-SegWit, pre-block size war, there was 95% BIP-9 activation.

421
00:47:16,698 --> 00:47:20,698
No one really complained about that. It worked just fine.

422
00:47:20,698 --> 00:47:24,698
And then we had speedy trial, and it was 90%, and it worked just fine.

423
00:47:24,698 --> 00:47:28,698
That's kind of where I get that number.

424
00:47:28,698 --> 00:47:38,698
There's certainly no magical, objective reason for that. That's just kind of where I'm at.

425
00:47:38,698 --> 00:47:45,698
I think really old softworks used 55% threshold or something like that.

426
00:47:45,698 --> 00:47:53,698
And then there was a lot of fake signaling by the miners, so there was some deep chain splits going on.

427
00:47:53,698 --> 00:47:59,698
So I think that's why they picked 95% threshold for BIP-9.

428
00:47:59,698 --> 00:48:02,698
And I think that makes sense, having a higher threshold.

429
00:48:02,698 --> 00:48:08,698
It was just an unfortunate situation with SegWit specifically, with the miners,

430
00:48:08,698 --> 00:48:14,698
because afterwards with taproot and stuff, that has worked out well with speedy trial, I think.

431
00:48:14,698 --> 00:48:22,698
But it seems like there's a lot of PTSD still going on by Bitcoiners and those that remember the block size wars.

432
00:48:22,698 --> 00:48:29,698
For me, I look at it right now, and it doesn't look like miners are your enemy, really.

433
00:48:29,698 --> 00:48:31,698
They are our servants, right?

434
00:48:31,698 --> 00:48:40,698
So having a high threshold is great, and having a hash rate escrow makes sense, for me at least.

435
00:48:41,698 --> 00:48:53,698
Yeah, I think it's unfortunate that people cannot imagine the time when there was no enemy kind of concept.

436
00:48:53,698 --> 00:48:57,698
Everyone just worked together to make Bitcoin a success.

437
00:48:57,698 --> 00:49:07,698
And the whole point of sidechains is that reasonable people can disagree about which features they want to run the node.

438
00:49:07,698 --> 00:49:11,698
So there really shouldn't be any problems.

439
00:49:13,698 --> 00:49:14,698
Yeah, I agree.

440
00:49:16,698 --> 00:49:21,698
The opinion of miners has really been damaged since SegWit, unfortunately.

441
00:49:21,698 --> 00:49:29,698
And people are stuck in their mindset, it seems like, and not seeing the landscape today and how it looks today.

442
00:49:29,698 --> 00:49:34,698
Because it's not the same landscape that it was six or seven years ago.

443
00:49:37,698 --> 00:49:42,698
Yeah, I agree. Unfortunately, the one from six or seven years ago also is misleading.

444
00:49:42,698 --> 00:49:46,698
Because it's my view that whole thing mostly was just...

445
00:49:48,698 --> 00:49:54,698
Like, the miners were convinced by some large blockers that...

446
00:49:56,698 --> 00:50:04,698
It's kind of ambiguous how to say it, how to explain it the best, but they were sort of convinced that it would be good.

447
00:50:04,698 --> 00:50:09,698
Like, they thought this block size increase was necessary.

448
00:50:09,698 --> 00:50:15,698
So they had been convinced to become large blockers in various ways.

449
00:50:16,698 --> 00:50:20,698
And so they kind of thought, we'll hold up SegWit activate.

450
00:50:20,698 --> 00:50:25,698
It was like a kind of Mexican standoff, two people holding guns at each other.

451
00:50:25,698 --> 00:50:36,698
And they said, we won't activate SegWit until this block size increase is merged or something like that.

452
00:50:36,698 --> 00:50:42,698
So you see, the whole reason that people even worry about activation at all is because of this event.

453
00:50:42,698 --> 00:50:45,698
And the whole reason that event happened is because there was no sidechains.

454
00:50:46,698 --> 00:50:56,698
And the whole reason that even any of the animosity happened was because the existing governance process wasn't working for everyone.

455
00:50:57,698 --> 00:51:08,698
But if you just have a process that works for everyone, then there won't be this political...

456
00:51:09,698 --> 00:51:20,698
There's no point. It would just be politically losing out on fees, making other people inconvenienced, no benefit to yourself.

457
00:51:22,698 --> 00:51:23,698
So that's my thought.

458
00:51:25,698 --> 00:51:31,698
I got to leave. I'm just... I appreciate the answers. I'll be back next week with some better questions.

459
00:51:33,698 --> 00:51:34,698
Okay, great.

460
00:51:34,698 --> 00:51:41,698
So I have a question, a slightly technical one. But there is 256 slots for the drivechains.

461
00:51:42,698 --> 00:51:46,698
But as far as I know, you can also have drivechains in drivechains.

462
00:51:47,698 --> 00:51:52,698
So I'm trying to figure out how exactly that works out with the miners and stuff.

463
00:51:53,698 --> 00:51:57,698
Yes, one of the sidechains would itself have BIP300 on it.

464
00:51:58,698 --> 00:52:04,698
And it would be both a child of Bitcoin Core and a parent of its own 256.

465
00:52:05,698 --> 00:52:11,698
And it would be kind of bizarre. It would definitely be a little inception-y and weird.

466
00:52:12,698 --> 00:52:15,698
But I don't see any particular part where it would necessarily break down.

467
00:52:15,698 --> 00:52:20,698
The idea would be... It does get kind of slightly worse each time.

468
00:52:21,698 --> 00:52:26,698
Because to actually do the withdrawal, it would be another time period.

469
00:52:27,698 --> 00:52:32,698
Like if that copied BIP300 exactly, it would be another three months to move from one to the...

470
00:52:33,698 --> 00:52:41,698
One child, like the grandchild to the child, and then another three months to move from the child to the Bitcoin Core parent.

471
00:52:41,698 --> 00:52:49,698
And this whole time, miners on L1 could empty the whole sidechain and steal everything there.

472
00:52:50,698 --> 00:53:00,698
So it's exponentially slower, but it's the same risk, which is bad.

473
00:53:01,698 --> 00:53:03,698
So it's bad for the user in that way.

474
00:53:04,698 --> 00:53:06,698
But other than that, it works exactly the same.

475
00:53:07,698 --> 00:53:09,698
But other than that, it works exactly the same.

476
00:53:10,698 --> 00:53:14,698
It's just the sidechain is finding blocks.

477
00:53:15,698 --> 00:53:17,698
The sidechain's blocks are moving up.

478
00:53:18,698 --> 00:53:20,698
They're incrementing the...

479
00:53:22,698 --> 00:53:28,698
The sidechain blocks increment the withdrawal of its own grandchild chains.

480
00:53:29,698 --> 00:53:34,698
They could all be blind merge mined, in which case all the money is passed through one to the other.

481
00:53:34,698 --> 00:53:40,698
It goes into the sidechain coinbase, and then it goes into the L1...

482
00:53:43,698 --> 00:53:45,698
What we used to call the bribe transaction.

483
00:53:46,698 --> 00:53:48,698
I guess now it's called the BMM request.

484
00:53:50,698 --> 00:53:51,698
And so all the fees...

485
00:53:52,698 --> 00:53:54,698
Other than that, it's the same, but it is weird.

486
00:53:55,698 --> 00:53:56,698
The withdrawal is weird.

487
00:53:57,698 --> 00:53:58,698
Right. Yeah, I hear you.

488
00:53:59,698 --> 00:54:03,698
Maybe it's just better to use the slots and so on.

489
00:54:09,698 --> 00:54:10,698
People would probably just...

490
00:54:11,698 --> 00:54:20,698
If there were really the demand for this, then I would probably think that people would just soft fork BIP300 into Bitcoin Core again.

491
00:54:21,698 --> 00:54:23,698
There'd be BIP300-A, BIP300-B.

492
00:54:24,698 --> 00:54:25,698
I don't think...

493
00:54:26,698 --> 00:54:29,698
That's another thing that I just think there would be nothing controversial about that at all.

494
00:54:30,698 --> 00:54:38,698
This would be like zero controversy situation, because either there are still plenty of slots to either use or overwrite,

495
00:54:39,698 --> 00:54:41,698
in which case no one would ever want to add it again.

496
00:54:42,698 --> 00:54:44,698
They'd say, what's the point of adding BIP300 a second time?

497
00:54:45,698 --> 00:54:47,698
There'd be literally no rational reason to do that.

498
00:54:48,698 --> 00:54:54,698
Or we live in a world where all 256 slots have been claimed and they were all very, very popular and all the sidechains were very unique.

499
00:54:55,698 --> 00:54:56,698
And someone has the 257th sidechain.

500
00:54:57,698 --> 00:55:01,698
And so in that scenario, everything's working out really, really well.

501
00:55:03,698 --> 00:55:04,698
Right?

502
00:55:05,698 --> 00:55:12,698
It's working so well that it's not even controversial that this is a thing that has worked and that people like and that has already been tried.

503
00:55:13,698 --> 00:55:18,698
So they would just add BIP300-B and add the 257th sidechain.

504
00:55:19,698 --> 00:55:24,698
So it's another situation where there's just no controversy and there's no problems.

505
00:55:25,698 --> 00:55:27,698
Everyone is just getting happier all the time.

506
00:55:29,698 --> 00:55:33,698
Yeah, just add new slots and it shouldn't be controversial at that point.

507
00:55:34,698 --> 00:55:38,698
But also, 256 slots is quite a lot of chains.

508
00:55:39,698 --> 00:55:40,698
People always worry about that.

509
00:55:40,698 --> 00:55:41,698
What about all the slots?

510
00:55:42,698 --> 00:55:50,698
At this point, you're really scratching your head to think of what is the 16th viable sidechain going to be?

511
00:55:51,698 --> 00:55:59,698
So I don't think … 25 is already giving us a whole 10x of buffer zone.

512
00:56:02,698 --> 00:56:06,698
Yeah, and you can probably do some efficient designs on those chains as well and stuff.

513
00:56:07,698 --> 00:56:10,698
In time, we'll be learning more about what makes a sidechain good.

514
00:56:11,698 --> 00:56:13,698
So it should be accumulating.

515
00:56:14,698 --> 00:56:17,698
So that's a hypothetical scenario where it's really, really successful.

516
00:56:21,698 --> 00:56:22,698
Anyway.

517
00:56:25,698 --> 00:56:27,698
So yes, coming up.

518
00:56:28,698 --> 00:56:30,698
If you have a question or a comment.

519
00:56:37,698 --> 00:56:39,698
Fiatjaf wrote a cool article.

520
00:56:42,698 --> 00:56:52,698
Fiatjaf is such a big BIP300 shill that he literally thinks Bitcoin will be destroyed if we do not activate it.

521
00:56:54,698 --> 00:56:56,698
I do think it says something weird about Bitcoin.

522
00:56:56,698 --> 00:56:59,698
The idea is designed to help lots of people and harm nobody.

523
00:57:00,698 --> 00:57:07,698
So you can see kind of how far the termites have spread and how long and well they've dined.

524
00:57:08,698 --> 00:57:17,698
When an idea that has no downside and enormous upside is treated the same way as Layer 1 block size increase,

525
00:57:18,698 --> 00:57:21,698
which is a clear example of a block size increase.

526
00:57:22,698 --> 00:57:25,698
It's treated the same way as Layer 1 block size increase,

527
00:57:26,698 --> 00:57:29,698
which is a clear tug of war with someone getting what they want and someone else not.

528
00:57:30,698 --> 00:57:31,698
Yes, we have a Jack.

529
00:57:32,698 --> 00:57:33,698
Hello.

530
00:57:33,698 --> 00:57:39,698
Do you think that something like CoinNews is better suited for a mainchain application than a sidechain application?

531
00:57:40,698 --> 00:57:43,698
And why do you think that those things would vary?

532
00:57:45,698 --> 00:57:48,698
Yeah, I think they would vary, and I think CoinNews is better on the mainchain.

533
00:57:48,698 --> 00:57:55,698
Because CoinNews is just about attention and like digital real estate.

534
00:57:56,698 --> 00:57:57,698
It's like a billboard in a way.

535
00:57:58,698 --> 00:58:07,698
And so what's the thing about a billboard is like you want to reach as many people as possible.

536
00:58:08,698 --> 00:58:12,698
And so every sidechain user runs an L1 node, but not the other way around.

537
00:58:13,698 --> 00:58:15,698
So there's always more L1 nodes than L2 nodes.

538
00:58:16,698 --> 00:58:18,698
And the L1 node is, of course, that's the center.

539
00:58:19,698 --> 00:58:20,698
You know, that's like the Times Square.

540
00:58:21,698 --> 00:58:24,698
Times Square is named, I'm pretty sure, I'm not actually certain of this,

541
00:58:25,698 --> 00:58:28,698
but I'm pretty sure that Times Square is named because the New York Times was printed there.

542
00:58:29,698 --> 00:58:31,698
And that's how it just became.

543
00:58:32,698 --> 00:58:37,698
It's like the central nervous system of America during the newspaper era, you know.

544
00:58:38,698 --> 00:58:42,698
So, but the other thing is that CoinNews is not a soft fork or it's not anything.

545
00:58:43,698 --> 00:58:46,698
It's just a cosmetic idea that literally affects no one,

546
00:58:47,698 --> 00:58:50,698
and that could already be done today and cannot be stopped.

547
00:58:51,698 --> 00:58:54,698
It's really a much better version of inscriptions, ordinals,

548
00:58:55,698 --> 00:58:57,698
because a lot of people were doing that just for attention.

549
00:58:58,698 --> 00:58:59,698
But that's exactly what this does.

550
00:59:00,698 --> 00:59:04,698
This does in 220 bytes, you get the most attention out of everything in the block.

551
00:59:04,698 --> 00:59:06,698
And without actually taking up a whole block.

552
00:59:07,698 --> 00:59:12,698
And it's clear to me that this, the blockchain is actually more than just money.

553
00:59:13,698 --> 00:59:20,698
It happens to be the greatest tool for money and banking in existence

554
00:59:21,698 --> 00:59:23,698
and one of the greatest inventions of all time.

555
00:59:24,698 --> 00:59:26,698
But it's just clear to me that it is also doing other things.

556
00:59:27,698 --> 00:59:28,698
It's kind of like smoke signals, I think,

557
00:59:29,698 --> 00:59:31,698
where it's this special kind of medium,

558
00:59:31,698 --> 00:59:36,698
that everyone knows that everyone else can see it or has seen it.

559
00:59:38,698 --> 00:59:40,698
But I think each chain will have its own CoinNews

560
00:59:41,698 --> 00:59:49,698
and probably there will be sites or wallets that pull the CoinNews from everywhere.

561
00:59:53,517 --> 00:59:56,517
And relay it.

562
00:59:56,517 --> 01:00:04,517
Do you think that the main chain could be used to update sidechains through a similar mechanism?

563
01:00:04,517 --> 01:00:12,517
Well, the reason why I actually invented CoinNews was I'd always had this kind of idea in my head in some form.

564
01:00:12,517 --> 01:00:17,517
But I thought, how is it that the sidechains learn?

565
01:00:18,517 --> 01:00:22,517
We're in the weird world where all of us are in bunkers and it's all underground.

566
01:00:22,517 --> 01:00:27,517
In 1984, all of us are subversive cypherpunks.

567
01:00:27,517 --> 01:00:31,517
Someone writes the sidechain into existence.

568
01:00:31,517 --> 01:00:35,517
But now what are they supposed to do? Because they don't have any of the miners' phone numbers or anything.

569
01:00:35,517 --> 01:00:37,517
Because no one has a phone number.

570
01:00:37,517 --> 01:00:46,517
So I thought, what they could do is they could just write a message, like an op-return message, and just broadcast an unusually high fee.

571
01:00:46,517 --> 01:00:48,517
A weird fee.

572
01:00:48,517 --> 01:00:53,517
And in it they could say op-return and they could say, I have written a sidechain, learn about it here.

573
01:00:53,517 --> 01:00:57,517
Maybe they have a little URL, maybe they have a little public key or something.

574
01:00:57,517 --> 01:01:09,517
So I thought, that's how the person gets the news out that there is a new sidechain for the miners to look at individually and then activate.

575
01:01:09,517 --> 01:01:11,517
So I thought, oh, that would be a neat idea.

576
01:01:11,517 --> 01:01:19,517
And then I was like, actually, that idea is so good that everyone should just have it available to them.

577
01:01:19,517 --> 01:01:21,517
Because it's about attention.

578
01:01:21,517 --> 01:01:31,517
And the way CoinNews works is, of course, it's just like you can configure it in your own node to consume as much or as little of it as you like.

579
01:01:31,517 --> 01:01:34,517
If you're the kind of person that wants to read a lot of news, you can get a lot.

580
01:01:34,517 --> 01:01:42,517
If you're the kind of person that only wants the top five things per week or the top five things per day, you can configure it for that.

581
01:01:42,517 --> 01:01:49,517
And so you just configure that and then people just bid up on whatever to get their message out.

582
01:01:49,517 --> 01:01:55,517
And it really cannot be spam because you're getting exactly what you want.

583
01:01:55,517 --> 01:01:56,517
You know what I mean?

584
01:01:56,517 --> 01:02:00,517
Like you are getting – you want five messages per day, that's what you get.

585
01:02:00,517 --> 01:02:02,517
You get the top five.

586
01:02:02,517 --> 01:02:05,517
And those are the people who paid the most.

587
01:02:05,517 --> 01:02:08,517
So it's not – they shouldn't really take it for granted.

588
01:02:08,517 --> 01:02:13,517
Whatever it is, it's like a perfect supply and demand curve intersecting in attention.

589
01:02:13,517 --> 01:02:19,517
Because someone has said, I want to give these five things my attention, whatever they are.

590
01:02:19,517 --> 01:02:20,517
The person pays.

591
01:02:20,517 --> 01:02:22,517
And the miners get more money.

592
01:02:22,517 --> 01:02:23,517
So it's great.

593
01:02:23,517 --> 01:02:32,517
It really works out for everyone very well because the advertiser or whoever it is, you have news, the cypherpunk hacker or whatever it is.

594
01:02:32,517 --> 01:02:36,517
I honestly think this could be a really, really great idea, and it could actually win people over.

595
01:02:36,517 --> 01:02:44,517
A lot of people think Bitcoin is totally useless, but this is pretty useful that the idea that if you wanted to get like some kind of heterodox news out,

596
01:02:44,517 --> 01:02:49,517
because we have a lot of conformity in our modern day and age.

597
01:02:49,517 --> 01:03:02,517
We have stuff about – if you wanted to get like a different COVID takeout, don't buy it, don't wear a mask, wear a mask, no wait, don't wear a mask, no wait, mandatory.

598
01:03:02,517 --> 01:03:04,517
And then you're kind of just like whatever.

599
01:03:04,517 --> 01:03:12,517
Yeah, I think a lot of people would love the ability to pay money to get their message out.

600
01:03:12,517 --> 01:03:15,517
A lot of people would – the miners would love getting free money.

601
01:03:15,517 --> 01:03:26,517
And the people watching, listening, or consuming this, the CoinNews, I think they would – I would rather get my news from that, honestly, than anything else.

602
01:03:27,517 --> 01:03:34,517
Twitter is probably the best, but everything has got their thumb on the scale, manipulating the algorithm.

603
01:03:34,517 --> 01:03:37,517
So I would rather – I would check that first thing in the morning, personally.

604
01:03:37,517 --> 01:03:43,517
I would be a consumer, and I would also put out news, and so I love that idea.

605
01:03:43,517 --> 01:03:45,517
And that's an idea that's 100% cosmetic.

606
01:03:45,517 --> 01:03:49,517
It has nothing to do with the protocol at all.

607
01:03:49,517 --> 01:03:55,517
It just is like an up-return rider, and it just depends on your full node needs to support it.

608
01:03:56,517 --> 01:04:02,517
So that involves at least a few exchanges at all.

609
01:04:03,517 --> 01:04:13,517
Also, I was wondering, Coinbase had, for example, a lot of influence during the SegWit2x politics.

610
01:04:13,517 --> 01:04:18,517
You said today that there's a lot of malinvestment, you think, in the Bitcoin space.

611
01:04:18,517 --> 01:04:24,517
Do you think that those companies are impacting Bitcoin politics today?

612
01:04:24,517 --> 01:04:30,517
And do you think that relates to anything like Taro or those kind of proposals?

613
01:04:31,517 --> 01:04:36,517
Yeah, I think it's all related, but unfortunately my view is – I don't know.

614
01:04:36,517 --> 01:04:39,517
I'm just going to give you my opinion, but it's very nuanced and very weird.

615
01:04:39,517 --> 01:04:50,517
So part of the malinvestment – Coinbase originally had the view that everything else – other altcoins are a distraction.

616
01:04:50,517 --> 01:04:55,517
And so Brian Armstrong has a famous tweet that you may have seen that said,

617
01:04:55,517 --> 01:05:02,517
Bitcoin is too far ahead, Litecoin, XRP, those things are just a distraction.

618
01:05:02,517 --> 01:05:05,517
We should just focus only on Bitcoin and sidechains.

619
01:05:05,517 --> 01:05:12,517
Because everyone does know that having a big united team is – this is network effects.

620
01:05:12,517 --> 01:05:16,517
It's the size of the community squared.

621
01:05:16,517 --> 01:05:21,517
So it's the amount of wealth that is interested in Bitcoin squared.

622
01:05:21,517 --> 01:05:23,517
That is our score basically.

623
01:05:23,517 --> 01:05:28,517
And so everyone knew. We don't want to split it off into many different teams.

624
01:05:28,517 --> 01:05:35,517
But part of the malinvestment is that because of the block size war,

625
01:05:35,517 --> 01:05:42,517
certain narratives were amped and certain were suppressed.

626
01:05:43,517 --> 01:05:46,517
And also people drew various conclusions.

627
01:05:46,517 --> 01:05:56,517
So Coinbase concluded that they had made a mistake about trusting Bitcoin to be responsive to their needs.

628
01:05:56,517 --> 01:06:01,517
And they concluded that what they should do instead is support all these other things.

629
01:06:01,517 --> 01:06:04,517
And this led to lots of shitcoining basically.

630
01:06:04,517 --> 01:06:10,517
And so that's one element of it.

631
01:06:10,517 --> 01:06:17,517
But another element of it is the rise of Lightning as like an uncriticizable thing.

632
01:06:17,517 --> 01:06:23,517
So as a result of the scaling, Lightning went from being merely a good idea that obviously we should do,

633
01:06:23,517 --> 01:06:28,517
and that we should obviously all support, and we should try to use, and we should cheer it on,

634
01:06:28,517 --> 01:06:30,517
and we should spread the word.

635
01:06:30,517 --> 01:06:35,517
But unfortunately, it transformed from that, which is what it really was,

636
01:06:35,517 --> 01:06:39,517
into all of Bitcoin's hopes and dreams are pinned on this.

637
01:06:40,517 --> 01:06:44,517
Since so many large blockers criticized Lightning, it made it look bad.

638
01:06:44,517 --> 01:06:52,517
If anyone else criticized it or if anyone in the small blocker group criticized Lightning,

639
01:06:52,517 --> 01:06:56,517
then large blocker people would screenshot that or quote that or something,

640
01:06:56,517 --> 01:06:58,517
and they would say, aha, look at this.

641
01:06:58,517 --> 01:07:04,517
So it quickly led to irrational views of Lightning being the greatest thing ever made

642
01:07:04,517 --> 01:07:06,517
and also being uncriticizable.

643
01:07:06,517 --> 01:07:13,517
And that led to VCs and other people giving money to Lightning people,

644
01:07:13,517 --> 01:07:19,517
and then just kind of it became a runaway train of believing that you can still feel to this day.

645
01:07:19,517 --> 01:07:21,517
I think it's very easy.

646
01:07:21,517 --> 01:07:24,517
People feel uncomfortable criticizing Lightning,

647
01:07:24,517 --> 01:07:31,517
which of course lets you know how bad of an idea it must really end up likely turning out.

648
01:07:31,517 --> 01:07:37,517
Because whatever you can't criticize is the thing that's ultimately doomed.

649
01:07:37,517 --> 01:07:42,517
And so that's kind of what happened.

650
01:07:42,517 --> 01:07:47,517
It's hard to go into each thing has its own kind of weird story,

651
01:07:47,517 --> 01:07:51,517
but basically even one narrative that changed.

652
01:07:51,517 --> 01:07:55,517
So like the malinvestment, if I could make a list, I would say one thing is Coinbase.

653
01:07:55,517 --> 01:07:59,517
Coinbase was started to help Bitcoin succeed.

654
01:07:59,517 --> 01:08:03,517
But afterwards they just realized how much money they could make by just shit coining.

655
01:08:03,517 --> 01:08:11,517
And Brian Armstrong and whatever, they had the scaling war was so disrespectful to them,

656
01:08:11,517 --> 01:08:17,517
for better or for worse, and they just decided I can become a multibillionaire

657
01:08:17,517 --> 01:08:23,517
or I can continue to deal with these people that really just don't like me at all.

658
01:08:23,517 --> 01:08:27,517
This is Brian Armstrong's brain talking to himself.

659
01:08:28,517 --> 01:08:35,517
So it's an easy decision eventually after years and years of dealing with that.

660
01:08:35,517 --> 01:08:37,517
You had these people, BitPay, Coinbase.

661
01:08:37,517 --> 01:08:42,517
When the blocks filled up, they would get more customer service, phone calls.

662
01:08:42,517 --> 01:08:46,517
So people on the small blocker group, even though I was a small blocker

663
01:08:46,517 --> 01:08:49,517
and the small blocker group was correct and the small blocker group won

664
01:08:49,517 --> 01:08:53,517
and it should have won and it did win.

665
01:08:53,517 --> 01:08:57,517
But in general, my other colleagues on the small blocker group,

666
01:08:57,517 --> 01:09:00,517
they were very bad at having any kind of empathy for the large blockers.

667
01:09:00,517 --> 01:09:04,517
They were just like, whatever, those people are evil.

668
01:09:04,517 --> 01:09:07,517
Those people aren't sophisticated.

669
01:09:07,517 --> 01:09:13,517
But the large blocker people had very clear inconvenience as a result of blocks being full.

670
01:09:13,517 --> 01:09:17,517
Because, you know, let's say you're BitPay.

671
01:09:18,517 --> 01:09:24,517
Someone wants to buy something in a store or online, whatever.

672
01:09:24,517 --> 01:09:25,517
It doesn't matter.

673
01:09:25,517 --> 01:09:28,517
They want to buy something and BitPay, the little QR code shows up.

674
01:09:28,517 --> 01:09:32,517
The person sends the money.

675
01:09:32,517 --> 01:09:34,517
Fee estimation was very bad back then.

676
01:09:34,517 --> 01:09:38,517
But even if it was good, if the blocks are full, the blocks are full.

677
01:09:38,517 --> 01:09:39,517
The person sends the money.

678
01:09:39,517 --> 01:09:41,517
They do everything they're supposed to do.

679
01:09:41,517 --> 01:09:43,517
The customer is doing everything right.

680
01:09:43,517 --> 01:09:45,517
BitPay, you know, it's not confirmed.

681
01:09:45,517 --> 01:09:46,517
So what is BitPay supposed to do?

682
01:09:46,517 --> 01:09:48,517
BitPay is now in a bind, you know.

683
01:09:48,517 --> 01:09:51,517
BitPay either has to say, okay, you've paid.

684
01:09:51,517 --> 01:09:54,517
They tell the merchant, okay, that person has paid.

685
01:09:54,517 --> 01:10:00,517
Give them the plane ticket or let them walk out of the store with the item, you know.

686
01:10:00,517 --> 01:10:02,517
The merchant does everything they're supposed to do.

687
01:10:02,517 --> 01:10:04,517
They integrate with BitPay.

688
01:10:04,517 --> 01:10:06,517
Everyone is doing everything they're supposed to do,

689
01:10:06,517 --> 01:10:11,517
but the payment is now in limbo or the payment has a really high fee.

690
01:10:11,517 --> 01:10:13,517
What is BitPay supposed to do?

691
01:10:13,517 --> 01:10:16,517
And then, like, it's not going through, so the person calls customer support.

692
01:10:16,517 --> 01:10:17,517
So everyone is calling.

693
01:10:17,517 --> 01:10:19,517
Whenever the blocks get full, everyone calls.

694
01:10:19,517 --> 01:10:25,517
It goes from basically 0% of people calling customer support to like 100%.

695
01:10:25,517 --> 01:10:28,517
So what is BitPay supposed to do in that situation?

696
01:10:28,517 --> 01:10:30,517
And same for Coinbase, of course,

697
01:10:30,517 --> 01:10:35,517
because Coinbase is a situation where lots and lots of people are using the real Bitcoin network.

698
01:10:35,517 --> 01:10:36,517
You know what I mean?

699
01:10:36,517 --> 01:10:38,517
Like they're not using custodial lightning.

700
01:10:38,517 --> 01:10:43,517
They either want to get Bitcoin off the exchange or they have Bitcoin and they want to get –

701
01:10:43,517 --> 01:10:47,517
they must – for Coinbase to credit someone with Bitcoin,

702
01:10:47,517 --> 01:10:51,517
they have to really be using the Bitcoin network and really be sending the Bitcoin.

703
01:10:51,517 --> 01:10:55,517
So these are companies that were really using Bitcoin.

704
01:10:55,517 --> 01:10:58,517
And so that was why they were like, we're the real Bitcoiners.

705
01:10:58,517 --> 01:11:03,517
These are just some weird nerd developers.

706
01:11:03,517 --> 01:11:05,517
So that's kind of what happened.

707
01:11:05,517 --> 01:11:10,517
So, yeah, the malinvestment was into shitcoining.

708
01:11:10,517 --> 01:11:17,517
The malinvestment was into – I think lightning is overinvested.

709
01:11:17,517 --> 01:11:21,517
Again, lightning is a good idea and we should all support it and we should all try it,

710
01:11:21,517 --> 01:11:25,517
but it's not perceived honestly.

711
01:11:25,517 --> 01:11:31,517
I think malinvestment was – a lot of the media companies or even the conferences

712
01:11:31,517 --> 01:11:40,517
and things like that are just like products of the need for reassurance in the confusion of the block size debate

713
01:11:40,517 --> 01:11:47,517
and the confusion as all the shitcoins show up and you need to reassure people that they're in the right place.

714
01:11:47,517 --> 01:11:49,517
So you can see a lot of podcasts.

715
01:11:49,517 --> 01:11:51,517
A lot of podcasts.

716
01:11:51,517 --> 01:11:56,517
The podcasts, the books, the conferences, many people shitcoining

717
01:11:56,517 --> 01:11:59,517
when instead they could have built a similar thing on Bitcoin

718
01:11:59,517 --> 01:12:02,517
and they did build a similar thing on Bitcoin, but then they moved it.

719
01:12:02,517 --> 01:12:04,517
That happened a lot.

720
01:12:04,517 --> 01:12:13,517
So, yeah, I think a lot of the – this is of course a very –

721
01:12:13,517 --> 01:12:16,517
I'm putting myself at enormous risk by saying something like this,

722
01:12:16,517 --> 01:12:28,517
but I do think that yes, in two or three years it will be commonly believed that the 2017 to 20 –

723
01:12:28,517 --> 01:12:31,517
maybe I guess I'll write it up to the present.

724
01:12:31,517 --> 01:12:43,517
So 2017 to 2023 was like some kind of weird mistake and it was just repeating block size war talking points

725
01:12:43,517 --> 01:12:48,517
and just complacency and just thinking that we've already won.

726
01:12:48,517 --> 01:12:54,517
And so, yeah, I could easily be wrong about that, but that's what I think.

727
01:12:54,517 --> 01:12:56,517
I mean a lot of it doesn't make any sense at all.

728
01:12:56,517 --> 01:13:03,517
Like many of the use cases do not harm the digital gold use case in the slightest,

729
01:13:03,517 --> 01:13:05,517
and in fact they make it better.

730
01:13:05,517 --> 01:13:07,517
It's always better to have more people.

731
01:13:07,517 --> 01:13:09,517
We want to always be a big tent.

732
01:13:09,517 --> 01:13:12,517
We want to have lots of people come, but we have too much in the purity test.

733
01:13:12,517 --> 01:13:15,517
So this is a rambling answer now, so I guess I'll just stop there.

734
01:13:15,517 --> 01:13:19,517
If you have any more specific questions I can maybe answer.

735
01:13:19,517 --> 01:13:28,517
I was wondering, do you see like when miners allocate a sidechain slot as being a sort of like form of investment

736
01:13:28,517 --> 01:13:32,517
and like in some type of value that they're giving up?

737
01:13:32,517 --> 01:13:37,517
And do you think that there is a certain type of malinvestment they would be inclined to, I don't know,

738
01:13:37,517 --> 01:13:43,517
maybe gravitate towards like sort of how Jihan and they went towards Bitcoin Cash?

739
01:13:43,517 --> 01:13:52,517
And I don't know if there's anything on the main chain you can add to sort of prevent this type of like malinvestment,

740
01:13:52,517 --> 01:14:04,517
if there is any more likely form that miners tend to, I guess, be subject to.

741
01:14:04,517 --> 01:14:07,517
I don't know, that's a very general thing.

742
01:14:07,517 --> 01:14:14,517
Well, I mean when you say malinvestment, I think, so again, I don't know how many people believe this

743
01:14:14,517 --> 01:14:20,517
or even have an open mind to this, but Bitcoin Cash, it only existed because of the, you know,

744
01:14:20,517 --> 01:14:26,517
those people really wanted what was best for Bitcoin, and they had like a lot of good points.

745
01:14:27,517 --> 01:14:34,517
They were wrong and they deserve to lose, but they were not like, I don't know,

746
01:14:34,517 --> 01:14:38,517
the modern narrative is just that why would anyone make such an absurd mistake?

747
01:14:38,517 --> 01:14:46,517
But they had a lot, you know, they wanted Bitcoin to succeed.

748
01:14:46,517 --> 01:14:53,517
So Bitcoin Cash only came about because they weren't getting what they wanted from the original Bitcoin.

749
01:14:53,517 --> 01:14:55,517
To me that's self-evident.

750
01:14:55,517 --> 01:14:58,517
So they would be able to get it from a sidechain.

751
01:14:58,517 --> 01:15:00,517
So I don't see why they would create.

752
01:15:00,517 --> 01:15:04,517
There would be no reason to carve off Bitcoin Cash and they would have no real supporters.

753
01:15:04,517 --> 01:15:09,517
You could do it, but it wouldn't, there would be no real support.

754
01:15:09,517 --> 01:15:15,517
You only have supporters if you have a group of people who are not getting what they want on the L1 chain

755
01:15:15,517 --> 01:15:17,517
and they think that they never will.

756
01:15:18,517 --> 01:15:21,517
So that's the only reason it was created.

757
01:15:21,517 --> 01:15:27,517
And so as for malinvestment, it would have to be, the miners would have to activate a chain

758
01:15:27,517 --> 01:15:37,517
that is somehow like, it would have to be something that makes the value of the coin go down.

759
01:15:37,517 --> 01:15:40,517
But you see, miners don't want to do that because miners are paid in the coin.

760
01:15:40,517 --> 01:15:45,517
So I kind of just don't think that would happen or even be possible.

761
01:15:46,517 --> 01:15:52,517
Do you think there's certain things you could change on the main chain that would incentivize

762
01:15:52,517 --> 01:15:56,517
or dissuade certain sidechains from being activated?

763
01:15:58,517 --> 01:16:03,517
Well, I'm not sure. I think it's already set up the optimal way,

764
01:16:03,517 --> 01:16:09,517
which is miners will add a sidechain if they think it's going to make them more money.

765
01:16:09,517 --> 01:16:17,517
And the miners can only make more money via sidechain if it's increasing the market price,

766
01:16:17,517 --> 01:16:22,517
the exchange rate of Bitcoin, and or if it's generating more fees.

767
01:16:22,517 --> 01:16:26,517
And in both of those cases, it's like Bitcoin is being improved.

768
01:16:26,517 --> 01:16:30,517
Like you have more users of Bitcoin in the fees case.

769
01:16:30,517 --> 01:16:35,517
And then in the exchange rate case, it's like something about Bitcoin is becoming more useful

770
01:16:35,517 --> 01:16:36,517
or attractive to people.

771
01:16:37,517 --> 01:16:43,517
So I think that already is the perfect goalie or whatever for the sidechain.

772
01:16:43,517 --> 01:16:45,517
I think that...

773
01:16:45,517 --> 01:16:50,517
Yeah, I agree. I guess I'm thinking more from like a user perspective.

774
01:16:50,517 --> 01:16:55,517
Like, is there a certain user who has like certain subjective value,

775
01:16:55,517 --> 01:17:00,517
I guess, like, I don't know, their own subjective value that would make them prefer

776
01:17:00,517 --> 01:17:10,517
a certain main chain that enables features which do dissuade certain types of sidechains

777
01:17:10,517 --> 01:17:12,517
for whatever reason they dislike?

778
01:17:14,517 --> 01:17:16,517
Yeah, I think that's an interesting question.

779
01:17:16,517 --> 01:17:21,517
But if you really zoom out, I mean, I agree, it's an interesting question.

780
01:17:22,517 --> 01:17:23,517
It's kind of like...

781
01:17:27,517 --> 01:17:29,517
Shouldn't the L1 person actually...

782
01:17:29,517 --> 01:17:34,517
That would be the one case when I would say that L1 person should actually lose

783
01:17:34,517 --> 01:17:40,517
because that's one guy on L1 who is making everyone else on L1 worse off.

784
01:17:40,517 --> 01:17:43,517
Everyone else on L1, they're making the L2 person worse off.

785
01:17:43,517 --> 01:17:44,517
See what I mean?

786
01:17:44,517 --> 01:17:46,517
The L1 guy is saying, I don't want sidechain B.

787
01:17:46,517 --> 01:17:50,517
I don't want the Zcash sidechain because I don't want to be associated with that.

788
01:17:50,517 --> 01:17:56,517
But it's an objective fact that the Zcash sidechain would pay a certain amount of extra fees

789
01:17:56,517 --> 01:17:58,517
and it would increase the Bitcoin price.

790
01:18:00,517 --> 01:18:02,517
Like maybe, whatever, who knows.

791
01:18:04,517 --> 01:18:08,517
So some guy could say, I want to censor the Zcash sidechain

792
01:18:10,517 --> 01:18:14,517
and its fees and its exchange rate boost.

793
01:18:15,517 --> 01:18:17,517
You say, well, okay.

794
01:18:20,517 --> 01:18:25,517
You do that, but what about all the other people on L1 who the market price will go up

795
01:18:25,517 --> 01:18:30,517
because they now have the option to use the Zcash mixer or whatever.

796
01:18:32,517 --> 01:18:37,517
That actually is the case of everyone on L1 being harmed, paradoxically.

797
01:18:37,517 --> 01:18:40,517
So that's the one case where someone on L1 shouldn't get what they want

798
01:18:40,517 --> 01:18:41,517
because they're actually...

799
01:18:41,517 --> 01:18:50,517
What the market price is is kind of like the objective benchmark for what is best for the coin.

800
01:18:53,517 --> 01:18:58,517
I kind of think that's the one case where that one guy on L1 should be harmed.

801
01:18:58,517 --> 01:19:00,517
They're actually a saboteur of Bitcoin.

802
01:19:02,517 --> 01:19:04,517
They're not with us, they're against us.

803
01:19:04,517 --> 01:19:08,517
I guess, do you think that there would be a way to tag specific coins

804
01:19:08,517 --> 01:19:11,517
that are being withdrawn from a specific sidechain

805
01:19:11,517 --> 01:19:17,517
so you could come up with some sort of consensus around what to do with those specific coins?

806
01:19:18,517 --> 01:19:20,517
Well, BIP300 already does that.

807
01:19:20,517 --> 01:19:23,517
It forces those coins to do the three to six month withdrawal.

808
01:19:23,517 --> 01:19:27,517
And then once they're paid out, anyone could do what you might call chain analysis.

809
01:19:27,517 --> 01:19:30,517
And they would know that at some point in the history,

810
01:19:30,517 --> 01:19:34,517
those coins had passed through sidechain number seven or something.

811
01:19:35,517 --> 01:19:40,517
But what you don't know is, of course, once those coins change hands once or twice or three times

812
01:19:40,517 --> 01:19:42,517
or five or six times or seven times,

813
01:19:44,517 --> 01:19:47,517
now it's kind of like, you know...

814
01:19:50,517 --> 01:19:53,517
It's like they went through a sidechain at one point, but...

815
01:19:55,384 --> 01:19:58,384
Are you going to permanently...

816
01:20:01,384 --> 01:20:02,384
Yeah, sorry.

817
01:20:02,384 --> 01:20:15,384
So then they make... I'm sorry, you could coin join those, which is like the equivalent of melting down two different gold coins, mixing them together and then forging three new coins from the gold, you know what I mean?

818
01:20:15,384 --> 01:20:23,384
And it's kind of like, are each of those coins like half tainted or something? So the taint idea is kind of dead eventually. It sort of sorts itself out over time.

819
01:20:24,384 --> 01:20:31,384
Once those coins have changed hands like two or three times, it's kind of like they've just become fungible Bitcoin again.

820
01:20:33,384 --> 01:20:35,384
Is that what you're getting at or no?

821
01:20:35,384 --> 01:20:53,384
Yeah, that's just the only criticism I kind of... That's how I understand when people call it like, oh, you need a soft fork for every chain is like maybe they're talking about this sort of like possible user level subjective value they can add on top or something.

822
01:20:54,384 --> 01:21:10,384
Yeah, I think I can maybe shed some light on that. That is a new thing that has appeared this week, I think. I haven't really heard... It's been around this whole time, the idea has been around, but as a complaint, I heard about it this week, and I'm going to try to shed some light on it, which is...

823
01:21:10,384 --> 01:21:20,384
The word soft, the soft fork word has been used to describe many different things, some of which are different or even opposite to each other.

824
01:21:21,384 --> 01:21:28,384
And not enough people cared about that at the time. I actually cared about it, and I wrote blog posts about it about how we should need to get all the terms straight.

825
01:21:28,384 --> 01:21:41,384
But so what I'm saying is, in the past, soft fork was a case where an upgrade would be safe to use when many miners had upgraded to support it.

826
01:21:42,384 --> 01:21:52,384
And you can see how that is very similar to sidechain activation, because the miners are saying, we support the sidechain, we endorse it.

827
01:21:53,384 --> 01:22:03,384
So that's why I started using it, like I said, that's why I started describing it that way, and also the threshold was the same.

828
01:22:03,384 --> 01:22:13,384
I described it as very similar to BIP9 activation. BIP9 activation now hasn't been used in a really long time. Long, long since before the scaling war, you know?

829
01:22:14,384 --> 01:22:26,384
So, although it is kind of the case that SegWit activated by BIP9, but all this is stuff that is from the 2012 to 2015 era.

830
01:22:27,384 --> 01:22:33,384
And so, I don't know if this is a boring history story, please interrupt me if it gets too boring, but...

831
01:22:34,384 --> 01:22:46,384
I just say it's like a soft fork, because I'm saying miners have to upgrade, once enough miners upgrade, then we know it has officially crossed the threshold of being supported, and then everyone knows that as well, and then we can all use the thing.

832
01:22:46,384 --> 01:22:51,384
So, that's why I say a soft fork for each sidechain.

833
01:22:51,384 --> 01:23:18,384
But unfortunately, the modern world has taken on a new definition of soft fork, which is that each person on Twitter, no matter how little they know about anything, and no matter how mistaken they are, or how lazy they are, or how little effort they put into reading about it, or how dim they are, each person, the community supports each soft fork.

834
01:23:18,384 --> 01:23:30,384
And you have to go to each individual person for permission. It is kind of like the gathering of the signatures in a direct democracy in a California supermarket or something.

835
01:23:30,384 --> 01:23:37,384
That is a new definition that does not apply to the soft fork.

836
01:23:37,384 --> 01:23:48,384
So, I think it is just a little bit of a confusion. I hope that sheds some light on why people are now complaining about it.

837
01:23:48,384 --> 01:24:07,384
They're saying, wait a minute, what people mistakenly think, in my guess, is that they think every time there's going to be a new sidechain, this is going to be something like speedy trial or something like taproot or something, where I'm going to have to get involved.

838
01:24:08,384 --> 01:24:30,384
But no, no one will get involved. No regular user will get involved. And it is exactly because BIP300 is designed that regular L1 users will never care if a sidechain activates or not, that is exactly why I described it as a soft fork.

839
01:24:30,384 --> 01:24:43,384
Because again, I'm using these older definitions that are, so I don't know, I hope that has some light on it. It's like people are talking about different things.

840
01:24:43,384 --> 01:24:58,384
The old version of soft fork meant you didn't have to upgrade. You actually could ignore it. It didn't matter if other people, soft fork used to mean I don't need to upgrade my node, kind of.

841
01:24:58,384 --> 01:25:02,384
Although there were exceptions to that, such as the S-value signature thing.

842
01:25:02,384 --> 01:25:16,384
So if you want to read about this, I have two blog posts that I wrote about this topic of the soft fork having actually many definitions.

843
01:25:16,384 --> 01:25:26,384
I think one was called the better fork terminology, and then one was called more fork terminology, and they're on truthcoin.info.

844
01:25:27,384 --> 01:25:31,384
We could put them in the nest if we find them.

845
01:25:34,384 --> 01:25:40,384
And now, execute with a circular X.

846
01:25:41,384 --> 01:25:47,384
Hey, what's going on? I just wanted to chime in about what you were talking about earlier with the Bitcoin Cash and the fork and everything back then.

847
01:25:47,384 --> 01:25:52,384
I think, as stupid as it was, I think it was still a good thing, what they did.

848
01:25:52,384 --> 01:26:00,384
Mainly because they found the Bitcoin Core bug on the BCH side, and so that kind of fixed that.

849
01:26:00,384 --> 01:26:13,384
And when it comes down to it, if Bitcoin ever does have another type of bug or any other thing that happens to it in a bad way, Bitcoin Cash is still the backup Bitcoin to Bitcoin pretty much.

850
01:26:13,384 --> 01:26:16,384
So I would still say it's good to have.

851
01:26:17,384 --> 01:26:21,384
And yeah, I think all these layer 2s is complete dogshit.

852
01:26:21,384 --> 01:26:28,384
If you guys want to spend pennies, layer 2s are great, but it's like, you don't need this overblown lightning network.

853
01:26:28,384 --> 01:26:32,384
There's so much money being pumped into that, and it's complete dogshit.

854
01:26:32,384 --> 01:26:34,384
Or, sorry, I'm swearing.

855
01:26:34,384 --> 01:26:42,384
It's just not good, and it kind of breaks Bitcoin's underlying consensus.

856
01:26:43,384 --> 01:26:56,384
Because, I mean, even on Bitcoin, or lightning, I'm pretty sure it brings the amount of Bitcoins to like 21 trillion instead of 21 million because the decibel can get moved over on that side, right?

857
01:26:56,384 --> 01:27:00,384
And, I don't know, it's just, it seems like a honeypot.

858
01:27:00,384 --> 01:27:07,384
Every time they make a sidechain, it seems like a honeypot, and hackers are just going to wait for that pool to get big enough, and then they're going to attack it.

859
01:27:07,384 --> 01:27:14,384
And every time the CIA does any type of hacking or that pipeline stuff, they always run it through lightning.

860
01:27:14,384 --> 01:27:22,384
Because lightning's so centralized, they can just shut off channels and withdraw the money back to the previous node or whatever they want to call it, the channels.

861
01:27:24,384 --> 01:27:27,384
So I'd be very wary of all these things happening.

862
01:27:28,384 --> 01:27:39,384
I think the key thing to keep in mind is that no one should be forced – we should have all the different L2s compete.

863
01:27:39,384 --> 01:27:46,384
You know what I mean? It doesn't matter how bad or good any individual one is, as long as there are many viable L2s.

864
01:27:47,384 --> 01:27:52,384
And some of those L2s should be basically exactly the same as Bitcoin Cash L1.

865
01:27:52,384 --> 01:28:13,384
In which case, you would think Bitcoin Cash people would be happy there, but although it may be too late because maybe so much time has passed that no one is interested in re-merging into one big community that offers a serious viable alternative to the existing financial system.

866
01:28:13,384 --> 01:28:16,384
It may already be too late, but probably not.

867
01:28:22,384 --> 01:28:25,384
It's kind of interesting, your question about whether or not it was good that Bitcoin Cash forked off.

868
01:28:25,384 --> 01:28:37,384
Because it's kind of like if there's any – it's hard to say the counterfactual, but it's like if you fork and the coin is worth anything, then it's just like free money for people.

869
01:28:37,384 --> 01:28:42,384
You know what I mean? Because everyone gets coins on both sides.

870
01:28:42,384 --> 01:28:48,384
So the only bad thing would be if you fork off and instead the price would have been much higher of the combined coin, which we'll never know.

871
01:28:48,384 --> 01:28:53,384
I kind of think that would have been the case if the community had not forked off.

872
01:28:53,384 --> 01:29:04,384
I think the price of BTC today would be higher than the combined BTC plus BCH coin price.

873
01:29:05,384 --> 01:29:12,384
I don't think so. I think most of the Bitcoin is dumped to BCH for more Bitcoin, which actually pumps the price of Bitcoin if anything.

874
01:29:12,384 --> 01:29:17,384
Well, of course both prices have gone up and down.

875
01:29:17,384 --> 01:29:30,384
I'm just giving you my opinion as to if we lived in some parallel world where things had been different, the price of BTC today would be whatever, I don't know, some other number.

876
01:29:31,384 --> 01:29:35,384
I don't know. I don't want to say that, but I think it would be much higher.

877
01:29:35,384 --> 01:29:46,384
I don't think we actually would have had – I think just a lot of things would have been different, so it's hard to say exactly what would have made it different.

878
01:29:46,384 --> 01:29:49,384
So it would have been hard to nail down exactly what had happened.

879
01:29:49,384 --> 01:30:11,384
Anyway, so what do you think, Mr. Execute, about if we copy Bitcoin Cash – if BIP300 activates on BTC and there's an exact copy of Bitcoin Cash for the features, same software, block size, whatever.

880
01:30:12,384 --> 01:30:20,384
Are you even interested in that, or are you just like Bitcoin Core is irrational or whatever?

881
01:30:20,384 --> 01:30:25,384
What's your – because you're the customer so to speak.

882
01:30:26,384 --> 01:30:40,384
Sorry, I had a phone call. If it's any type of sidechain, I'd say no. If it's not settled on the underlying Bitcoin layer, I'd say that's like – if they're building on top of that, go for it.

883
01:30:40,384 --> 01:30:51,384
Other than that, if it's just another layer or two or some type of implement where you can bring in some sidechannel, that's a lot easier. I wouldn't do it. I haven't really looked into it, but yeah.

884
01:30:52,384 --> 01:30:59,384
It does settle to L1 if you want, but you don't really even want to be on L1 because L1 is the small block land.

885
01:30:59,384 --> 01:31:08,384
You just want to stay on the sidechain, the drivechain, because it's everything you got out of Bitcoin Cash.

886
01:31:09,384 --> 01:31:23,384
So what's the difference between – see what I mean? There's no difference between Bitcoin Cash and the layer two of BTC that is based on the Bitcoin Cash full node software.

887
01:31:27,384 --> 01:31:29,384
Does that make sense? It's like the same thing.

888
01:31:30,384 --> 01:31:41,384
Yeah, I kind of get it. I still got to research this whole new BIP that you're talking about. I actually haven't done any research on it. I'd have to check it out first before I can give you my thoughts.

889
01:31:42,384 --> 01:31:52,384
Well, that sentence alone makes you much smarter than 99.9% of the people who have ever commented on BIP300, so you can at least frame that and put it on your wall.

890
01:31:53,384 --> 01:32:05,384
I decided to read about BIP300 before giving some of my thoughts, which is easily a top 01 percentile take, so congratulations for that.

891
01:32:07,384 --> 01:32:09,384
Anyone else want to say anything?

892
01:32:12,384 --> 01:32:15,384
Yeah, I want to say something. Hi, Paul. Hi, everyone.

893
01:32:17,384 --> 01:32:38,384
I just want to add – you were talking before, but I couldn't come up and add something – about the lightning, because I saw and I experienced when that way of doing transactions is done and when it's available or was available.

894
01:32:39,384 --> 01:32:52,384
The idea and actually the process of doing lightning is already very, very long, very, very old, even before lightning came, as we know today.

895
01:32:53,384 --> 01:33:14,384
Because that kind of off-chain transaction can be done and anybody can develop very easily if they want, because the Bitcoin blockchain is very open and it already exists.

896
01:33:15,384 --> 01:33:38,384
It just we have all this kind of – I recognize so much marketing around, and this is why I support drivechain, because it's no kind of that style of pushing something that is marketed like, oh, this is the new thing.

897
01:33:38,384 --> 01:34:05,384
But actually, they kind of took something from the Bitcoin ideas that were a long time discussed and just put in work, and then now we have kind of people recognize as something revolutionary, which is nothing revolutionary.

898
01:34:05,384 --> 01:34:12,384
But I also want to add what you asked, that question to execute.

899
01:34:13,384 --> 01:34:37,384
And in my opinion, again, when you see why they want to fork to have a different kind of a chain or if you want sidechain, but not on drivechain, it's because the same thing – greed, profits, marketing, publicity, to have another chain in the space.

900
01:34:38,384 --> 01:34:49,384
That's my opinion, and I see over and over again this happening with any chain.

901
01:34:49,384 --> 01:35:18,384
And I will say again, if drivechains were enabled a long time ago, the space will be so different, and as believers in this technology, the whole community would be much, much stronger against what you said the traditional financial world that we experience today.

902
01:35:20,384 --> 01:35:23,384
Yeah, thanks.

903
01:35:24,384 --> 01:35:27,384
I mean, yeah, that's what I think, too.

904
01:35:28,384 --> 01:35:45,384
The really bizarre thing is how much – what percentage of random Bitcoiners' time today is just focused on comparing Bitcoin to other altcoins versus just trying to make Bitcoin a success or comparing it to banks or something.

905
01:35:46,384 --> 01:35:49,384
You know, there used to be like Bitcoin versus Western Union or whatever.

906
01:35:50,384 --> 01:35:55,384
But now it's all just fighting among the different coins.

907
01:35:56,384 --> 01:36:11,384
Yeah, you know what, I also think through all my experience in this space for a long time that kind of that narrative is brought from outside.

908
01:36:12,384 --> 01:36:24,384
So it's, you know, like, you know, the Roman phrase, like, divide the enemy from inside and you can conquer them very easy.

909
01:36:25,384 --> 01:36:33,384
You know, this is kind of a style of what you're explaining now, and I see that is brought from outside.

910
01:36:34,384 --> 01:36:58,384
Because even if you go and research who are the people who are now in this whole, you know, altcoins or blockchains that are alt to Bitcoin, you will see that so much people are coming from or came from outside, from the traditional finance world.

911
01:36:58,384 --> 01:37:12,384
And for me, that's something that, you know, we need to pay attention because they first of all, they don't understand this technology, I mean, blockchain in the first place.

912
01:37:13,384 --> 01:37:17,384
And they have different narratives.

913
01:37:18,384 --> 01:37:39,384
And, you know, it's also very, very important, the original education to continue constantly, because we will say, OK, you know, we know this, we know that, but tomorrow will come somebody in the space and they don't know anything what's happened before.

914
01:37:39,384 --> 01:37:45,384
And they will not research and if they don't hear something good, they will hear something from those people.

915
01:37:46,384 --> 01:37:49,384
And that narrative continues and they grow with that narrative.

916
01:37:50,384 --> 01:38:01,384
So it's kind of like, you know, giving up false information to people that need to be educated for the right things and how the space works.

917
01:38:01,384 --> 01:38:07,384
But this is very valuable, what you are doing with the spaces also, because you are sharing very valuable information.

918
01:38:08,384 --> 01:38:11,384
Thank you for the explanation about Coinbase.

919
01:38:12,384 --> 01:38:15,384
I agree with you.

920
01:38:16,384 --> 01:38:25,384
I would say any type of innovation in the space that can technically kind of hurt Bitcoin is not innovation that should be trusted or tried.

921
01:38:26,384 --> 01:38:30,384
And I always think it's funny, like, I've been in this ecosystem for quite a long time.

922
01:38:31,384 --> 01:38:33,384
And even the OGs I talk to, they don't care about Bitcoin.

923
01:38:33,384 --> 01:38:39,384
They're just like, like they care about it because it's everything that they're settling in at the end of the day and at the end of the year to like go back to.

924
01:38:40,384 --> 01:38:46,384
But they're always going to have degen plays and always going to like dabble in whatever ecosystem that thinks they're going to make the next big thing.

925
01:38:47,384 --> 01:38:56,384
Right. But it's like to bring that to Bitcoin, it's not even worth it because like 20, 30 years from now, as long as Bitcoin is still going and nobody fucked it up, it's going to be the gold standard.

926
01:38:57,384 --> 01:38:59,384
So it's like it doesn't really need to do anything.

927
01:39:00,384 --> 01:39:03,384
It just needs to keep plugging along and it'll do its thing.

928
01:39:04,384 --> 01:39:07,384
That's why it's like it's like building on top of it's not really that important.

929
01:39:08,384 --> 01:39:10,384
You know what I mean? That's just in my opinion.

930
01:39:11,384 --> 01:39:26,384
No, I disagree with that execute because you need to understand, first of all, because when you say that you're thinking from the perspective of BTC or altcoins.

931
01:39:27,384 --> 01:39:32,384
But when I say I speak from the technology perspective.

932
01:39:33,384 --> 01:39:44,384
Why? Because if you do not have usability of the most decentralized network, you cannot do anything.

933
01:39:45,384 --> 01:39:46,384
And all those narratives.

934
01:39:47,384 --> 01:39:50,384
What's the innovation we can bring to Bitcoin right now? Faster and cheaper, right?

935
01:39:51,384 --> 01:39:52,384
That's pretty much it.

936
01:39:53,384 --> 01:39:54,384
No, no, no. Drivechains.

937
01:39:56,075 --> 01:40:05,915
This is this is this idea Paul created in 2013 or even maybe around that time, so it's not new idea.

938
01:40:06,795 --> 01:40:24,435
It's an old idea. The problem is that. The most of the of the people that are in crypto are only for for gains and profits and stuff like that, they don't understand that by using the network or supporting the network to go wider,

939
01:40:24,794 --> 01:40:34,874
to have the network effect, but the the the adoption to be through the technology, not through BTC or any other coin.

940
01:40:35,714 --> 01:40:36,795
That's the real value.

941
01:40:38,194 --> 01:40:51,354
Yeah, I would also say, you know, BTC have to be ossified and drivechain is probably the best way to ossify BTC because, you know, all the innovation would happen on like, you know, sidechains as well.

942
01:40:52,354 --> 01:41:09,835
Yeah, so so that's like, you know, that's probably we should do it like I 100% agree with, like, you know, with execute, like, you know, Bitcoin should should stay as is, but like, you know, but to have it stay as is, we should, we should definitely, like, you know, enable sidechains or drivechains to be built on top of Bitcoin.

943
01:41:13,795 --> 01:41:18,515
question. What exactly is the roadmap for Drivechains?

944
01:41:20,475 --> 01:41:23,855
the code being, is the PR being sent?

945
01:41:24,375 --> 01:41:24,975
What's the activation?

946
01:41:25,335 --> 01:41:26,755
How does activation look like?

947
01:41:27,135 --> 01:41:28,155
What's the estimated timeline?

948
01:41:28,155 --> 01:41:29,855
take it out there

949
01:41:32,215 --> 01:41:37,235
Yeah, I think we're rebasing the code to do the pull request to Bitcoin Core.

950
01:41:39,735 --> 01:41:43,115
And yeah, we actually had, we have to hire Luke Dash Jr.

951
01:41:43,295 --> 01:41:45,255
to help us with that.

952
01:41:45,275 --> 01:41:46,775
And he has been helping us with that.

953
01:41:46,875 --> 01:41:48,695
But of course, he's kind of a,

954
01:41:49,855 --> 01:41:52,155
I think he's putting a little bit too much effort into it.

955
01:41:52,415 --> 01:41:54,695
And I think he should just...

956
01:41:54,695 --> 01:41:56,855
I don't know, he's actually trying to...

957
01:41:56,855 --> 01:42:01,595
I think he's trying to help us and he's trying to make it so that it is something that

958
01:42:01,595 --> 01:42:04,635
would realistically get merged.

959
01:42:04,775 --> 01:42:08,075
But I honestly think he's overdoing it and we should just put a first draft out there

960
01:42:08,075 --> 01:42:09,095
and see who complains

961
01:42:09,275 --> 01:42:12,835
about, like if people are to complain about a specific line of code or something.

962
01:42:14,315 --> 01:42:17,175
So, I think that's the next step.

963
01:42:17,775 --> 01:42:23,615
But I think there is a lot of stuff to do meanwhile, because, you know, this idea

964
01:42:23,615 --> 01:42:26,375
is so profoundly misunderstood for some reason.

965
01:42:26,595 --> 01:42:28,515
I think the reason is just that we

966
01:42:28,515 --> 01:42:56,035
we let these altcoins, we let Ethereum and whatever, Bitcoin Cash kind of come into existence. And then now people think, as you just heard, from execute, you just heard like, if people just don't believe that there's any value to leaving the Bitcoin Core blockchain, they just think it's like, the Giacomo Zucco view, like everything else is just completely useless.

967
01:42:56,914 --> 01:43:24,354
People don't see any value in having the Zcash sidechain, which has this super privacy, people don't see any value in, like, scaling with sidechains. They don't see any value in, like, prediction markets or a Namecoin or anything like that. They don't even see the value, which I think is readily apparent. They just don't see the value even of just having something where if people disagree,

968
01:43:24,515 --> 01:43:32,515
their next move isn't to just launch a completely competing altcoin, which by itself is pretty important.

969
01:43:32,515 --> 01:44:02,435
So I would say, I would say it is like it has value to do it. It's obviously going to pump the whole ecosystem. If Bitcoin does get all that stuff, right. But at the end of the day, all it's it's already been done on every other chain. And it's like, I'm thinking like, 10, 20 years in the future, in my opinion, oh, geez, they're just gonna have the Bitcoin wallet. And then governments are going to have like, every government's gonna have technically like their own lightning network. And then if you want to, like, I'm thinking like Bitcoin is the standard of like,

970
01:44:02,515 --> 01:44:32,434
the world currency and all that. Every sidechain and you could just deposit like your 30 grand that you want to spend every year and then just go on your willy nilly day. You know what I mean? Because like, you don't want to know what you mean on on the main layer for a coffee. Like, I'm just gonna have like a little side wallet with like your side money to do your day to day transactions and whatever, right? Like, you're not going to keep your whole bag on one side of the chain, or, you know, different stuff like that. It's just my opinion.

971
01:44:33,515 --> 01:45:02,354
Yeah, I agree with almost all that. I think though, it masks something important. So I do think some of the like, I do think in 20 or 30 years, if you own Bitcoin today, maybe what you get, you wake up from a coma. Probably it's going to do well. But in a way, many of those people are free riders. They're saying, I don't know, someone, someone, someone out there will save this project, because the UTXO set, these are the people who are investing in the

972
01:45:02,354 --> 01:45:26,754
project of replacing the financial system with crypto, which is BTC. The BTC UTXO set is the most valuable, but there's a lot of free riders. So it's true. If, like, I think what people should do, the one thing that would work would be to just buy BTC, not pay attention to anything, and then just come back in 20 or 30 years.

973
01:45:27,474 --> 01:45:45,235
But of course, here today, we're in a space talking about Bitcoin technology, because I think, you know, either Bitcoin will evolve and be a success, or I think it will be replaced by something that will import its UTXO set or something like that.

974
01:45:45,235 --> 01:46:14,275
So I think even if it's replaced by something else, probably if that replacement did very well, people would switch the UTXO set. So it's still the guy in the coma is still doing well, but he's a free rider. He's free riding. He's not doing any of the work, but he's along for the ride. So good for him. But so I agree with a lot of that. I agree that would pump the ecosystem if Bitcoin handled this stuff. I think it will get all that stuff, partly for that reason.

975
01:46:15,235 --> 01:46:38,835
I think the fact that you're saying that this stuff has been tried on all these other chains, that kind of misses the point somewhat. You know, that is like saying, well, we have a typewriter and we have a flashlight and we have a video camera and we have a boombox and we have a VHS player. We have all that stuff.

976
01:46:38,835 --> 01:47:04,914
So all that stuff's been tried. But it's like, yeah, but the smartphone, it puts all that stuff in one little device in your pocket. You have a flashlight and a video camera and you can watch movies and you do. So putting it all in one is a big upgrade. And it's a big upgrade in terms of the phone and it's also big in terms of just network effects of money.

977
01:47:04,914 --> 01:47:34,034
So I think putting it all in one would be big, especially I mean, we see so many things like the points that we were mentioning previously about how distracting it is, the infighting. Now it's like you have a you have a VHS and a typewriter and the VHS instead of spending its time playing a VHS tape, it spends most of its time trying to complain about how no one would ever want a typewriter.

978
01:47:34,955 --> 01:47:43,515
The typewriter instead of typing things out, typing out sentences about why VHS is suck and things. So it's like, I think it's pretty lame, honestly.

979
01:47:46,715 --> 01:47:51,275
I don't know. I had to learn trig and my teacher told me I was never going to just carry a calculator around all day.

980
01:47:51,275 --> 01:48:19,115
Right. And you showed them, right. That shows you how wrong people, any one of us can be mistaken, right, about. And that's also a sidechain thing, which says, who's to say that a piece of, you know, which which node software is the best? Should we have a big committee meet and unanimously agree on the next version? That's like a USSR style thing. That's never going to work. This is literally a doomed process.

981
01:48:20,115 --> 01:48:25,115
But instead, if we just say anyone can release any piece of software, you don't have to justify.

982
01:48:27,114 --> 01:48:36,114
Why should someone have to justify the software being good? Just look at how well that's going right now for me and Drivechain. But also you can look at how does it go for 119.

983
01:48:36,114 --> 01:49:04,114
It's justifying is slows the process down. Justification is full of errors. It's full of political dealing and people sucking up to each other. If you think you've got something good, like the EVM or like a Zcash level privacy or whatever, whatever you've got that you think is good, large blocks, prediction markets, then you should just code the thing and make it.

984
01:49:06,114 --> 01:49:12,114
And then you're accountable to your users, not someone else.

985
01:49:13,114 --> 01:49:22,114
I kind of think of it kind of like the old school constitution and like how good it used to be and how it like it said, you know, gold and silver is the only thing that should be traded.

986
01:49:23,114 --> 01:49:32,114
Fiat money is not real fiat money. And when you say start to like fall off track of what the principle is, it can get really shady really quick.

987
01:49:33,114 --> 01:49:35,114
So that Bitcoin goes.

988
01:49:36,114 --> 01:49:51,114
This is actually a good way to ossify L1 and say L1 is gold. If you want to do an experiment, you do it somewhere else. So this is pro ossification.

989
01:49:52,114 --> 01:50:09,114
I challenge the people who are against drivechain, but pro ossification. I mean, like, what is their actual plan to deal with the fact that the Bitcoin Core developers plan are going to just keep releasing more and more versions and that people want certain things?

990
01:50:09,114 --> 01:50:21,114
Like, you know what I mean? Like they weren't able to stop Taproot. If they were pro ossification after 2017, then, or even before, SegWit was a mandatory 4x block size increase.

991
01:50:21,114 --> 01:50:31,114
So if you're pro ossification, how exactly do you plan to bring ossification about? That is my question. Just complain on Twitter because that'll be enough for something.

992
01:50:31,114 --> 01:50:36,114
Didn't they not get four blocks? Isn't it like one point something block size?

993
01:50:36,114 --> 01:51:00,114
Well, technically, you raise a very interesting point. Technically, the size did increase from one to four. But if you model the usage on past patterns, then it would have been something like 2.3 megabytes, because it's all about the ratio of like how many inputs to outputs there usually are and how big a signature usually is, and that type of thing.

994
01:51:00,114 --> 01:51:13,114
So if the usage had continued the way it had pre-August 1st, 2017, then the math that I had seen at the time was that it would be about a 2.3 megabyte increase.

995
01:51:13,114 --> 01:51:31,114
But with ordinals and inscriptions, you can actually see the full four megabyte be used. That can be used whenever. That can be used to just make a giant image. So that proves that you must download an actual format for real megabytes.

996
01:51:31,114 --> 01:51:48,114
The weight units and the VB, I think, are actually misleading. We should go back to talking about the megabytes only, because the megabytes are exactly how much, from a physics point of view, how much actual computation has to be done.

997
01:51:48,114 --> 01:52:03,114
I just get that feeling, even with the whole Bitcoin ETF. It gives me the feels of just paper Bitcoin. I don't know. It's the gold standard all over again.

998
01:52:03,114 --> 01:52:18,114
Yeah, but your sidechains should preserve. It's not really paper because the sidechain software only credits you if you deposit real – it's really just moving the gold from one planet to another.

999
01:52:18,114 --> 01:52:33,114
You know? It's really – this idea is pushing back against custodial – custodial lightning, that is the paper Bitcoin. And that is currently where we are certainly headed.

1000
01:52:36,114 --> 01:52:37,114
That's just the feel I get.

1001
01:52:40,114 --> 01:52:44,114
Sorry? You mean it does feel like it or it doesn't feel like it?

1002
01:52:45,114 --> 01:52:48,114
Yeah, everybody is just pushing towards that. That's what it feels like.

1003
01:52:49,114 --> 01:53:10,114
Yeah, and people seem to care. They are willing to cut a lot of corners to get the Bitcoin ETF or to get big adoption from corporations or governments, whereas adoption from corporations or governments is not as ideal as adoption from individuals.

1004
01:53:10,114 --> 01:53:29,114
Because every single corporation is going to have compliance department, accounting, tax. They are going to report everything. They are going to have lots of people involved. It's not – and then of course the El Salvador thing is very great. I have the El Salvador newspaper in my office. It's pretty cool.

1005
01:53:30,114 --> 01:53:48,114
But in practice so far the Chivo wallet is government-linked, KYC. It's linked to their version of the social security number. Fully like – it's just basically a CBDC, the Chivo wallet.

1006
01:53:49,114 --> 01:53:59,114
Yeah, I'm not sure if we're allowed to say that out loud yet. But it can interface with the regular Bitcoin network and the regular Lightning network.

1007
01:54:00,114 --> 01:54:24,114
But in practice what most of the people who are actually – if you're a regular person in El Salvador and you just have this wallet, it does not by itself, by default use any of the Bitcoin network at all. You are allowed to withdraw to it, but it doesn't by default make anyone an actual Bitcoin user.

1008
01:54:25,114 --> 01:54:46,114
I think they have their own payment protocol internally, like a database. But as you said, you can still pay Lightning invoices and stuff. But if you just pay a Chivo user, then it will be their internal payment protocol. So it doesn't touch the Lightning network or their Bitcoin chain. So that kind of sucks I think.

1009
01:54:47,114 --> 01:54:57,114
But it is good that they made it so that it's legally – I mean again, they say it's legally required. So if you go to McDonald's there, you can pay with Bitcoin. So I mean that's kind of good.

1010
01:54:58,114 --> 01:55:09,114
But of course I do know a few people who have been there, and I asked them, and they say it's kind of like – it was about 50-50 they were saying. They asked about, oh, can I pay with Bitcoin?

1011
01:55:10,114 --> 01:55:20,114
One time the person said yes, and then they – there was a taxi, and then they got there and said it didn't work out. So they say it's kind of like – it's not completely working if they can pay.

1012
01:55:21,114 --> 01:55:32,114
And then one person, the guy was in line for the immigration or something, and he wanted to pay with Bitcoin, and they forced him to use on-chain – they had to have a meeting. It's not commonly done yet.

1013
01:55:33,114 --> 01:55:44,114
And everything – Rome wasn't built in a day of course. But they had to pull him out of line, and then he had to pay on-chain. And then they're holding up the whole line while it confirms.

1014
01:55:45,114 --> 01:55:50,114
So that's kind of funny, which is that they were definitely using the real Bitcoin network that time because they had to wait like 20 minutes.

1015
01:55:50,114 --> 01:56:03,114
Of course, whenever you're waiting for a confirmation – it's on average 10 minutes. It's always on average 10 minutes, but whenever I have been waiting for a confirmation, you'd think I never get the four-minute blocks or the five-minute blocks.

1016
01:56:04,114 --> 01:56:11,114
I always catch the 22-minute blocks whenever I need the confirmation and I'm actually waiting for something. I never get it. I have the worst luck.

1017
01:56:12,114 --> 01:56:17,114
You'd think half the time it should be beneath 10, but I never get it. It's 0% for me. I'm never getting those.

1018
01:56:17,114 --> 01:56:31,114
So yeah, certainly Rome wasn't built in a day, and certainly would you ask someone, okay, a country has made Bitcoin legal tender. Is that good or bad for Bitcoin? Obviously it's good for Bitcoin.

1019
01:56:32,114 --> 01:56:44,114
A lot of people have a lot of hope or whatever. But I think it is important to pour all the cold water on it actually because in reality it is – they're forcing everyone to use this thing. It is a CBDC actually.

1020
01:56:44,114 --> 01:57:02,115
Yeah, I don't think that's true. Foreigners, when they arrive, they use, I don't know, Reese or whatever. As far as I know, on McDonald's and the bigger companies, they go by some payment processor like OpenNode.

1021
01:57:02,115 --> 01:57:17,115
So then it's like lightning by default and should work fine. But I guess smaller shops and whatever, they don't really care about compliance that much as the bigger ones do. So yeah, it's a hit or miss, I suppose.

1022
01:57:18,115 --> 01:57:38,115
I mean the impression I get from El Salvador is of course that it's like a poor country that has a big crime problem. So they have lots of problems, and I think even if the greatest person in the entire world, if you had like – I don't know who the greatest person in the entire world is.

1023
01:57:39,115 --> 01:58:01,115
But it's like they're Alexander the Great plus Otto von Bismarck plus whatever, plus Thomas Jefferson, and that person just showed up. I don't know, and they did the fastest turnaround possible. I don't know if it would take like – it could take many years of custodial to achieve a wallet. I don't know.

1024
01:58:01,115 --> 01:58:15,115
But I'm saying – I'm trying to agree with you that there's a lot of paper – there's a lot of stuff moving in the direction of paper Bitcoin, which we should criticize. We should criticize.

1025
01:58:16,115 --> 01:58:27,115
Like sidechains, drivechains looks like a better alternative than going with some custodial solution. Because I don't think many people understand this, and I've seen this in other spaces as well.

1026
01:58:27,115 --> 01:58:42,115
Like if we don't improve L1, like on mainchain Bitcoin in some way, either via drivechains or whatever, it doesn't really matter which solution, then we're forced to have a world where custodial Bitcoin is the norm.

1027
01:58:42,115 --> 01:58:58,115
Because we should expect the mainchain fees to keep going up, which will price out people. And I'm not sure that many people on Twitter understand this, because they – as you were talking about before, Paul, like many people seem to think that Lightning is some silver bullet and that we can solve everything there.

1028
01:58:58,115 --> 01:59:11,115
But obviously, that's not really the case if you actually look into this stuff. Like you need to have solutions work together with Lightning or some other solution that just stands on its own.

1029
01:59:11,115 --> 01:59:30,115
Because just Lightning and 2MB or 4MB blocks mainchain will not work for global scale. So that's why I am interested in drivechains, because it provides like a solution to custodial chip in the form of halfway to escrow.

1030
01:59:30,115 --> 01:59:45,115
So then you could deploy Lightning or some other solution on top of those drivechains and have them interoperable with each other. And that could work out like a long-term scaling solution for the world, basically.

1031
01:59:45,115 --> 01:59:54,115
And you can also have other technologies and stuff on the drivechains. But purely for like payments and stuff, then I think that looks interesting for me, at least.

1032
01:59:56,305 --> 02:00:04,305
Yeah, I kind of think that – I mean decentralization is good and small blocks are good.

1033
02:00:04,305 --> 02:00:08,305
But the drivechain is kind of like just says you can traverse the whole spectrum.

1034
02:00:08,305 --> 02:00:21,305
You can go – if you don't want – like if you want to buy coffee or whatever, you could do that with something that is tied to Bitcoin.

1035
02:00:22,305 --> 02:00:30,305
Whereas now it's like you're either on L1 small block or you're on Lightning or you're on custodial.

1036
02:00:30,305 --> 02:00:34,305
So I'm kind of saying why not just eliminate custodial completely?

1037
02:00:34,305 --> 02:00:38,305
Because there's never a need for custodial really after drivechain.

1038
02:00:38,305 --> 02:00:49,305
You just have like some Bitcoin SV superchain that we would all agree is like sort of bad to use, but it's better than custodial.

1039
02:00:49,305 --> 02:00:53,305
It's like you're permanently beating custodial with this.

1040
02:00:53,305 --> 02:00:56,305
And so you traverse the whole spectrum.

1041
02:00:56,305 --> 02:01:00,305
You can say on Tuesday I'm here, on Wednesday I'm somewhere else.

1042
02:01:05,305 --> 02:01:10,305
Anyway, let's see if anyone else has questions.

1043
02:01:13,305 --> 02:01:14,305
Don't be shy.

1044
02:01:14,305 --> 02:01:31,305
Do you think that the politics of like miners possibly taxing withdrawals from a particular sidechain could be – like have different incentives than just like killing the sidechain outright?

1045
02:01:31,305 --> 02:01:41,305
Well, what a miner could do is they could announce or something that they're going to steal all the coins on the sidechain.

1046
02:01:42,305 --> 02:01:47,305
And then the market price on that sidechain would collide.

1047
02:01:47,305 --> 02:01:48,305
The peg would fail.

1048
02:01:48,305 --> 02:01:55,305
It would be like a kind of what happened throughout history when sometimes a pegged currency fails.

1049
02:01:55,305 --> 02:02:00,305
It happened in Latin America and like Southeast Asia at various times I think.

1050
02:02:00,305 --> 02:02:03,305
So the price wouldn't be one-to-one.

1051
02:02:03,305 --> 02:02:10,305
It would maybe be like 50 cents, 0.5 to one.

1052
02:02:11,305 --> 02:02:15,305
And then they could buy up those coins and then withdraw them.

1053
02:02:15,305 --> 02:02:19,305
But you see the miners can already steal the whole thing if they're willing to do that.

1054
02:02:19,305 --> 02:02:34,305
So the idea of drivechain is that miners will have a relationship to these sidechains that is very much like a kind of a guy tending a business or a guy tending a garden like a farmer with an apple tree.

1055
02:02:35,305 --> 02:02:42,305
He could cut the apple tree down or he could harvest apples every year from the tree.

1056
02:02:42,305 --> 02:02:49,305
And it's kind of like – so the idea is like they wouldn't really tax the withdrawals.

1057
02:02:49,305 --> 02:02:55,305
They would just – if everything is working out, then they just collect all the fees.

1058
02:02:55,305 --> 02:02:57,305
The withdrawal has its own fee.

1059
02:02:57,305 --> 02:03:00,305
The withdrawal pays a fee on L2 and on L1.

1060
02:03:00,305 --> 02:03:04,305
So they already get double paid for the fee for the withdrawal.

1061
02:03:04,305 --> 02:03:12,305
And I don't really see why they would try to change that rate into something other than whatever its prevailing rate is.

1062
02:03:13,305 --> 02:03:38,305
I guess like what I'm thinking is, is there any type of like non-monetary influence that they could gain by like over a sidechain that they usually would not have because they're not necessarily like harming themselves or they're being sort of innocuous in how they're influencing the sidechain consensus like software or something like that?

1063
02:03:38,305 --> 02:03:53,305
Well, again, the way I have it set up is very – it's a little bit different from the way the culture looks at it now because I think the culture went in the wrong direction after winning – after the block size war started and then went.

1064
02:03:53,305 --> 02:04:00,305
So the way I see it is like the miners are in partnership with the sidechain developer.

1065
02:04:01,305 --> 02:04:06,305
Sidechain developer is like a kind of Freddie Mercury or something.

1066
02:04:06,305 --> 02:04:10,305
They're a genius artist and they're making their thing work.

1067
02:04:10,305 --> 02:04:16,305
And the miners are kind of like the agents or I don't know, security guards or something.

1068
02:04:16,305 --> 02:04:20,305
They're making a lot of money off of this guy.

1069
02:04:21,305 --> 02:04:30,305
So they have no talent themselves for like creation, but they are making money.

1070
02:04:30,305 --> 02:04:32,305
They're making money off of this whole thing.

1071
02:04:32,305 --> 02:04:45,305
And I think the sidechain developer will probably make money too, not in a direct way, but they will be like kind of a Vitalik type character or something where they'll get prestige and they'll get invited to things.

1072
02:04:46,305 --> 02:04:48,305
I guess like – do you think –

1073
02:04:48,305 --> 02:04:50,305
They'll give them money, stuff like that.

1074
02:04:50,305 --> 02:05:02,305
Do you think the development of this sidechain consensus code would be similar to the way Bitcoin consensus code is written now or do you think the influence of miners would impact it?

1075
02:05:02,305 --> 02:05:05,305
No, I think it would be different, but not for that reason.

1076
02:05:05,305 --> 02:05:14,305
One difference is that right now there's anxiety about changing Bitcoin.

1077
02:05:14,305 --> 02:05:26,305
They say Bitcoin is worth a billion dollars and they say, as the execute said, in 20 years probably it'll still be great, et cetera, et cetera.

1078
02:05:27,305 --> 02:05:29,305
I mean –

1079
02:05:29,305 --> 02:05:44,305
What I'm getting at is the difference will be on the L2s, they will be more like tech startups where they will change rapidly, very, very rapidly because you'll think – there's always someone willing to work harder for less as they say.

1080
02:05:44,305 --> 02:05:54,305
So the developers will be Malthusian subsistence farmers kind of, although I think they'll also be prestigious and they'll have a lot of money.

1081
02:05:54,305 --> 02:05:57,305
But they'll be like – you know what I mean?

1082
02:05:57,305 --> 02:06:01,305
Like there'll be two versions of – if you have Bitcoin L1 which won't change, you'll be ossified.

1083
02:06:01,305 --> 02:06:08,305
Then you have two versions of Bitcoin L2 and one of them will code up BIP119 and add it.

1084
02:06:08,305 --> 02:06:11,305
And then this will cause panic on the other L2.

1085
02:06:11,305 --> 02:06:15,305
They'll say, oh my gosh, we have to – they added 119 already.

1086
02:06:15,305 --> 02:06:17,305
We have to add it quickly.

1087
02:06:17,305 --> 02:06:24,305
And then they'll be rushing it out because they'll be fighting for – it'll be like Hulu versus Netflix or something.

1088
02:06:24,305 --> 02:06:28,305
They'll be fighting over users, which is going to be very good for us as the users.

1089
02:06:28,305 --> 02:06:31,305
We want that.

1090
02:06:31,305 --> 02:06:38,305
So they'll be competing to bring features rapidly, and they'll also be competing on safety, same as everything else.

1091
02:06:38,305 --> 02:06:41,305
But it won't be like if this plane crashes, everyone dies.

1092
02:06:41,305 --> 02:06:47,305
It will only be – if Hulu screws up, then it would be bad for Hulu.

1093
02:06:47,305 --> 02:06:49,305
So that is why I think it would be different.

1094
02:06:49,305 --> 02:06:53,305
And I also think there will be many cases where there's just one dictator of the sidechain.

1095
02:06:53,305 --> 02:06:56,305
There will be Linus Torvalds.

1096
02:06:56,305 --> 02:07:05,305
Sidechain, they're just – one person is just calling the shots, and they will be – so I think that's why I think it will be different.

1097
02:07:05,305 --> 02:07:09,305
And that's also why I don't think the miners will influence that person.

1098
02:07:09,305 --> 02:07:19,305
The miners will be saying – the miners will be very happy because they'll be thinking this is great.

1099
02:07:19,305 --> 02:07:21,305
The miners will be thinking this is great.

1100
02:07:21,305 --> 02:07:28,305
We have Freddie Mercury, and we have U2, and we have whatever, the Beatles.

1101
02:07:28,305 --> 02:07:33,305
What a great party this is, and they're making money off of everyone.

1102
02:07:33,305 --> 02:07:37,305
So they don't want to interfere with the Beatles' music.

1103
02:07:37,305 --> 02:07:39,305
They just want to be counting their money.

1104
02:07:39,305 --> 02:07:47,305
Yeah, no, I think that what I guess I'm saying is that drivechains would incentivize miners to sort of become more sophisticated

1105
02:07:47,305 --> 02:07:58,305
as opposed to where they were for a SegWit2x level of understanding of consensus for these types of coins

1106
02:07:58,305 --> 02:08:04,305
because they can fluctuate in market price, and they have a vested interest in their success.

1107
02:08:05,305 --> 02:08:21,305
And I guess where I was thinking that might end up is just a question of where do you think that the value –

1108
02:08:22,305 --> 02:08:29,305
who do you think the miners are more likely to appeal to as a sort of audience

1109
02:08:29,305 --> 02:08:34,305
or like a set of consumers when they're making these sidechains?

1110
02:08:37,305 --> 02:08:41,305
Well, one possibility is that the miners themselves will start funding development,

1111
02:08:42,305 --> 02:08:46,305
which weird versions of this have sort of started to happen.

1112
02:08:46,305 --> 02:08:54,305
When you see, for example, miners hire people who are basically Bitcoin shills,

1113
02:08:54,305 --> 02:09:00,305
such as like a Dan Held or like a Pierre Rochard or something,

1114
02:09:00,305 --> 02:09:07,305
that's miners saying they will get a little bit more – they're saying, how can we make Bitcoin a success?

1115
02:09:07,305 --> 02:09:16,305
And in the sidechain world, the BIP300 world, one thing they could do would be to try and poke their head in

1116
02:09:16,305 --> 02:09:22,305
and say, hey, we noticed that you are – they'd be like the Freddie Mercury's agent or whatever,

1117
02:09:22,305 --> 02:09:29,305
where they say, you seem to be building something really important that's going to make us a ton of money,

1118
02:09:29,305 --> 02:09:35,305
and you seem really poor, so do you want like whatever, this type of thing.

1119
02:09:35,305 --> 02:09:39,305
So they might start to get a little bit more involved in the sidechain development like that,

1120
02:09:39,305 --> 02:09:41,305
or they may not because of free riding.

1121
02:09:41,305 --> 02:09:47,305
But then there's always going to be like one biggest pool or some kind of leadership.

1122
02:09:47,305 --> 02:09:50,305
So I think that's possible.

1123
02:09:50,305 --> 02:09:54,305
I'm not sure if that answers your question, like what do you think miners will do when they appeal?

1124
02:09:54,305 --> 02:10:00,305
It will be the idea that appeals to people.

1125
02:10:00,305 --> 02:10:10,305
So same way that Zcash tries to appeal to people, and they say we have privacy, we have Zk-SNARKs,

1126
02:10:10,305 --> 02:10:15,305
the new sidechain will have an idea behind it, and it will have developers working on it

1127
02:10:15,305 --> 02:10:24,305
and miners who maybe support it in some way or another, maybe just verbally, maybe just some other way.

1128
02:10:24,305 --> 02:10:26,305
Is that answering the question?

1129
02:10:26,305 --> 02:10:30,305
Yeah, I guess I just think that sort of today on the mainchain,

1130
02:10:30,305 --> 02:10:36,305
miners basically only have like veto power over adding certain features,

1131
02:10:36,305 --> 02:10:39,305
or at least that's the way that most people have understood it,

1132
02:10:39,305 --> 02:10:45,305
which I think you disagree with because you think that miners can just activate things without people knowing.

1133
02:10:45,305 --> 02:10:54,305
And I guess that from my understanding that the way consensus code on the mainchain has developed so far

1134
02:10:54,305 --> 02:10:59,305
is that I understand it as they have veto power over basically new features,

1135
02:10:59,305 --> 02:11:05,305
and I think that there might be a transition over their control over sidechains

1136
02:11:05,305 --> 02:11:09,305
where rather than just having veto power over sort of consensus changes,

1137
02:11:09,305 --> 02:11:19,305
they have more like specific control over proposing new consensus code,

1138
02:11:19,305 --> 02:11:28,305
which adds sort of influence that they're able to sell distinct from like fees on chain.

1139
02:11:28,305 --> 02:11:32,305
I don't know if that made any sense.

1140
02:11:32,305 --> 02:11:36,305
Yes, okay, so this is an important topic and it has a lot of nuance,

1141
02:11:36,305 --> 02:11:44,305
but really what – I don't know how I'm even going to go about explaining this,

1142
02:11:44,305 --> 02:11:49,305
but it's kind of like, I don't know, Napoleon, he gave everyone the rule of law and like a civic code,

1143
02:11:49,305 --> 02:11:54,305
but it's kind of like rule of law and a civic code, that's just a good idea,

1144
02:11:54,305 --> 02:11:58,305
so it's only a matter of time before someone brings it to people.

1145
02:11:58,305 --> 02:12:01,305
So how much credit do you give Napoleon?

1146
02:12:01,305 --> 02:12:05,305
Some, yes, all, no, unclear.

1147
02:12:05,305 --> 02:12:08,305
So what am I talking about?

1148
02:12:08,305 --> 02:12:16,305
It's like if an idea is good, it will somehow start to make its way into Bitcoin,

1149
02:12:16,305 --> 02:12:19,305
and so it's not really – this is a very confusing thing.

1150
02:12:19,305 --> 02:12:23,305
So first of all, the miners don't really have veto power over a feature

1151
02:12:23,305 --> 02:12:27,305
because they tried to veto SegWit and they did not succeed.

1152
02:12:27,305 --> 02:12:32,305
So actually that's a perfect case where that didn't happen.

1153
02:12:32,305 --> 02:12:36,305
As for the earlier statement you made, it's true.

1154
02:12:36,305 --> 02:12:40,305
When I say the miners can activate a new feature whenever they want,

1155
02:12:40,305 --> 02:12:43,305
that is just like literally the case.

1156
02:12:43,305 --> 02:12:48,305
They could activate a feature – they could have activated a feature last week

1157
02:12:48,305 --> 02:12:51,305
and no one would know anything about it.

1158
02:12:51,305 --> 02:12:54,305
It kind of depends on the feature.

1159
02:12:54,305 --> 02:12:59,305
But in the case of these op-nop type features anyone can spend,

1160
02:12:59,305 --> 02:13:02,305
they could have already activated it and have been using it.

1161
02:13:02,305 --> 02:13:05,305
They could have been activated 12 years ago or something,

1162
02:13:05,305 --> 02:13:08,305
and it depends on the feature.

1163
02:13:08,305 --> 02:13:11,305
Eventually, if you keep activating features,

1164
02:13:11,305 --> 02:13:17,305
you will reach a point where you are in some kind of conflict with them.

1165
02:13:17,305 --> 02:13:24,305
But it actually is literally the case that – okay, yes, ask, please.

1166
02:13:24,305 --> 02:13:29,305
Would you see more like orphan blocks if they did that at all?

1167
02:13:29,305 --> 02:13:36,305
Well, the answer is yes, but not necessarily because you would not necessarily know

1168
02:13:36,305 --> 02:13:39,305
which rules are out there to break.

1169
02:13:39,305 --> 02:13:42,305
But, yeah, if people were just kind of using the op-nops randomly

1170
02:13:42,305 --> 02:13:45,305
or using the version bits randomly or something,

1171
02:13:45,305 --> 02:13:53,305
then you would see that some of the time there would be orphan blocks, yes.

1172
02:13:53,305 --> 02:14:00,305
Actually, what actually happened, though, is you would see more transaction censorship

1173
02:14:00,305 --> 02:14:06,305
because actually if 95% of the hash rate were enforcing the rules,

1174
02:14:06,305 --> 02:14:10,305
very rarely would actually the block be made that broke the rules.

1175
02:14:10,305 --> 02:14:15,305
If 100% hash rate were enforcing rules, it would just never get made.

1176
02:14:15,305 --> 02:14:18,305
And so you would see other weird things.

1177
02:14:18,305 --> 02:14:21,305
And maybe you would see a transaction could have two different versions

1178
02:14:21,305 --> 02:14:26,305
or some kind of malleability, and it's maybe one version breaks the rules

1179
02:14:26,305 --> 02:14:28,305
but another does not.

1180
02:14:28,305 --> 02:14:34,305
In the case of using new op-nops to activate a soft fork,

1181
02:14:34,305 --> 02:14:38,305
no one's wallet would ever have programmed them to use those

1182
02:14:38,305 --> 02:14:40,305
since they're being reserved for future use.

1183
02:14:40,305 --> 02:14:45,305
So you would really never see anything that broke the rules.

1184
02:14:45,305 --> 02:14:49,305
Kind of similar for SegWit, really, because SegWit is this weird other thing

1185
02:14:49,305 --> 02:14:52,305
that makes this different version of the block that has witness TXIDs

1186
02:14:52,305 --> 02:14:54,305
and different signatures.

1187
02:14:54,305 --> 02:15:05,305
So no one would have made their wallet in a way that it was capable of breaking those rules

1188
02:15:05,305 --> 02:15:07,305
or triggering the new rules.

1189
02:15:07,305 --> 02:15:10,305
So the answer to your question is theoretically yes,

1190
02:15:10,305 --> 02:15:14,305
but in practice probably you would not see such a thing.

1191
02:15:15,305 --> 02:15:21,305
So now whether or not a feature activates or not,

1192
02:15:21,305 --> 02:15:25,305
this is a rambling and confused answer, but maybe it makes some sense.

1193
02:15:25,305 --> 02:15:28,305
Like why did I start by talking about Napoleon or whatever?

1194
02:15:28,305 --> 02:15:39,305
It's kind of like the reason SegWit broke through was because SegWit was a good idea

1195
02:15:39,305 --> 02:15:41,305
that didn't really harm.

1196
02:15:41,305 --> 02:15:43,305
It did more good than harm.

1197
02:15:43,305 --> 02:15:45,305
It was a block size increase, of course.

1198
02:15:45,305 --> 02:15:51,305
But the point is it was popular and people widely believed that it would be best

1199
02:15:51,305 --> 02:15:55,305
for the long run of Bitcoin at the time.

1200
02:15:55,305 --> 02:15:57,305
So that's clear.

1201
02:15:57,305 --> 02:15:59,305
And let me just give you the other thing.

1202
02:15:59,305 --> 02:16:05,305
The reason why Layer 1 large blocks failed was because it really was not the case.

1203
02:16:05,305 --> 02:16:09,305
Most people did not believe that that was the best thing for Bitcoin.

1204
02:16:09,305 --> 02:16:13,305
Some people did, but most didn't at the time.

1205
02:16:13,305 --> 02:16:20,305
And that's the only relevant thing is that it's just kind of like similarly the reason

1206
02:16:20,305 --> 02:16:26,305
why we haven't had drivechains until now is because people did not believe

1207
02:16:26,305 --> 02:16:28,305
that they were the best thing for Bitcoin.

1208
02:16:28,305 --> 02:16:30,305
They were incorrect.

1209
02:16:30,305 --> 02:16:33,305
They just didn't know anything about them, most people.

1210
02:16:33,305 --> 02:16:38,305
But I'm not saying the system works perfectly and it's always a meritocracy

1211
02:16:38,305 --> 02:16:40,305
and it always lets the best idea through.

1212
02:16:40,305 --> 02:16:42,305
That's not what I think, and that's not the case.

1213
02:16:42,305 --> 02:16:50,305
But what I'm trying to say is that whether or not a soft fork activates,

1214
02:16:50,305 --> 02:16:55,305
the miners can either ram it through if it's a good idea all by themselves,

1215
02:16:55,305 --> 02:16:59,305
or if the miners are making some kind of mistake, the mistake can be forced

1216
02:16:59,305 --> 02:17:03,305
out of them eventually.

1217
02:17:03,305 --> 02:17:05,305
Is this making any sense what I'm trying to say?

1218
02:17:06,305 --> 02:17:12,305
I was going to specify exactly, I guess, my question originally

1219
02:17:12,305 --> 02:17:15,305
and then add one comment to what you said.

1220
02:17:15,305 --> 02:17:18,305
Originally, I guess, a more specific question would be,

1221
02:17:18,305 --> 02:17:25,305
do you think that miners activating software on a sidechain could be done

1222
02:17:25,305 --> 02:17:28,305
in the same way they do on the main chain where nobody knows about it?

1223
02:17:28,305 --> 02:17:32,305
Do you think that them doing it on the sidechain behaves any differently?

1224
02:17:32,305 --> 02:17:37,305
And then my comment would just be that you said that miners can ram through

1225
02:17:37,305 --> 02:17:42,305
changes on the main chain, but you said that SegWit proved that they

1226
02:17:42,305 --> 02:17:45,305
don't have that ability, or maybe I'm misunderstood.

1227
02:17:45,305 --> 02:17:46,305
No, no, no.

1228
02:17:46,305 --> 02:17:49,305
I said SegWit proves that they don't have the ability to veto.

1229
02:17:49,305 --> 02:17:51,305
You said they have a veto.

1230
02:17:51,305 --> 02:17:52,305
Right, yeah.

1231
02:17:52,305 --> 02:17:55,305
But they tried to veto SegWit, but they didn't succeed.

1232
02:17:55,305 --> 02:17:58,305
If they were smart, I actually wrote a blog post about this called

1233
02:17:58,305 --> 02:18:03,305
The UASF Contradiction, and maybe you can read it

1234
02:18:03,305 --> 02:18:04,305
and maybe you'll get something out of it.

1235
02:18:04,305 --> 02:18:08,305
But what I said was all they have to do, if they really want,

1236
02:18:08,305 --> 02:18:17,305
if they wanted to beat the UASF, all they would have had to do was wait for the

1237
02:18:17,305 --> 02:18:21,305
UASF to trigger, signal for SegWit, and then censor every SegWit message

1238
02:18:21,305 --> 02:18:25,305
from the blockchain permanently.

1239
02:18:25,305 --> 02:18:28,305
But this is where the nuance steps back in.

1240
02:18:28,305 --> 02:18:31,305
At that point, they are leaving a bunch of transaction fees on the table

1241
02:18:31,305 --> 02:18:32,305
for no reason.

1242
02:18:32,305 --> 02:18:34,305
But they could still do it.

1243
02:18:34,305 --> 02:18:39,305
SegWit would never, there would no transaction that's spent to a SegWit

1244
02:18:39,305 --> 02:18:42,305
output would ever make it into the blockchain.

1245
02:18:42,305 --> 02:18:46,305
And so you would never even know if any SegWit rules had been broken because

1246
02:18:46,305 --> 02:18:48,305
it would never even get to that point.

1247
02:18:48,305 --> 02:18:50,305
So that was theoretically possible.

1248
02:18:50,305 --> 02:18:54,305
Of course, again, the nuance, this is why I brought up the thing about Napoleon.

1249
02:18:54,305 --> 02:18:55,305
What was I talking about?

1250
02:18:55,305 --> 02:18:56,305
Does this make any sense at all?

1251
02:18:56,305 --> 02:19:00,305
But what I'm saying is whether or not the idea is good or not has kind of

1252
02:19:00,305 --> 02:19:04,305
objective quality, which is to say, once you've reached this point,

1253
02:19:04,305 --> 02:19:07,305
now the miners are just turning down transaction fees.

1254
02:19:07,305 --> 02:19:10,305
It's clear that people want this thing.

1255
02:19:10,305 --> 02:19:15,305
And so it just sort of makes you look bad.

1256
02:19:15,305 --> 02:19:17,305
So that was the second part.

1257
02:19:17,305 --> 02:19:19,305
And then the first part of what you asked was,

1258
02:19:19,305 --> 02:19:22,305
can the miners influence SoftWorks on the sidechain?

1259
02:19:22,305 --> 02:19:28,305
The sidechain doesn't need, the sidechain can upgrade via SoftWork just by

1260
02:19:28,305 --> 02:19:33,305
releasing a new version and having people run it.

1261
02:19:33,305 --> 02:19:39,305
And the blind merge miners are the, so it has to do with the merge mining.

1262
02:19:39,305 --> 02:19:45,305
On the sidechain, the people who are constructing the next sidechain block are

1263
02:19:45,305 --> 02:19:49,305
not necessarily the same group of people as the mainchain miners.

1264
02:19:49,305 --> 02:19:53,305
So it's if those people build a block with the new version,

1265
02:19:53,305 --> 02:19:56,305
then the sidechain will upgrade via SoftWork.

1266
02:19:56,598 --> 02:20:09,598
If you have something similar where you could say something like BIB9, ancient BIB9, to me, BIB9 is the normal thing, but to everyone else, BIB9 is an ancient thing that has never been seen.

1267
02:20:09,598 --> 02:20:21,598
But you could do something on the sidechain where you say a new version of the software, you use CoinNews and you say a new version of the software has been released and people discuss.

1268
02:20:22,598 --> 02:20:35,598
And then the new version of the software could say something like, we will enforce these rules, but only after having 30 days of 90% blocks being made with the new version of the software.

1269
02:20:35,598 --> 02:20:36,598
So everyone upgrade.

1270
02:20:37,598 --> 02:20:44,598
And if the people on the sidechain upgrade, then eventually so many people will have upgraded that new blocks will be built.

1271
02:20:44,598 --> 02:20:53,598
The blocks, the sidechain block can themselves have a version number. The sidechain blocks can upgrade via SoftFork in that way.

1272
02:20:53,598 --> 02:21:01,598
And so the sidechain miners, because of blind merge mining, will be some subset of the nodes.

1273
02:21:01,598 --> 02:21:04,598
They will not necessarily be the same thing as the L1 miners.

1274
02:21:05,598 --> 02:21:08,598
That is if people even care about any of this at all.

1275
02:21:08,598 --> 02:21:15,598
It may be the case that the sidechain never needs to upgrade or something else happens.

1276
02:21:15,598 --> 02:21:22,598
It could be that the, I don't know, maybe it's too in the weeds to keep talking about it.

1277
02:21:22,598 --> 02:21:23,598
You know, that answered my question.

1278
02:21:23,598 --> 02:21:38,598
I think your analogy for Napoleon is pretty much what I was going for, because I was trying to get at, I guess, the criticisms people make of the United States sidechain or something like that, which is kind of very vague.

1279
02:21:39,598 --> 02:21:50,598
Yeah, it's kind of like the way I see it is human beings, actually, they enjoy solving problems.

1280
02:21:50,598 --> 02:21:53,598
So it's like the problem of how to upgrade.

1281
02:21:53,598 --> 02:21:58,598
Someone's going to only write the upgrade to the sidechain if they think it's best for the sidechain.

1282
02:21:59,598 --> 02:22:12,598
People can certainly be confused about what is in their own best interest, but it's kind of like slowly the good idea will get out there, because it's all open source, it's on the internet, whatever.

1283
02:22:12,598 --> 02:22:24,598
It's a matter of kind of, it could be a long delay, but the good idea will get out and then everyone will understand why they should upgrade on the sidechain.

1284
02:22:25,598 --> 02:22:53,598
Yeah, I guess I see it as basically a good thing that even if you do have this world where countries have their own sidechains, then you still have the main chain where basically the international community of miners can prevent certain, I don't know, 1984 or whatever style software updates on the sidechain from going in or something like that.

1285
02:22:54,598 --> 02:23:08,598
Well, the good thing about the sidechain is, of course, is people would leave if it's not, the one-to-one peg lets people leave if the sidechain isn't working for them anymore.

1286
02:23:08,598 --> 02:23:24,598
So even without using the BIP300 withdrawal, you could still like HTLC swap or you could swap out or if the sidechain is badly run, people will leave and they may even leave at, they may even pay 10% to get out as quickly as possible.

1287
02:23:24,598 --> 02:23:30,598
But that only affects the people who went to that sidechain, so it's a very ideal situation.

1288
02:23:31,598 --> 02:23:49,598
You say you're on this chain and then it becomes dystopian North Korea chain and now you think this sucks and then the price crashes and they're only giving you 50 cents on the dollar for that, the market is, because it's just everyone wants to leave or you can't possibly leave quickly enough or something like that.

1289
02:23:50,598 --> 02:24:05,598
But the good news is, I think even in that situation, the peg would probably hold because the miners themselves can always buy the coin, the L1 miners can always buy the coins and then walk them back to L1.

1290
02:24:06,598 --> 02:24:28,598
So the miners will just be like thrilled that North Korea fucked up, there's a bad sidechain, the users leave and go to different sidechains, maybe people spin up a new sidechain on that occasion and then the coins are just pulled out of that one sidechain and it just dies.

1291
02:24:28,598 --> 02:24:31,598
So it's actually, it's a pretty ideal situation.

1292
02:24:32,598 --> 02:24:37,598
Do you think that the security budget of the sidechain could be calculated?

1293
02:24:38,598 --> 02:24:42,598
Yeah, I think it's exactly equal to the fees paid on the sidechain.

1294
02:24:43,598 --> 02:24:59,598
It may be a little bit more because if the sidechain does something super great and it boosts the price for everyone, like if the Zcash sidechain provides this mixer for everyone to use, then miners gain more value of the coins they get on every sidechain.

1295
02:24:59,598 --> 02:25:02,598
The whole Bitcoin price exchange rate is up.

1296
02:25:04,598 --> 02:25:11,598
They get all that extra if the Zcash sidechain just makes an orderly progression of the blocks.

1297
02:25:11,598 --> 02:25:15,598
You know what I mean? Like if they just find one block after another and there's no reorgs on the Zcash sidechain.

1298
02:25:16,598 --> 02:25:26,598
Then the miners kind of want to eventually – if there's a problem, the L1 miners might say, wait a minute, we're supposed to be making all this extra money.

1299
02:25:27,598 --> 02:25:34,598
They may poke their head into the Zcash sidechain and say, why are there stale blocks? Why are there orphan blocks?

1300
02:25:35,598 --> 02:25:43,598
And they might just – they have an enormous amount of strength over the sidechain so they can straighten that out.

1301
02:25:44,598 --> 02:25:54,598
It's kind of in a good way. It's like they have – whatever, Vladimir Putin or Darth Vader, you send them down to the sidechain and say, let's get this back on schedule or something.

1302
02:25:55,598 --> 02:25:58,598
That's if the sidechain is very beneficial for Bitcoin.

1303
02:25:59,598 --> 02:26:06,598
That's an interesting scenario where it's like the presence of the Zcash mixer is good for everyone.

1304
02:26:07,598 --> 02:26:16,598
So it becomes a good thing, and then it starts to get taken away if the sidechain has bad forward progression because you're asking about security budget.

1305
02:26:17,598 --> 02:26:21,598
Or you're asking about reorging or losing the confirmations.

1306
02:26:22,598 --> 02:26:28,598
So if that started to happen on the sidechain, the miners are like, wait a minute, wait a minute, we liked this thing the way it was.

1307
02:26:29,598 --> 02:26:33,598
We like the Zcash sidechain. We want all these trains to be running on time.

1308
02:26:34,598 --> 02:26:36,598
They can go in there and force that to happen, basically.

1309
02:26:37,598 --> 02:26:42,598
So in that case, the security budget would actually be much more than merely the fees of the sidechain.

1310
02:26:43,598 --> 02:26:48,598
I guess that's what I meant by miners are incentivized to become more sophisticated when I was talking about that.

1311
02:26:48,598 --> 02:26:57,598
Yeah, I think that is. Miners have more of an ability to increase their revenues.

1312
02:26:58,598 --> 02:27:05,598
I think this is the only big change.

1313
02:27:06,598 --> 02:27:12,598
There's really fundamentally no change because miners have always been maximizing their profits.

1314
02:27:13,598 --> 02:27:17,598
And the way that they do that, that has itself always changed.

1315
02:27:18,598 --> 02:27:23,598
It didn't involve natural gas flaring. It didn't involve immersion cooling for a while until it did.

1316
02:27:24,598 --> 02:27:31,598
It didn't involve ASICs until it did. It didn't involve stranded power like these demand management contracts until it did.

1317
02:27:32,598 --> 02:27:35,598
So mining has always transformed.

1318
02:27:36,598 --> 02:27:41,598
And so the fact that mining is continuing to transform, that's exactly the same as it was before.

1319
02:27:42,598 --> 02:27:51,598
But I would say that this is the main new transformation would be the miners are only people who cut costs as much as they possibly can.

1320
02:27:52,598 --> 02:28:00,598
And in the BIP300 world, they would be getting a lot of money from the sidechains if they're successful.

1321
02:28:00,598 --> 02:28:08,598
And so now the miners actually, they wear yet another hat or something and they say,

1322
02:28:09,598 --> 02:28:13,598
I'm a miner, I want to make sure, like, what can we do to get the usage up?

1323
02:28:14,598 --> 02:28:20,598
What can we do to get the transaction fees up? What can we do to get more people using sidechain number three?

1324
02:28:21,598 --> 02:28:26,598
What can we do to get more people, you know, they might take out an ad for the Zcash sidechain or something.

1325
02:28:26,598 --> 02:28:30,598
That's a silly example, but you kind of get what I'm trying to say.

1326
02:28:31,598 --> 02:28:32,598
Yeah.

1327
02:28:32,598 --> 02:28:36,598
And you get why that is. That is the kind of thing that would be sort of a change.

1328
02:28:37,598 --> 02:28:40,598
Because before miners would not.

1329
02:28:41,598 --> 02:28:47,598
Miners are just cutting costs, but now they're also maximizing revenues for maximizing usage of Bitcoin.

1330
02:28:48,598 --> 02:28:53,598
So they're a little bit more active in shilling Bitcoin.

1331
02:28:54,598 --> 02:29:01,598
I think it's better because, you know, before people were saying, oh, what if the U.S. government bought all this mining hardware?

1332
02:29:02,598 --> 02:29:04,598
Like, how do you pick which chain if it's not the longest?

1333
02:29:05,598 --> 02:29:14,598
I think this maybe gives those type of people a way of deciding like, well, miners can now kind of compete based on how sophisticated they are,

1334
02:29:15,598 --> 02:29:19,598
which by like a market process will probably never be like a nation state or something like that.

1335
02:29:20,598 --> 02:29:31,598
Yeah, I think. Well, one interesting thing is if the government embarks on a project to buy all the mining hardware, then it.

1336
02:29:32,598 --> 02:29:45,598
This is a weird you're in a weird situation where if the like, so what I'm trying to say is it's in a certain point you.

1337
02:29:45,598 --> 02:29:54,598
You gain a lot of money by keeping your hardware secret, like if, like, let's say the government plans to confiscate all the mining hardware.

1338
02:29:55,598 --> 02:30:06,598
Now, the best miners are not only the ones that get the cheapest power, but the best miners also the ones that hide, hide the physical location of their hardware the best.

1339
02:30:07,598 --> 02:30:13,598
But then if miners just want to, I mean, if miners want to buy everything up, if they spend the security budget, they, you know, they can.

1340
02:30:13,598 --> 02:30:19,598
They can buy everything up. They just build a parallel mining, but they will cost them.

1341
02:30:20,598 --> 02:30:25,598
One hundred percent of the security budget, like the people say security budget isn't real. I don't understand.

1342
02:30:26,598 --> 02:30:35,598
I think there must be some kind of mistranslation with that, because to me, the security budget is just the total amount of money we pay to miners.

1343
02:30:35,598 --> 02:30:37,598
The total amount of money we pay to miners.

1344
02:30:38,598 --> 02:30:39,598
And that is obviously real.

1345
02:30:40,598 --> 02:30:44,598
And that is also obviously equal to the total amount of money that miners spend on hashing.

1346
02:30:45,598 --> 02:30:50,598
And that is also equal to, in the long run, the total amount of money spent on fees in the whole blockchain.

1347
02:30:51,598 --> 02:30:54,598
So, so all those are just the same number.

1348
02:30:55,598 --> 02:30:57,598
So it's obvious that that number is pretty important and pretty real.

1349
02:30:58,598 --> 02:31:00,598
But for some reason, a lot of people just say that it's not real.

1350
02:31:01,598 --> 02:31:03,598
They say there is no such thing as security budget.

1351
02:31:03,598 --> 02:31:05,598
I have no idea what those people mean.

1352
02:31:07,598 --> 02:31:15,598
Yeah, I think the problem with like people who say like we need ossification or stuff like that, and then are against drivechains, or even.

1353
02:31:16,598 --> 02:31:19,598
Yeah, like, I don't know, there's probably a number of things wrong.

1354
02:31:20,598 --> 02:31:40,598
But like, immediately, if you add this sort of like way of miners maximizing revenue as a change, then you kind of dissuade any people from trying to attack the network because they don't really know what the security budget is.

1355
02:31:41,598 --> 02:31:42,598
It's much more difficult.

1356
02:31:43,598 --> 02:31:45,598
Well, we definitely want it to be high.

1357
02:31:46,598 --> 02:31:56,598
That also dissuades like if it's like, you know, and then we also the more Bitcoin is used, you flip more and more people were kind of like zombies in a way, you know what I mean?

1358
02:31:57,598 --> 02:32:02,598
Where it's like, you kill a regular human, but then they join the zombie team, you know what I mean?

1359
02:32:03,598 --> 02:32:12,598
If we flip people from fiat into Bitcoin, now instead of contributing to the attacking team, now they're on the defending team.

1360
02:32:13,598 --> 02:32:15,598
So the more usage is very, very good.

1361
02:32:16,598 --> 02:32:23,598
More fees, more people in the group, more network effect, more popularity, like more people who are just victims.

1362
02:32:24,598 --> 02:32:26,598
So we want Bitcoin to be big.

1363
02:32:27,598 --> 02:32:33,598
But some people, I think for some reason, but I think the rational thing is to want it to be big.

1364
02:32:34,598 --> 02:32:41,598
Yeah, I mean, I think that just it maybe helps certain like smaller forks like a Bitcoin Cash.

1365
02:32:42,598 --> 02:33:00,598
Like basically right now, they're pretty much have no chance of, in my opinion, like coming back from something because there is no like there's no mechanism of having miners benefit from maximizing revenue through like their own sophistication.

1366
02:33:00,598 --> 02:33:16,598
So if you do have a mechanism like this, it at least gives them an ability to say that, well, we might not have as much hash power and electricity, you know, dollar worth, but we have more maximizing revenue value.

1367
02:33:23,598 --> 02:33:28,598
We have a shiny C, a dog with a tie and a hat.

1368
02:33:29,598 --> 02:33:30,598
Hello.

1369
02:33:31,598 --> 02:33:32,598
Hello.

1370
02:33:32,598 --> 02:33:33,598
Shiny cakes. Hi.

1371
02:33:36,598 --> 02:33:37,598
Hello, hello.

1372
02:33:37,598 --> 02:33:38,598
Hi, Paul.

1373
02:33:38,598 --> 02:33:39,598
Welcome.

1374
02:33:39,598 --> 02:33:55,598
I'm just wondering what are the pros and the cons for you to interact in this Bitcoin maximalism like that you go these procedures like it has right now, for example, with the drivechain.

1375
02:33:55,598 --> 02:34:00,598
Did it take so long that everything has to discuss that everything is theoretical?

1376
02:34:00,598 --> 02:34:03,598
And what is against the free market for you?

1377
02:34:03,598 --> 02:34:04,598
And what is a pro?

1378
02:34:04,598 --> 02:34:06,598
I mean, what is the pros and cons?

1379
02:34:06,598 --> 02:34:09,598
What is your standing point in this kind of thing?

1380
02:34:09,598 --> 02:34:15,598
Why not just launch a product and go for it and see how it develops and how it forms?

1381
02:34:15,598 --> 02:34:16,598
What's why?

1382
02:34:16,598 --> 02:34:18,598
Why it should be Bitcoin only?

1383
02:34:18,598 --> 02:34:22,598
I mean, isn't the whole space some kind of the whole thing?

1384
02:34:22,598 --> 02:34:26,598
Why should we go so slowly always?

1385
02:34:26,598 --> 02:34:27,598
I don't know.

1386
02:34:27,598 --> 02:34:28,598
I don't get the point.

1387
02:34:28,598 --> 02:34:32,598
What's why you hold so long on this kind of thing?

1388
02:34:32,598 --> 02:34:38,598
And are you sometimes maybe even scared that you maybe even miss your own product because somebody else do it?

1389
02:34:38,598 --> 02:34:43,598
Just wondering what's your point on this?

1390
02:34:43,598 --> 02:34:44,598
Yes, of course.

1391
02:34:44,598 --> 02:34:45,598
Yes.

1392
02:34:45,598 --> 02:34:48,598
Well, the process is very slow.

1393
02:34:49,598 --> 02:34:54,598
And I think the word consensus is misused.

1394
02:34:54,598 --> 02:35:01,598
Like so Bitcoin Core is consensus software because every node agrees down to the last byte.

1395
02:35:01,598 --> 02:35:05,598
And so we have this idea of consensus.

1396
02:35:05,598 --> 02:35:08,598
That's every every node agree.

1397
02:35:08,598 --> 02:35:14,598
But I don't think that I don't think it's good for humans to have consensus.

1398
02:35:14,598 --> 02:35:15,598
Humans disagree.

1399
02:35:15,598 --> 02:35:17,598
And that's a good thing.

1400
02:35:17,598 --> 02:35:22,598
And I think that the process is very bad, actually.

1401
02:35:22,598 --> 02:35:24,598
And I think you can see why.

1402
02:35:24,598 --> 02:35:35,598
It's just if any idea has any novelty or or even if an idea would make someone look bad by succeeding, then that person can veto and hold the whole thing up.

1403
02:35:35,598 --> 02:35:37,598
There really should be.

1404
02:35:37,598 --> 02:35:40,598
There should be some kind of I don't know.

1405
02:35:40,598 --> 02:35:41,598
I don't want to say election.

1406
02:35:41,598 --> 02:35:47,598
But there should be something where someone is a leader and then that leader should be vulnerable to replacement.

1407
02:35:47,598 --> 02:35:51,598
That is a good form of governance.

1408
02:35:51,598 --> 02:35:57,598
What we currently have instead is everyone denies that someone is in charge because we don't want that person to, like, get arrested or something.

1409
02:35:57,598 --> 02:36:01,598
So I'm talking about the people on GitHub, Bitcoin Bitcoin.

1410
02:36:01,598 --> 02:36:05,598
So the process is designed around no one taking responsibility.

1411
02:36:05,598 --> 02:36:10,598
And that is why the technical decisions are made with consensus.

1412
02:36:10,598 --> 02:36:26,598
It is not to make the best decisions or even to make decisions that don't have errors because decisions with bugs or with unexpected features or with mistakes doesn't make it through anyway.

1413
02:36:26,598 --> 02:36:29,598
So even trying to be conservative, we don't even do that.

1414
02:36:29,598 --> 02:36:39,598
But the reason why it is the way it is, is because no one wants to take responsibility for the software because that would make it look like they.

1415
02:36:39,598 --> 02:36:43,598
You know, have some kind of authority over the software.

1416
02:36:43,598 --> 02:36:49,598
And we don't want anyone misunderstanding that such as, you know, government.

1417
02:36:49,598 --> 02:36:57,598
Or even like a very wealthy assassin or something like a crazy, like some kind of mafia organization or something.

1418
02:36:57,598 --> 02:37:05,598
So the right thing to do as far as governance would be to for Bitcoin to explicitly explain that everything must be everything.

1419
02:37:05,598 --> 02:37:12,598
Nothing can harm old nodes. So everything must be a soft fork classically or whatever you want to call it.

1420
02:37:12,598 --> 02:37:17,598
And that have that one rule and then have the new versions driven by one person.

1421
02:37:17,598 --> 02:37:25,598
And then to have that person be subject to some kind of process where they can be fired and that the best governance.

1422
02:37:25,598 --> 02:37:27,598
But we don't have that and we're not ever going to have that.

1423
02:37:27,598 --> 02:37:36,598
So the really nice thing would be if we just had drivechain in Bitcoin, then it wouldn't matter how slow or screwed up L1 development was.

1424
02:37:36,598 --> 02:37:41,598
We would just leave L1 where it is and then do it on the other chains.

1425
02:37:41,598 --> 02:37:48,598
The second part of your question is why not just launch an altcoin or whatever or fork or something?

1426
02:37:48,598 --> 02:37:59,598
Well, that idea has occurred to me a couple of times, but I think the one reason why that's not a good idea is because the success of an altcoin,

1427
02:37:59,598 --> 02:38:09,598
the success of anything with network effects, Facebook, Twitter, whatever, Craigslist,

1428
02:38:10,598 --> 02:38:14,598
the success of those things depends on its inherent features.

1429
02:38:14,598 --> 02:38:23,598
One, just like everything else, but also its success depends on which other people join the network.

1430
02:38:23,598 --> 02:38:33,598
And the problem with forking off to make a new network is other people may then fork off that network and you don't have any of the loyal people.

1431
02:38:34,598 --> 02:38:36,598
So you need to have loyal people.

1432
02:38:36,598 --> 02:38:42,598
And so what you would need to do is, well, it's kind of difficult to explain,

1433
02:38:42,598 --> 02:38:52,598
but you would need to fork off in a way that could never be forked off again, which is, I think, possible, but difficult.

1434
02:38:52,598 --> 02:39:05,598
And so it's like the one thing, like, so the large blockers, I think, ruined their own case because they forked off to do large block version.

1435
02:39:05,598 --> 02:39:07,598
The version didn't work.

1436
02:39:08,598 --> 02:39:20,598
Now there's no one – there's no political movement in L1 that is just – that would have either been critical of Lightning or just pushing large block sidechain

1437
02:39:20,598 --> 02:39:25,598
or just pushing merchant adoption and these other things that that group used to push.

1438
02:39:25,598 --> 02:39:33,598
So now, because that group forked off, Bitcoin is further away from large blocks.

1439
02:39:33,598 --> 02:39:37,598
And again, I want to stress that large blocks on L1 is a mistake and it should have lost.

1440
02:39:37,598 --> 02:39:38,598
So they did lose.

1441
02:39:38,598 --> 02:39:49,598
But just also other things that their group emphasized, such as the medium of exchange, merchant adoption, actual people using Bitcoin,

1442
02:39:49,598 --> 02:39:55,598
those things are all further away in BTC because those people split off.

1443
02:39:57,033 --> 02:40:05,033
Now they are very far from where they were in 2017 versus – so let alone where they would have been if those people had stayed and kept advocating for them.

1444
02:40:06,033 --> 02:40:24,033
So splitting off has backfired and had the opposite effect. So if you're pro-drivechain, it does not necessarily follow that you launch a drivechain altcoin and then that will help drivechain because all the evidence for that is in reverse, I think.

1445
02:40:25,033 --> 02:40:34,033
We just – everyone gets sour grapes. So it's just because of network effects. It's because it has nothing to do – it has to do with what other people want.

1446
02:40:35,033 --> 02:40:47,033
And so that's why I'm here and here doing this space and not launching the – we kind of need to all talk first and then we need a giant group of people.

1447
02:40:48,033 --> 02:40:55,033
If anything like that would even have a chance of succeeding – by the time we get a large group of people, we'll probably just activate it on Bitcoin Core.

1448
02:40:56,033 --> 02:40:57,033
But I don't know.

1449
02:40:58,033 --> 02:41:08,033
Isn't the free market some kind of a consensus? Isn't even life making about false? Isn't it even sometimes the right feeling to make false, to feel alive?

1450
02:41:09,033 --> 02:41:17,033
Well, I do think you're right that if you take the efficient markets hypothesis so – like the way I do. I take it very seriously.

1451
02:41:18,033 --> 02:41:29,033
But if you take it too seriously, then you just never do anything. Like Freddie Mercury would just say, well, I'm not going to write any new music because – what's the point?

1452
02:41:30,033 --> 02:41:36,033
Well, I mean music is not something that has network effects, so I should retract that. That didn't really make any sense. I retract what I said.

1453
02:41:36,033 --> 02:41:49,033
But I think the – like didn't I just give you an example with Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV where someone tried the market and nothing – what result did it really have?

1454
02:41:52,033 --> 02:41:57,033
So that was the market path, right? Yes or no? I mean what do you think?

1455
02:41:58,033 --> 02:42:07,033
Yes. I mean it's – but it's also hard to say if it would be applied on the same, like on drivechain because it's so individual also.

1456
02:42:10,033 --> 02:42:16,033
Yes, it is hard to see if it would be the same. I agree. It's also the case that drivechain kind of gives you everything.

1457
02:42:17,033 --> 02:42:25,033
So it's kind of – it could be the last fork of any kind, hard fork, soft fork, whatever. New altcoin would be the last new altcoin.

1458
02:42:26,033 --> 02:42:46,033
So I think that is the case. There's a lot of truth to that, but I think that it's like – well, there's a game in game theory called Boxing Opera, which is sometimes called Battle of the Sexes.

1459
02:42:47,033 --> 02:43:03,033
And maybe you're familiar with it. I don't know. It's like if each of the players choose something, if they choose differently, they both get the lowest score of zero.

1460
02:43:04,033 --> 02:43:11,033
And this is like two people going on a date. The guy wants to go see a boxing match and the girl wants to go to the opera.

1461
02:43:12,033 --> 02:43:18,033
But if they end up in the wrong spot, they get zero because they were supposed to go there together.

1462
02:43:19,033 --> 02:43:27,033
But if they go boxing, the guy is happier than the girl. The guy gets five points. The girl gets one point.

1463
02:43:28,033 --> 02:43:32,033
And it's the reverse if they go to the opera. The girl gets the five points and the guy gets the one point.

1464
02:43:33,033 --> 02:43:41,033
So I guess what I'm saying is right now I'm not getting what I want, but I'm not getting zero points either.

1465
02:43:42,033 --> 02:43:47,033
I'm getting actually a lot of whatever, which is to be in the biggest team with everyone else.

1466
02:43:48,033 --> 02:43:54,033
And that's what most other people want too. So that's kind of me trying to articulate what I'm saying.

1467
02:43:55,033 --> 02:44:05,033
But I think that it's definitely the case that – I mean I can see it happening where drivechain gets really big.

1468
02:44:06,033 --> 02:44:10,033
Everyone understands correctly that it has no downside and enormous upside.

1469
02:44:11,033 --> 02:44:18,033
And eventually a high enough – so many people believe this, and such a small minority does not believe it,

1470
02:44:19,033 --> 02:44:27,033
that I can see the ability to like whatever, launch an altcoin or a hard fork would then be like the right thing to do.

1471
02:44:28,033 --> 02:44:36,033
So I don't know. That may be very soon, but probably not because I think it depends on – it's kind of hard to say.

1472
02:44:36,033 --> 02:44:39,033
It depends on how the awareness is.

1473
02:44:40,033 --> 02:44:44,033
What is your opinion about the pull request? Do you have already a feeling how it will be?

1474
02:44:45,033 --> 02:44:56,033
Yeah, I think if the pull request is just like flatly denied, then I think that would be a good occasion to do something else.

1475
02:44:57,033 --> 02:45:03,033
Because I think the – or just say like they have passed on this idea like permanently.

1476
02:45:04,033 --> 02:45:07,033
But I think the pull request – we're still working on it, so we haven't done it yet.

1477
02:45:08,033 --> 02:45:22,033
But yeah, I think the pull request would be – that would be a pretty good moment to just say either the Bitcoin community has just decided that even an idea that has no downside and enormous upside, they just don't want anything.

1478
02:45:23,033 --> 02:45:26,033
Even an idea that's like packaged up and given away for free.

1479
02:45:27,033 --> 02:45:37,033
The Bitcoin community just does not want anything. It does not want 119. It does not want – it just will not – it just decided that it just won't do anything.

1480
02:45:38,033 --> 02:45:51,033
Then I think that would be maybe an occasion to like run a demo, run like the demo coin or something, and just kind of see if – that would point to it being very bleak.

1481
02:45:52,033 --> 02:45:54,033
For any new – just anything.

1482
02:45:55,033 --> 02:45:58,033
But I don't know. That's sort of my thought.

1483
02:45:59,033 --> 02:46:05,033
Okay. Is there already a timeline? I mean Hampus has a question. Sorry, just this question.

1484
02:46:06,033 --> 02:46:19,033
Is there a timeline? Like I don't know. As soon as the pull request is done, I think I will probably do a little bit like some last minute education and then just throw it in there and see what –

1485
02:46:19,033 --> 02:46:29,033
I think a lot of people would be surprised if there was a pull request, but I personally think the pull request is like for people talking about details of the code.

1486
02:46:30,033 --> 02:46:36,033
So if you want to comment on the pull request, you should already just say – take it for the sake of argument that the idea is good.

1487
02:46:37,033 --> 02:46:40,033
So is the pull request about BIP300 and BIP301?

1488
02:46:41,033 --> 02:46:42,033
Yes.

1489
02:46:42,033 --> 02:47:03,033
Okay. So I would like to suggest then that maybe you know about this already, but instead of going with the blind merge binding BIT3001, you should probably look into Ruben Somsen's like space chain covenants via blind merge bind construction, which uses like SIGHASH.

1490
02:47:04,033 --> 02:47:05,033
That requires APO though.

1491
02:47:06,033 --> 02:47:08,033
Yeah, that will require APO, yes.

1492
02:47:09,033 --> 02:47:20,033
So I mean I'm fine with that, but you're saying BIP301 has already been coded and it's already in the example sidechains, and then APO is yet another soft fork to mix in.

1493
02:47:21,033 --> 02:47:39,033
Yeah, I would suggest soft forking that and instead go with that construction because it's more like – that will also benefit like lightning and space chains among other things, and it's a pretty generic solution for these things. So that's just a suggestion.

1494
02:47:40,033 --> 02:47:50,033
Yeah, but I think the pull request should be very modular, don't you? Each pull request should be like the 118 pull request, the 119 pull request, right?

1495
02:47:51,033 --> 02:48:07,033
Yeah, it depends. Like if this is a pull request about the soft fork, yeah, I suppose there could be multiple pull requests then, yeah. But like there will be like – I suppose there will be one soft fork like versioning BIT proposal for the actual like deployment activation.

1496
02:48:08,033 --> 02:48:19,033
Yeah, I mean I don't have any problem with APO at all. I think CTV, APO, whatever upvault should all already be in Bitcoin Core, as should BIP300 and BIP301.

1497
02:48:20,033 --> 02:48:35,033
I think people have a weird attitude where if an idea is a soft fork, people just don't think about it, whereas if instead they just didn't have that attitude, they would just say they would work on it more and it would be done faster or something.

1498
02:48:36,033 --> 02:48:48,033
But yeah, I don't know if that's a great idea. I think Ruben Sampson's version of Blind March Mining also requires you to make like this huge tree of pre-signed transactions or something.

1499
02:48:49,033 --> 02:49:13,033
Yeah, that is true for the space chain construction at least. I'm not sure exactly how it would work for like drivechains. I suppose it will be the same, yeah. But I'm not sure about that. That's a very good point actually. Like if it will require a pre-computed list of transactions, then it might not be the optimal solution.

1500
02:49:14,033 --> 02:49:15,033
I don't think that's better.

1501
02:49:16,033 --> 02:49:17,033
Sorry, what? You think that's better?

1502
02:49:18,033 --> 02:49:21,033
No, I said I don't think that is better because that's an annoying step.

1503
02:49:22,033 --> 02:49:32,033
That's definitely annoying for drivechains for sure. It's kind of like a bummer for the space chains because I don't think you can… I'm not sure you can do it another way. I haven't figured out the list, but yeah.

1504
02:49:33,033 --> 02:49:44,033
So that's true. If it needs a pre-computed list of transactions for drivechains, it will not be… I would agree that it wouldn't be optimal for that.

1505
02:49:45,033 --> 02:50:02,033
We already have a bunch of software that we have been using that uses the normal blind merge mining. Not that that's like… I'm not really married to blind merge mining, but it also does seem like with one exception, no one really complains about blind merge mining.

1506
02:50:03,033 --> 02:50:20,033
And that one guy who complains, who's a very interesting character, and he fully supports BIP300, but the problem with BIP301 is something along the lines of it may create these large transaction fees on L1 that miners fight over.

1507
02:50:21,033 --> 02:50:36,033
But that is kind of a weird thing to complain about since that could already happen at any time, and also the blind merge mining is the idea is that the fees would be trickling in in a continuous drip and they would not be like a weird fluke fee.

1508
02:50:37,033 --> 02:50:48,033
So that guy is an interesting point of view, but really no one has really complained about blind merge mining. I think part of the reason is that it's very difficult to complain about it since regular merge mining already exists.

1509
02:50:49,033 --> 02:50:52,033
But for whatever the reason may be, very few people complain about it.

1510
02:50:53,033 --> 02:51:12,033
I've seen some complaints about MEV and stuff, but there's some weird contradiction going on because as far as I can tell, if you do blind merge mining with space chains, that will basically be equivalent to doing blind merge mining with drivechains.

1511
02:51:12,033 --> 02:51:21,033
So if you're okay with space chains, then you really should be okay with drivechains, at least as far as blind merge mining goes.

1512
02:51:22,033 --> 02:51:33,033
So I've seen some weird contradictions going on there and stuff, and I don't personally think MEV is a problem, but some people do, and then they should be okay with drivechains and space chains BMM.

1513
02:51:34,033 --> 02:51:35,033
They can't just pick and choose there.

1514
02:51:36,033 --> 02:51:44,033
Yeah, a lot of people are just, you know, it's like motivated reasoning. They just want to come up with something negative to say.

1515
02:51:45,033 --> 02:51:54,033
Like the security, like the problem incentives should be the same as far as I can tell between BMM on the drivechain and the space chain.

1516
02:51:54,033 --> 02:52:03,033
Yeah, when people say MEV, it's just like, what they end up meaning is layer one transaction fees will go up. That's what they end up meaning.

1517
02:52:04,033 --> 02:52:16,033
So it's like, whatever. Like, I think they're just trying to stick, they're trying to staple something that is like bad sounding onto the idea. So it's the whole thing is dishonest, I think.

1518
02:52:16,033 --> 02:52:23,033
I think this Bitcoin rooster came up first and then had their hand. Yes, is that the case or no? I hope so.

1519
02:52:24,033 --> 02:52:37,033
I think so. I just had a question about the peg out process. Like, would the dust limit be the same? Like, could a small user always opt to peg out of a sidechain or?

1520
02:52:38,033 --> 02:52:45,033
What was the question? If you're trying to withdraw and you want to withdraw a tiny amount, like below the dust limit on L1?

1521
02:52:46,033 --> 02:52:54,033
Like, is the dust limit for withdrawing the same as L1? Or if you were in a sidechain, is there a limit?

1522
02:52:54,033 --> 02:52:56,993
question if you're trying to withdraw and you want to withdraw a tiny amount, like

1523
02:52:56,993 --> 02:52:59,333
below the dust limit on L1?

1524
02:53:00,873 --> 02:53:04,973
Is the dust limit for withdrawing the same as L1?

1525
02:53:05,173 --> 02:53:09,833
Or if you are in a sidechain, can the sidechain restrict

1526
02:53:09,833 --> 02:53:11,753
pegging out?

1527
02:53:15,838 --> 02:53:20,998
So, person has a couple layers.

1528
02:53:21,398 --> 02:53:25,838
like, the sidechain developer is free to make any mistake they want.

1529
02:53:25,998 --> 02:53:30,058
They could write a sidechain that has terrible withdrawal software that never

1530
02:53:30,283 --> 02:53:35,923
works. so then, but we have created a, we have templates and default

1531
02:53:35,923 --> 02:53:38,363
software that,

1532
02:53:40,923 --> 02:53:45,843
and what that does is that will allocate like a fixed amount of space for the

1533
02:53:45,843 --> 02:53:48,408
withdrawal, which is like, I think it's like 20

1534
02:53:48,528 --> 02:53:54,428
,000 or 30,000 or 40,000, something like that, 20,000 -ish withdrawals that

1535
02:53:54,428 --> 02:53:59,528
each use 43 or so bytes or whatever it is, think, B bytes,

1536
02:54:02,008 --> 02:54:03,088
something like that.

1537
02:54:04,028 --> 02:54:06,288
been actually a long time since I was in

1538
02:54:08,594 --> 02:54:13,794
The but it's something like that where you have the withdrawal transaction could pay

1539
02:54:13,794 --> 02:54:19,754
out to 20,000 different people and as a result it will never use up for example

1540
02:54:19,754 --> 02:54:24,974
the entire it won't you it won't you can see how it would be a disaster if the

1541
02:54:24,974 --> 02:54:26,260
withdrawal transaction was bigger

1542
02:54:26,260 --> 02:54:27,380
bigger than the block size limit.

1543
02:54:27,520 --> 02:54:32,900
So the block size limit is on L1, is whatever, megabyte in one way and four megabytes

1544
02:54:32,900 --> 02:54:33,640
in a different way.

1545
02:54:34,540 --> 02:54:37,780
If the withdrawal transaction is bigger than that, it will never be able to be included

1546
02:54:37,780 --> 02:54:42,140
in L1. So the L2 sidechain is programmed to construct

1547
02:54:42,140 --> 02:54:44,546
algorithmically and procedurally,

1548
02:54:44,846 --> 02:54:49,606
does that automatically

1549
02:54:49,606 --> 02:54:55,466
and it will make you pay a fee when you want to withdraw and it makes

1550
02:54:55,466 --> 02:54:59,606
you allocate part of the withdrawal as an L1 transaction fee.

1551
02:55:00,646 --> 02:55:02,832
So when you do the Withdraw on L1,

1552
02:55:03,033 --> 02:55:29,033
each of those things in that list of like 20 or 30,000, each of the, each in that list is paying an L1 fee also, and so, how does that answer your question, well, if they want to, it's actually L2, where you initiate the withdrawal, so if you want to withdraw something that is below the dust limit,

1553
02:55:30,033 --> 02:55:54,033
that is also, that is allowed, because just like you are allowed to make a Bitcoin transaction on L1, L1 Bitcoin transaction that pays below the dust limit, in fact, you can actually make a zero-valued output, that's what the upper returns are, but you can make a zero-valued upper return, and unless this has changed, I'm pretty sure those are all spendable,

1554
02:55:55,033 --> 02:56:21,033
and they actually cannot be pruned, because they, they are a valid output just like anything else, even though the coin value is zero, so that's allowed on L1, and that's also allowed in the form of a withdrawal, it's obviously a bad idea to withdraw something below the dust limit, because you will basically never be able to spend it on anything that you actually want to buy.

1555
02:56:22,033 --> 02:56:49,033
Yeah, no, I'm just, I'm just more curious about like how tyrannical a sidechain can be on its users, like can they, you know, restrict withdrawals, and then, like, I'm not sure completely how the process works of withdrawing, so if you have to initiate it on L2, does that mean that like, you know, you as a user potentially can't get out of it, but,

1556
02:56:49,033 --> 02:56:53,033
I mean, you as a manager of L2 can?

1557
02:56:57,006 --> 02:57:01,546
Well, it would be possible in the extreme case for someone to write a sidechain where

1558
02:57:01,546 --> 02:57:05,986
all the withdrawals have to go through some individual, some tyrant.

1559
02:57:07,226 --> 02:57:08,466
And that would be weird, I don't really

1560
02:57:19,033 --> 02:57:33,033
Because on L2, you kind of say, I have these coins, I select eight coins, and I want to withdraw three, so you have three, and you basically, you send three of the coins to a kind of like a, like a train station or something.

1561
02:57:34,033 --> 02:57:59,033
That's when you initiate it on L2, and then the L2 blockchain, it looks at every, everyone who has sent coins to the train station, and it sorts those people on their mainchain fee, so they have like carrying the mainchain fee with them, the withdrawals, each withdrawal has like a little pocket, and they have their mainchain fee, and each mainchain takes up the same amount of space, same amount of bytes, so you just sort it on that.

1562
02:58:00,033 --> 02:58:16,033
And it sorts it on that, and what it does is it sorts them there at the train station, and then when the next train is ready to leave, it opens up the doors of the train, and it loads in all the people it can fit, and then closes the doors of the train, and then it sends the train on its way.

1563
02:58:16,033 --> 02:58:42,033
And that's actually a slight oversimplification.

1564
02:58:43,033 --> 02:58:57,033
And then the train, in its ghostly form, kind of appears in L1, and the train slowly starts to move conceptually from one planet to the other planet, or whatever, this is a metaphor.

1565
02:58:57,033 --> 02:59:14,033
So that's kind of what happens as the upvotes accumulate on L1 for this train, it eventually is pulled from the sidechain planet to L1, and then it lets the people disembark at the very end.

1566
02:59:14,033 --> 02:59:42,033
So that's kind of what happens, and I guess you were asking how tyrannical can they be, the most tyrannical thing of all is to release terrible software so that the withdrawal process never works, and you can never figure out who's supposed to be on this train or not, and then you'll never know what to do, like no one will know which withdrawals are real or not.

1567
02:59:42,033 --> 02:59:56,033
And so at that point, the coins are just in limbo, and the miners can just take them, and whether or not that would even be considered taking them is ambiguous, because the true owner is unknown, so it's kind of abandoned property.

1568
02:59:56,033 --> 03:00:12,033
So the sidechain I think could be pretty tyrannical if it wishes, but of course, users have to choose to send money over there in the first place, so in a way it's kind of a good thing. It's kind of like how the manager of the Four Seasons, or the manager of a night hotel.

1569
03:00:12,986 --> 03:00:14,506
They're the tyrant of the hotel,

1570
03:00:14,506 --> 03:00:16,546
but you have to choose to stay there,

1571
03:00:16,546 --> 03:00:21,546
so it's kind of a good thing in a way.

1572
03:00:24,026 --> 03:00:26,746
But the sidechain should be automatically

1573
03:00:26,746 --> 03:00:27,786
doing the withdrawals.

1574
03:00:27,786 --> 03:00:30,786
It's not like the sidechain automatically

1575
03:00:30,786 --> 03:00:33,086
groups the withdrawals, so each individual user

1576
03:00:33,086 --> 03:00:34,826
goes to the train station,

1577
03:00:36,225 --> 03:00:38,565
and then the sidechain is watching.

1578
03:00:39,565 --> 03:00:42,606
It sees when the last train docked on L1,

1579
03:00:43,966 --> 03:00:46,326
and then it knows to release the next train,

1580
03:00:46,326 --> 03:00:47,645
and that's what it does.

1581
03:00:47,645 --> 03:00:51,026
So that part is totally automatic.

1582
03:00:52,726 --> 03:00:53,686
I mean, it should be.

1583
03:00:53,686 --> 03:00:54,926
Of course, you could screw it up.

1584
03:00:54,926 --> 03:00:58,125
So anyway, ShinyCakes, you were going to say something.

1585
03:00:58,125 --> 03:01:02,366
Yes, I was wondering if the scenario happens

1586
03:01:02,366 --> 03:01:05,805
that you launch, for example, like a demo coin,

1587
03:01:05,805 --> 03:01:09,686
or you would go out like a layer one,

1588
03:01:09,686 --> 03:01:11,125
would you do exactly the same?

1589
03:01:11,125 --> 03:01:12,886
Would you just fork Bitcoin,

1590
03:01:12,886 --> 03:01:17,286
or what would be your approach as a layer one then?

1591
03:01:20,886 --> 03:01:23,886
Oh, well, you know, I think right now

1592
03:01:23,886 --> 03:01:28,085
we're just focusing on spreading the idea,

1593
03:01:28,085 --> 03:01:30,166
but I think it would probably be,

1594
03:01:30,166 --> 03:01:32,606
the good thing would be to do the hard fork,

1595
03:01:32,606 --> 03:01:35,606
because in that way, every Bitcoin user is indifferent,

1596
03:01:36,365 --> 03:01:39,725
and it would probably also be good to keep SHA-256-D

1597
03:01:39,725 --> 03:01:42,526
so that every miner is indifferent also.

1598
03:01:42,526 --> 03:01:45,926
That makes it so that if you launch something,

1599
03:01:45,926 --> 03:01:48,445
no one in Bitcoin is really harmed

1600
03:01:48,445 --> 03:01:51,485
if it were to succeed and do very well.

1601
03:01:51,485 --> 03:01:52,326
You see what I mean?

1602
03:01:52,326 --> 03:01:53,646
Because it's the same set of owners

1603
03:01:53,646 --> 03:01:55,206
and the same set of miners.

1604
03:01:56,085 --> 03:01:59,166
So that is probably...

1605
03:01:59,166 --> 03:02:00,725
Just by a snapshot, for example,

1606
03:02:00,725 --> 03:02:04,646
or if they take the tech then later on,

1607
03:02:05,045 --> 03:02:06,326
how would it be then?

1608
03:02:10,045 --> 03:02:12,725
I think it would just be like literal hard fork,

1609
03:02:12,725 --> 03:02:13,566
like you would have.

1610
03:02:13,566 --> 03:02:15,805
I mean, probably a snapshot is better than a hard fork

1611
03:02:15,805 --> 03:02:18,646
because hard fork has all this block history,

1612
03:02:18,646 --> 03:02:19,485
but on the other hand,

1613
03:02:19,485 --> 03:02:20,885
you would want all the block explorers

1614
03:02:20,885 --> 03:02:22,245
and stuff to be consistent.

1615
03:02:22,245 --> 03:02:25,086
So maybe hard fork is better.

1616
03:02:25,086 --> 03:02:26,366
I don't know.

1617
03:02:26,366 --> 03:02:27,885
Probably.

1618
03:02:27,885 --> 03:02:30,485
Okay, so in general, you are happy with the ideals

1619
03:02:30,485 --> 03:02:33,405
and you don't scare that a scenario

1620
03:02:33,405 --> 03:02:36,846
like this happens again that could take,

1621
03:02:36,846 --> 03:02:38,965
what could change the world getting stuck

1622
03:02:38,965 --> 03:02:41,806
because of such infrastructure?

1623
03:02:44,965 --> 03:02:47,926
Well, I think what has happened has been pretty bad.

1624
03:02:47,926 --> 03:02:49,245
Yes, I do think so.

1625
03:02:49,245 --> 03:02:52,166
I think that Bitcoin should probably have taken over

1626
03:02:52,166 --> 03:02:55,325
the entire world by now and it did not yet.

1627
03:02:55,325 --> 03:03:00,086
So I really think it's in particular,

1628
03:03:00,086 --> 03:03:05,086
the scaling war being fought from what you might call,

1629
03:03:05,325 --> 03:03:07,685
I mean, it depends on exactly when you think it began.

1630
03:03:07,685 --> 03:03:11,166
I guess I would say, I think it began at scaling three.

1631
03:03:11,166 --> 03:03:14,485
So that would be October, 2016,

1632
03:03:14,485 --> 03:03:16,926
until maybe I'll call it like a year

1633
03:03:16,926 --> 03:03:18,525
after Bitcoin Cash was

1634
03:03:21,806 --> 03:03:23,006
affirmed as the thing.

1635
03:03:23,006 --> 03:03:24,765
So I'd say November, 2018.

1636
03:03:25,765 --> 03:03:30,765
So I think from October, 2016 to November, 2018,

1637
03:03:33,245 --> 03:03:35,286
we fought the scaling war and won.

1638
03:03:35,286 --> 03:03:40,206
And then since then there has been just basically

1639
03:03:41,846 --> 03:03:46,206
a lot of stasis, complacency, overconfidence,

1640
03:03:46,206 --> 03:03:50,685
hatred of anything new or even just creative.

1641
03:03:50,685 --> 03:03:52,245
And you see that in 1.19,

1642
03:03:53,965 --> 03:03:57,366
over-emphasis on lightning,

1643
03:03:57,366 --> 03:04:02,366
over-emphasis on developers can never do anything wrong

1644
03:04:03,446 --> 03:04:07,525
and we have to do whatever developers say

1645
03:04:07,525 --> 03:04:09,965
because if we lose them, we will lose everything.

1646
03:04:11,325 --> 03:04:13,726
Also, there was the period where everyone

1647
03:04:13,726 --> 03:04:15,566
just started hating the miners for no reason.

1648
03:04:15,566 --> 03:04:16,846
Well, I mean, for some reason,

1649
03:04:16,846 --> 03:04:21,846
but the miners, because they held up SegWit for a while,

1650
03:04:22,286 --> 03:04:24,405
but the hate was kind of disproportionate

1651
03:04:24,405 --> 03:04:26,245
and it even persisted long after.

1652
03:04:26,245 --> 03:04:29,365
Like everyone hated Jihan Wu, so they say,

1653
03:04:29,365 --> 03:04:32,925
but Jihan Wu was eventually just forced out of Bitmain.

1654
03:04:32,925 --> 03:04:36,805
But still people hate, still the hate remains.

1655
03:04:36,805 --> 03:04:41,805
So yeah, I think it has sucked kind of since then.

1656
03:04:43,245 --> 03:04:45,846
Everything has, things have been very slow.

1657
03:04:45,886 --> 03:04:48,245
What really happened between now and then

1658
03:04:48,245 --> 03:04:51,365
was like some, like the COVID lockdowns

1659
03:04:51,365 --> 03:04:52,405
and COVID inflation.

1660
03:04:52,405 --> 03:04:54,525
So that was great for our Bitcoin

1661
03:04:54,525 --> 03:04:58,446
in both senses of being huge amount of inflation

1662
03:04:58,446 --> 03:05:00,286
and huge amount of money printing

1663
03:05:00,286 --> 03:05:03,205
and huge amount of just like government tyranny.

1664
03:05:03,205 --> 03:05:05,405
But even then you see that we totally failed.

1665
03:05:05,405 --> 03:05:07,125
I think we did not do a good job at all

1666
03:05:07,125 --> 03:05:09,865
of like the Canadian truckers example.

1667
03:05:11,685 --> 03:05:14,046
Bitcoin, the way it works with Bitcoin,

1668
03:05:15,046 --> 03:05:17,685
it should be possible for someone

1669
03:05:17,685 --> 03:05:20,166
to start some kind of cause,

1670
03:05:20,166 --> 03:05:22,965
some kind of political dissident somewhere

1671
03:05:22,965 --> 03:05:25,965
in Albania or something, anywhere.

1672
03:05:25,965 --> 03:05:27,846
They should have some kind of cause.

1673
03:05:27,846 --> 03:05:30,326
It should hit Twitter and we should all learn about it.

1674
03:05:30,326 --> 03:05:33,846
And that guy should be able to like something,

1675
03:05:33,846 --> 03:05:35,546
like write something on a piece of paper

1676
03:05:35,546 --> 03:05:38,286
and hold it up and take a picture of himself with it

1677
03:05:38,286 --> 03:05:40,326
or hold up a QR code or whatever.

1678
03:05:41,166 --> 03:05:44,125
And we should be able to just send that person money

1679
03:05:44,125 --> 03:05:46,405
that they know how to spend

1680
03:05:47,365 --> 03:05:48,726
and that we know goes to them.

1681
03:05:48,726 --> 03:05:52,205
And that we, it seems like a very, very, very easy task,

1682
03:05:52,205 --> 03:05:54,525
but we did not succeed with the Canadian truckers.

1683
03:05:54,525 --> 03:05:57,886
We did some kind of crazy convoluted other thing.

1684
03:05:57,886 --> 03:05:59,245
It took a really long time.

1685
03:05:59,245 --> 03:06:00,766
And then ultimately most of that money

1686
03:06:00,766 --> 03:06:02,925
was confiscated by the Canadian government

1687
03:06:02,925 --> 03:06:04,766
as I understand it.

1688
03:06:04,766 --> 03:06:08,405
So how could we screw something like that up so badly?

1689
03:06:08,405 --> 03:06:09,245
I don't know.

1690
03:06:09,245 --> 03:06:11,645
But whatever it is, until we fix that,

1691
03:06:11,645 --> 03:06:13,805
we aren't doing very well.

1692
03:06:13,805 --> 03:06:17,365
So even, that was a big opportunity.

1693
03:06:17,365 --> 03:06:20,446
That would have been huge if we had our act together.

1694
03:06:20,446 --> 03:06:23,205
That would have been really big, you know?

1695
03:06:23,205 --> 03:06:24,386
How can that not be?

1696
03:06:26,805 --> 03:06:29,766
I mean like, I don't know, I just don't understand

1697
03:06:29,766 --> 03:06:33,205
what, how do we face ourselves in the mirror?

1698
03:06:33,205 --> 03:06:37,786
It's a complete failure.

1699
03:06:37,786 --> 03:06:40,226
So yeah, those people all should have had tons of Bitcoin,

1700
03:06:40,226 --> 03:06:42,066
especially as soon as the Canadian government

1701
03:06:42,066 --> 03:06:43,346
started talking about like,

1702
03:06:43,346 --> 03:06:46,745
we will freeze their bank accounts and stuff.

1703
03:06:46,745 --> 03:06:47,585
That was it.

1704
03:06:47,585 --> 03:06:48,865
Like we should have just flipped Canada

1705
03:06:48,865 --> 03:06:50,666
into like a Bitcoin country.

1706
03:06:53,226 --> 03:06:56,766
But instead, people are interested in,

1707
03:06:56,766 --> 03:06:58,185
yeah I mean you have people like,

1708
03:06:58,185 --> 03:07:00,305
certain people are working hard against that.

1709
03:07:00,305 --> 03:07:02,546
I don't think, so like I think Michael Saylor

1710
03:07:02,546 --> 03:07:04,745
is a very smart guy and I think he's very good for Bitcoin

1711
03:07:04,745 --> 03:07:07,506
and certainly who can doubt his earnestness

1712
03:07:08,226 --> 03:07:12,905
when he puts down such a huge percentage of his net worth.

1713
03:07:15,025 --> 03:07:17,826
But yeah, he's against like this subversive aspect

1714
03:07:17,826 --> 03:07:20,386
of Bitcoin, he's against the,

1715
03:07:20,386 --> 03:07:22,066
in a way he's against the self-sovereignty

1716
03:07:22,066 --> 03:07:24,106
because he's against privacy also.

1717
03:07:24,106 --> 03:07:25,986
He says it'll all be regulated,

1718
03:07:25,986 --> 03:07:29,585
it'll all be a US dollar stable coin or something.

1719
03:07:30,425 --> 03:07:33,865
So where does that leave us exactly?

1720
03:07:33,865 --> 03:07:34,905
I'm not sure.

1721
03:07:34,905 --> 03:07:39,905
But I think what I would say is that I'm pro-pluralism.

1722
03:07:41,865 --> 03:07:44,666
So we should be trying lots and lots of different things.

1723
03:07:45,745 --> 03:07:49,025
But would the people do better with the same code

1724
03:07:49,025 --> 03:07:51,465
if they start again from scratch?

1725
03:07:52,625 --> 03:07:54,386
I don't think so.

1726
03:07:54,386 --> 03:07:55,986
Well, what a lot of people say,

1727
03:07:55,986 --> 03:07:57,346
if you talk to technologists,

1728
03:07:57,346 --> 03:08:00,666
they'll say we should just rewrite everything in Rust

1729
03:08:00,666 --> 03:08:01,905
and just redo it.

1730
03:08:02,786 --> 03:08:06,546
That's fine, but like people said that too about,

1731
03:08:06,546 --> 03:08:09,025
many people said that about like LibBitcoin.

1732
03:08:09,025 --> 03:08:10,226
LibBitcoin is much cleaner.

1733
03:08:10,226 --> 03:08:11,185
They're right about that.

1734
03:08:11,185 --> 03:08:14,745
LibBitcoin is sort of much better.

1735
03:08:14,745 --> 03:08:16,865
But of course there was this recent news

1736
03:08:16,865 --> 03:08:20,546
that happened whatever, a week and a half ago, right?

1737
03:08:22,346 --> 03:08:26,705
The LibBitcoin randomness sources was not good.

1738
03:08:29,226 --> 03:08:31,145
Excuse me, I had to just sneeze there.

1739
03:08:31,185 --> 03:08:33,106
But the LibBitcoin, so this is the thing,

1740
03:08:33,106 --> 03:08:37,305
is you're not, having a standard that everyone,

1741
03:08:37,305 --> 03:08:39,266
that has been in use for a long time

1742
03:08:39,266 --> 03:08:41,025
and that everyone is familiar with,

1743
03:08:42,786 --> 03:08:44,185
and that a lot of people have looked at,

1744
03:08:44,185 --> 03:08:46,505
a lot of people have tried to break,

1745
03:08:46,505 --> 03:08:48,426
that itself is much better

1746
03:08:48,426 --> 03:08:51,025
than almost any improvement could be.

1747
03:08:51,025 --> 03:08:52,905
So writing the code from scratch,

1748
03:08:52,905 --> 03:08:55,546
I think is like the kiss of death, basically.

1749
03:08:57,346 --> 03:09:00,786
So, but I do think that they're ruining,

1750
03:09:01,465 --> 03:09:04,065
I think Bitcoin Core is, the code is getting worse.

1751
03:09:04,065 --> 03:09:06,986
It's getting more complicated to do things.

1752
03:09:07,945 --> 03:09:09,825
I hate descriptor wallets.

1753
03:09:09,825 --> 03:09:12,106
I hate basically everything,

1754
03:09:12,106 --> 03:09:14,746
like the frivolous refactoring and just,

1755
03:09:14,746 --> 03:09:19,746
it's like, I think it's much worse than it has been.

1756
03:09:20,025 --> 03:09:22,186
But still I say you have to, you have no choice,

1757
03:09:22,186 --> 03:09:24,705
but to use the latest version of Bitcoin Core really.

1758
03:09:24,705 --> 03:09:26,346
But this is another reason why I actually

1759
03:09:26,346 --> 03:09:27,626
am pro ossification.

1760
03:09:27,626 --> 03:09:30,226
I think most of the recent changes have been terrible.

1761
03:09:30,626 --> 03:09:35,626
I really hate the batch 32 and batch 32m address formats.

1762
03:09:35,626 --> 03:09:38,945
I think I don't like them at all.

1763
03:09:38,945 --> 03:09:43,505
So I really hate that they start with,

1764
03:09:43,505 --> 03:09:45,565
they all start with the same prefix.

1765
03:09:45,565 --> 03:09:47,505
That's like five letters long.

1766
03:09:47,505 --> 03:09:49,346
And that the version number kicks in

1767
03:09:49,346 --> 03:09:51,346
on something that is a letter.

1768
03:09:51,346 --> 03:09:52,426
It's not a number.

1769
03:09:53,346 --> 03:09:55,905
I honestly think that this is some kind of like

1770
03:09:56,945 --> 03:09:58,986
psychology experiment that I'm trapped in.

1771
03:09:59,426 --> 03:10:01,626
I don't understand why people do this,

1772
03:10:01,626 --> 03:10:02,626
make these decisions.

1773
03:10:02,626 --> 03:10:04,585
I think they're just awful.

1774
03:10:04,585 --> 03:10:06,085
But everyone's got an opinion.

1775
03:10:07,866 --> 03:10:09,626
So I think most of the changes have been bad,

1776
03:10:09,626 --> 03:10:12,666
but I still think you cannot, you can't leave.

1777
03:10:12,666 --> 03:10:14,945
As soon as you say, well, instead I'll use LibBitcoin

1778
03:10:14,945 --> 03:10:16,445
or I'll use something smaller.

1779
03:10:17,666 --> 03:10:19,265
That is when you get this terrible news,

1780
03:10:19,265 --> 03:10:20,746
like LibBitcoin had.

1781
03:10:20,746 --> 03:10:24,286
So that's not, any standard is good.

1782
03:10:24,286 --> 03:10:25,126
You know what I mean?

1783
03:10:25,126 --> 03:10:28,786
Like if everyone is using the same wifi standard,

1784
03:10:29,585 --> 03:10:30,505
maybe you have a standard that's better,

1785
03:10:30,505 --> 03:10:31,585
but it doesn't matter.

1786
03:10:33,065 --> 03:10:36,065
It's just like the, it's the boxing opera thing

1787
03:10:36,065 --> 03:10:36,905
all over again.

1788
03:10:38,825 --> 03:10:40,945
You have to weigh that consideration against

1789
03:10:40,945 --> 03:10:43,786
how much better the new feature is.

1790
03:10:43,786 --> 03:10:47,145
Because certainly a better feature is better,

1791
03:10:47,145 --> 03:10:51,585
but what's really good is going on a date

1792
03:10:51,585 --> 03:10:54,106
with someone and not being alone.

1793
03:10:54,106 --> 03:10:55,626
The whole point of the date is that you're there

1794
03:10:55,626 --> 03:10:57,426
with someone else.

1795
03:10:57,426 --> 03:11:00,385
Could you imagine that even drivechain go

1796
03:11:00,385 --> 03:11:02,746
into a direction where you think, okay,

1797
03:11:03,866 --> 03:11:05,866
where and which direction it's going?

1798
03:11:05,866 --> 03:11:07,866
I'm a little bit worried about.

1799
03:11:08,905 --> 03:11:12,825
Do you think this is really like a framework

1800
03:11:12,825 --> 03:11:15,385
where things like this couldn't happen?

1801
03:11:18,546 --> 03:11:20,585
What do you mean, an individual sidechain

1802
03:11:20,585 --> 03:11:22,226
or the drivechain idea itself?

1803
03:11:22,226 --> 03:11:23,065
The idea itself.

1804
03:11:23,065 --> 03:11:26,746
If you launch it just from scratch,

1805
03:11:27,106 --> 03:11:31,186
if there could be maybe some kind of scenario like this,

1806
03:11:31,186 --> 03:11:33,186
what we have right now here in Bitcoin,

1807
03:11:33,186 --> 03:11:34,705
where you get stuck,

1808
03:11:34,705 --> 03:11:36,626
could you imagine that it could also happen

1809
03:11:36,626 --> 03:11:39,065
somewhere there with the drivechain tech on top?

1810
03:11:40,905 --> 03:11:44,346
Well, drivechain is kind of like a completable project.

1811
03:11:44,346 --> 03:11:45,346
So it's kind of like SegWit,

1812
03:11:45,346 --> 03:11:48,505
where it's kind of like, it would just be finished.

1813
03:11:48,505 --> 03:11:50,186
Kind of just is finished.

1814
03:11:50,186 --> 03:11:52,666
So it's either finished or it's not,

1815
03:11:52,666 --> 03:11:56,065
which it is in that scenario.

1816
03:11:56,106 --> 03:11:57,666
So I can see myself saying,

1817
03:11:57,666 --> 03:11:59,426
well, with hindsight,

1818
03:11:59,426 --> 03:12:01,986
I would have changed something about BIP300.

1819
03:12:04,346 --> 03:12:05,945
But I guess not really,

1820
03:12:05,945 --> 03:12:09,265
because what we're talking about are two different things.

1821
03:12:09,265 --> 03:12:13,346
One is like the process on Bitcoin Core

1822
03:12:14,505 --> 03:12:17,426
being very bad,

1823
03:12:17,426 --> 03:12:19,825
but still much better than everything else.

1824
03:12:20,786 --> 03:12:22,626
Because other things are not viable.

1825
03:12:23,626 --> 03:12:28,426
And so that's one conversation,

1826
03:12:28,426 --> 03:12:31,986
but then a different conversation is just like,

1827
03:12:31,986 --> 03:12:34,145
could we come up with a still better idea?

1828
03:12:36,346 --> 03:12:41,346
Eventually someone will get the lightweight L1,

1829
03:12:41,786 --> 03:12:46,786
L1 using ZK proof cross-chain bridge to work.

1830
03:12:48,746 --> 03:12:52,145
And that works with every future sidechain,

1831
03:12:52,666 --> 03:12:54,465
and it doesn't matter what the sizes of that sidechain

1832
03:12:54,465 --> 03:12:55,306
or whatever,

1833
03:12:55,306 --> 03:12:58,025
they'll just always be the perfect peg.

1834
03:12:59,986 --> 03:13:01,186
And there'll be no bike-shedding

1835
03:13:01,186 --> 03:13:06,186
over what ZK prover algorithm to use, blah, blah, blah.

1836
03:13:08,346 --> 03:13:11,385
So maybe someday eventually we'll have that,

1837
03:13:11,385 --> 03:13:14,626
and then people will just not use BIP300 anymore, maybe.

1838
03:13:14,626 --> 03:13:15,546
But I kind of doubt it

1839
03:13:15,546 --> 03:13:20,546
because miners can already censor ZK proof knowledge,

1840
03:13:20,546 --> 03:13:22,106
they can already censor sidechain knowledge,

1841
03:13:22,106 --> 03:13:26,426
they can already do lots of things even in the ZK world.

1842
03:13:26,426 --> 03:13:28,945
So it's kind of like,

1843
03:13:28,945 --> 03:13:31,025
it's also the ZK world is impossible

1844
03:13:31,025 --> 03:13:32,705
for normal people to understand,

1845
03:13:32,705 --> 03:13:35,866
whereas the drivechain ACK system

1846
03:13:35,866 --> 03:13:39,905
is just an integer that counts up to 13,000.

1847
03:13:39,905 --> 03:13:44,306
So in those ways, it's just better.

1848
03:13:45,746 --> 03:13:48,226
But people could always come up with a better idea.

1849
03:13:50,546 --> 03:13:52,186
Do we have any other questions?

1850
03:13:52,186 --> 03:13:53,065
Not from my side.

1851
03:13:53,065 --> 03:13:54,426
Thank you very much.

1852
03:13:54,426 --> 03:13:57,866
And I will for sure listen maybe and repeat,

1853
03:13:57,866 --> 03:13:59,426
sometimes with the drivechain talks,

1854
03:13:59,426 --> 03:14:02,065
I need to hear them at least once or twice

1855
03:14:02,065 --> 03:14:05,226
to get everything, sometimes really a lot input.

1856
03:14:08,145 --> 03:14:09,186
Okay, cool, great.

1857
03:14:10,265 --> 03:14:12,106
Well, yeah, if anyone has any questions,

1858
03:14:12,106 --> 03:14:13,186
feel free to come up.

1859
03:14:21,546 --> 03:14:25,106
Hampus, what did you think about my,

1860
03:14:25,106 --> 03:14:27,025
I saw you gave a reaction to,

1861
03:14:27,025 --> 03:14:29,666
I was talking about why you can't leave or something.

1862
03:14:32,145 --> 03:14:36,186
I don't, sorry, I don't remember reactions,

1863
03:14:36,186 --> 03:14:39,786
but in general, I agree with what you're saying mostly, so.

1864
03:14:43,505 --> 03:14:47,145
Okay, well, this has been three hours and 15 minutes,

1865
03:14:47,145 --> 03:14:48,465
so maybe we should...

1866
03:14:51,145 --> 03:14:53,065
If no one has anything they wanna say.

1867
03:14:54,465 --> 03:14:55,866
Yeah, I might have some,

1868
03:14:55,866 --> 03:14:59,065
if you please ignore it, but we could take another time.

1869
03:14:59,065 --> 03:15:02,546
But I have some disagreements

1870
03:15:02,546 --> 03:15:04,905
regarding the soft forking stuff.

1871
03:15:04,905 --> 03:15:06,666
Like, if I remember correctly,

1872
03:15:06,666 --> 03:15:10,265
you said that drivechain or activation of drivechains

1873
03:15:10,265 --> 03:15:13,186
or whatever are similar to a soft fork.

1874
03:15:14,265 --> 03:15:17,505
But as far as, my view on that is that

1875
03:15:17,505 --> 03:15:20,265
like main chain full nodes,

1876
03:15:20,265 --> 03:15:23,065
they will have to activate BIP300, right?

1877
03:15:23,065 --> 03:15:25,746
So that means they will need to check

1878
03:15:25,746 --> 03:15:29,306
the drivechain messages for like acts,

1879
03:15:29,306 --> 03:15:34,306
for the peg outs and creations of new sidechains, whatever.

1880
03:15:36,986 --> 03:15:39,065
But they will not need to, of course,

1881
03:15:39,065 --> 03:15:43,306
validate the rules of the other chain.

1882
03:15:43,306 --> 03:15:46,346
They will only watch, they will follow the BIP300,

1883
03:15:46,346 --> 03:15:48,346
like BIP, basically, the specification.

1884
03:15:49,426 --> 03:15:52,585
So that's, for any creation of a sidechain,

1885
03:15:52,585 --> 03:15:54,465
that will be the requirements.

1886
03:15:54,465 --> 03:15:56,546
But if you look at, for example,

1887
03:15:56,546 --> 03:16:01,346
like a new OPI code, like OPNOP5, whatever,

1888
03:16:01,346 --> 03:16:03,666
that it will have a new meaning.

1889
03:16:03,666 --> 03:16:06,705
But then I think that's every full node,

1890
03:16:06,705 --> 03:16:08,025
or main chain full node,

1891
03:16:08,025 --> 03:16:11,186
should really interpret and follow the new,

1892
03:16:12,065 --> 03:16:17,065
like rules of that OPI code.

1893
03:16:17,065 --> 03:16:18,825
Do you disagree with that?

1894
03:16:18,825 --> 03:16:19,825
Or do you think like,

1895
03:16:19,825 --> 03:16:22,945
do you think that only the miners should interpret

1896
03:16:22,945 --> 03:16:25,465
the new like soft fork rules?

1897
03:16:28,866 --> 03:16:30,866
Does my question make sense or should I?

1898
03:16:32,505 --> 03:16:36,666
Yes, the question is about whether or not

1899
03:16:36,666 --> 03:16:39,626
miners can unilaterally activate BIP300.

1900
03:16:39,705 --> 03:16:43,106
It's a paradox that actually sort of only applies to,

1901
03:16:43,106 --> 03:16:44,065
oh, sorry.

1902
03:16:44,065 --> 03:16:45,905
Yeah, no, it's, it's, it is,

1903
03:16:45,905 --> 03:16:47,145
no, no, I'm sorry, we can't, sorry,

1904
03:16:47,145 --> 03:16:48,945
let's continue, I'll, I'll take it from here.

1905
03:16:48,945 --> 03:16:52,426
The one paradox that I wish people would understand better

1906
03:16:52,426 --> 03:16:57,426
is that what BIP300 does is keep the miners

1907
03:16:57,426 --> 03:16:58,385
on a short leash.

1908
03:16:58,385 --> 03:17:02,025
And this is, the miners constrain themselves with BIP300.

1909
03:17:03,025 --> 03:17:05,145
They say, if the coins are sent here,

1910
03:17:05,145 --> 03:17:07,385
then we miners can send them anywhere.

1911
03:17:07,385 --> 03:17:09,945
But we have to send them through this long hallway.

1912
03:17:11,346 --> 03:17:16,065
And that is good because this helps build the trust

1913
03:17:16,065 --> 03:17:19,585
between the miners and the users of the sidechain.

1914
03:17:20,945 --> 03:17:22,465
And so the miners are keeping themselves,

1915
03:17:22,465 --> 03:17:24,945
BIP300 keeps the miners on a short leash.

1916
03:17:24,945 --> 03:17:29,945
BIP300 is miners, is miners being handcuffed to some extent.

1917
03:17:31,305 --> 03:17:34,626
And that's why the system would work well enough

1918
03:17:34,665 --> 03:17:37,945
that users would actually pay transaction fees over there.

1919
03:17:37,945 --> 03:17:42,305
So it's kind of like BIP300 specifically

1920
03:17:42,305 --> 03:17:47,305
is a weird one for miners to activate by themselves.

1921
03:17:52,626 --> 03:17:54,785
That's kind of a weird quirk of BIP300

1922
03:17:54,785 --> 03:17:56,305
that wouldn't apply if the miners

1923
03:17:56,305 --> 03:17:59,305
just unilaterally activated something like 119.

1924
03:18:00,146 --> 03:18:04,986
So it's kind of just strange like that.

1925
03:18:04,986 --> 03:18:06,585
It's a strange situation.

1926
03:18:06,585 --> 03:18:08,465
But yeah, if only the miners do it

1927
03:18:08,465 --> 03:18:09,906
and no one else enforces it.

1928
03:18:10,785 --> 03:18:13,986
There's also, the question has a couple of nuances.

1929
03:18:15,106 --> 03:18:18,026
Because again, the old soft fork idea was

1930
03:18:18,026 --> 03:18:20,746
when the network is ready, the whole network updates.

1931
03:18:20,746 --> 03:18:22,065
And when is the network ready?

1932
03:18:22,065 --> 03:18:24,906
When miners have activated.

1933
03:18:25,906 --> 03:18:30,425
So the question of the miners could activate it at first,

1934
03:18:30,425 --> 03:18:32,386
enforce it for a while.

1935
03:18:32,386 --> 03:18:35,746
As this time period is passing of it being active,

1936
03:18:35,746 --> 03:18:37,545
miner only active,

1937
03:18:37,545 --> 03:18:42,065
a couple other full nodes activate to be in compliance,

1938
03:18:42,065 --> 03:18:46,705
like in synchronicity with the miners version of the nodes.

1939
03:18:48,026 --> 03:18:49,986
So in that case,

1940
03:18:50,226 --> 03:18:51,065
the,

1941
03:18:53,226 --> 03:18:55,026
it was activated by miners first,

1942
03:18:55,026 --> 03:18:59,386
but then a couple other nodes activated later.

1943
03:18:59,386 --> 03:19:02,146
There's no real way of knowing whether or not they have

1944
03:19:02,146 --> 03:19:06,305
because it's very hard to measure the node situation

1945
03:19:08,146 --> 03:19:10,986
unlike the mining situation where it's very easy to measure.

1946
03:19:11,986 --> 03:19:14,906
So what I'm trying to say is miners activated first,

1947
03:19:14,906 --> 03:19:17,106
but then maybe they're stuck with it.

1948
03:19:17,146 --> 03:19:19,906
They can't actually unilaterally unactivate it.

1949
03:19:20,825 --> 03:19:23,945
In the first five minutes, maybe they could,

1950
03:19:23,945 --> 03:19:25,465
but as time goes on, they don't know.

1951
03:19:25,465 --> 03:19:28,185
They have to worry who else has activated this

1952
03:19:30,146 --> 03:19:31,386
because they don't even really know.

1953
03:19:31,386 --> 03:19:32,986
There's not even a way for them to tell.

1954
03:19:32,986 --> 03:19:35,266
So it might be nobody, but it might be a lot of people.

1955
03:19:35,266 --> 03:19:36,785
It might be Coinbase.

1956
03:19:36,785 --> 03:19:39,506
And now you're a miner, you're kind of trapped.

1957
03:19:39,506 --> 03:19:42,585
So there's a little bit more nuance to it.

1958
03:19:43,545 --> 03:19:44,386
I think,

1959
03:19:46,705 --> 03:19:48,106
how to explain this?

1960
03:19:49,506 --> 03:19:50,425
Activation.

1961
03:19:50,425 --> 03:19:52,506
So can you repeat, you were saying,

1962
03:19:53,746 --> 03:19:55,506
can you repeat what you were saying?

1963
03:19:55,506 --> 03:19:58,506
Yeah, my question on this question was actually

1964
03:19:58,506 --> 03:20:00,626
about something else completely,

1965
03:20:00,626 --> 03:20:03,185
but I do enjoy the current,

1966
03:20:04,305 --> 03:20:06,146
but in general, I think that's,

1967
03:20:09,255 --> 03:20:20,255
my view on the whole thing regarding mining, a miner activated soft fork and a normal soft fork is that the miners can probably do it themselves, right?

1968
03:20:20,255 --> 03:20:34,255
It's totally possible to coordinate in some way. I'm mostly worried about the social fabric of things. It would be better if we could try to convince Shinobi and whatever and they will stop.

1969
03:20:35,255 --> 03:20:40,255
We invite these people to come to this space or to do a debate.

1970
03:20:40,255 --> 03:20:42,255
Yeah, I know, I know.

1971
03:20:42,255 --> 03:20:44,255
You know what I mean?

1972
03:20:44,255 --> 03:20:46,255
Yeah, I agree.

1973
03:20:46,255 --> 03:20:48,255
What else can I do other than that?

1974
03:20:49,255 --> 03:21:10,255
I fully agree. I'm just saying that it will be better to first try to convince people. And I think it's inevitable, like you said in a tweet, that as drivechains are one of the only L2s that directly benefit the miners themselves,

1975
03:21:10,255 --> 03:21:25,255
there is reason to believe that they will choose to activate drivechains eventually anyway. So, the coordination of that might be messy, but I think it's fully likely that it will happen.

1976
03:21:25,255 --> 03:21:44,255
I just wish that we somehow could get people on board eventually before we start another big war regarding forks or whatever like we had in 2017. So, yeah, that's just my general rambling about these things.

1977
03:21:44,255 --> 03:22:12,255
Yeah, I agree. That is, we're trying to do that. I think, yeah, we're trying to do these spaces. We put out info on the sites, layer2labs.com. We put out the demo software. So, all of that is good. So, yeah, I'm trying to do that.

1978
03:22:12,255 --> 03:22:36,255
I do think that a lot of these people are like, they're not in good faith. They just don't want to, like, they're not interested in the truth. They decided long ago that this idea was bad, and now they can't back down.

1979
03:22:36,255 --> 03:22:45,255
So, I'm not sure exactly what I should do. I think in that case, I'm kind of obligated to ignore those people and focus on everyone else.

1980
03:22:50,014 --> 03:22:55,494
Yeah, it's quite messy with some of the discussions going on, I've

1981
03:22:55,494 --> 03:22:57,174
definitely seen that.

1982
03:22:57,574 --> 03:23:02,334
like my view, just reading stuff is that, like I think

1983
03:23:02,428 --> 03:23:08,028
that the Drivechain proponents are winning in the discussions, at least

1984
03:23:08,028 --> 03:23:08,628
mostly.

1985
03:23:10,468 --> 03:23:14,808
I'm not sure that people really care about these long toxic

1986
03:23:14,808 --> 03:23:17,428
Twitter threads

1987
03:23:17,841 --> 03:23:23,841
stuff but yeah I mean one kind of funny thing to point out what kind of funny thing to

1988
03:23:23,841 --> 03:23:29,501
point out is everyone hated Bitmain so much like on Twitter like the most hated

1989
03:23:29,501 --> 03:23:33,255
but Antpool is still like the number two pool or whatever

1990
03:23:33,255 --> 03:23:46,255
So, it doesn't translate. So, you're like, how misleading is Twitter anyway? It must be pretty misleading, I think.

1991
03:23:46,255 --> 03:24:05,255
Yeah, probably that's true, too. Just a question to you. Let's say there's a generic soft fork like Bit119. Do you think that every main chain node needs to upgrade, or just like those who want to use Bit119?

1992
03:24:05,255 --> 03:24:22,255
No, I don't think so. I don't agree with that. I love Luke Dashjr and I actually love spending time in his head. I've had the opportunity to talk to him a lot online and in person. But I think his point of view on this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

1993
03:24:22,255 --> 03:24:26,255
So, what is your point of view regarding soft forks?

1994
03:24:26,255 --> 03:24:45,255
Again, I see it all as problem solution. So, like I'm driving down the road. I notice my car is drifting too far to the left. Okay, I turn the steering wheel a little to the right. And then, oh, a stop sign is coming. I press the stop. I press the brake. You know? Okay, it's time to go again.

1995
03:24:45,255 --> 03:25:03,255
I don't have this grand thing. So, to me, it's like in practice, how does it work? You do your Bitcoin research. You decide to run a node. You run a node. You do not touch that node again, because this node is your lifeline. It's telling you if you have money or not.

1996
03:25:03,255 --> 03:25:25,255
You don't even upgrade this node until you have to. So, you're going to skip like three, four, five upgrade cycles. You're going to upgrade it like once every three years, maybe. And when you do, maybe you don't even upgrade to the latest version. You say, you know what, I don't know if I trust the latest version yet. I'm going to pick a version that's like six, seven months old.

1997
03:25:26,255 --> 03:25:40,255
And in that way, not everyone can do this, of course, because this is kind of a little bit of free riding. But I say, don't upgrade unless it solves a problem for you. And if you do that, if you do as I suggest, then nothing bad will happen to you.

1998
03:25:40,255 --> 03:25:57,255
People say, you're immediately downgraded to SPV. This is so misleading as to essentially be a lie, I think. But this is what Luke said. I don't think Luke is a liar. Luke is a very honest person. But you know what I mean? What are they talking about? That's not actually the case.

1999
03:25:57,255 --> 03:26:18,255
Well, I do agree with Luke. I can explain my point of view. I see your point. There can be free riders, right? Because if the majority of hash power follows the new rules, then it should not be any problem.

2000
03:26:19,255 --> 03:26:37,255
But to try to illustrate my point of view or point is that, let's say there's a new OpenShack SIG, like OpenShack SIG 2 or whatever. And let's say that you get cookies if you use that OpenShack SIG 2 for your transactions.

2001
03:26:37,255 --> 03:26:56,255
So that means that a lot of users will start using this new OpenShack SIG 2 open code and make transactions with that. So if you stay behind on the old software, that means that you won't validate transactions anymore, at least the vast majority of them.

2002
03:26:56,255 --> 03:27:19,255
So in that case, I don't think it makes sense to stay on the old software because you're not really a full node anymore if you don't follow the rules of network. So that's how I see it. You're not a main chain full node in the same capacity as you were before if you don't follow all the new software.

2003
03:27:20,255 --> 03:27:43,255
And I suppose you're right that you can free ride and stuff. It's not a danger if the vast majority of the hash power and the full nodes in the network do follow the rules. But just on principle, I do think it looks like you're degraded to SPV-like security, if that makes sense. I'm not sure if my rambling makes sense.

2004
03:27:44,255 --> 03:28:05,255
But it depends if there are soft forks and then there are other soft forks. For example, the tighten the rules soft fork is a very good example, the OP-CHECK SIG example. And if you read the posts I wrote, I wrote those two posts about how the soft fork terminology is screwed up.

2005
03:28:06,255 --> 03:28:08,255
Is it a recent post?

2006
03:28:08,255 --> 03:28:09,255
Sorry?

2007
03:28:09,255 --> 03:28:11,255
Is it a recent post?

2008
03:28:11,255 --> 03:28:37,255
No, they're literally from 2017 or something. They're from forever. But they apply more now than they ever did. But I discussed a similar example where it's like did coins flow through an opcode that you didn't understand to you? And now if so, does that count as a confirmation or not? Because you don't know.

2009
03:28:38,255 --> 03:28:40,255
So that's a good example.

2010
03:28:41,255 --> 03:28:50,255
Let me give you a different example, though, which is when they had the soft fork, some transactions used the S-value.

2011
03:28:51,255 --> 03:29:09,255
We banned certain types of signature malleability because you could troll wallets, if I'm remembering it correctly. It's this big integer that's like modulus whatever, like 256 minus something.

2012
03:29:09,255 --> 03:29:24,255
So you could just keep adding to that and the transaction would stay valid. The signature would stay valid, but the transaction ID would change, and this was just trolling the network.

2013
03:29:24,255 --> 03:29:44,255
So you had a situation where there was a soft fork to ban that, but then I had an old Electrum wallet that only made the transactions with a value that happened to be like not in the valid range.

2014
03:29:44,255 --> 03:29:55,255
So to me, I was required to upgrade my Electrum wallet back then, this DERS value fork.

2015
03:29:56,255 --> 03:30:14,255
And that was not like... So what I'm trying to paint a picture is that the word soft fork is used to describe many different situations. And so what I'm trying to say is in some situations...

2016
03:30:15,255 --> 03:30:27,255
Yeah, but that's like a sensitive soft fork, right? Because you cannot use certain S-values. That's like a stricter force of attention.

2017
03:30:28,255 --> 03:30:36,255
Yes, and it's like, it would also be a soft fork if they said every transaction is now banned until you upgrade to this type of software.

2018
03:30:37,255 --> 03:30:40,255
It's like an evil variant of a soft fork. That's really scary.

2019
03:30:40,255 --> 03:30:47,255
So that is what I'm getting at. And in those posts, I describe different dimensions.

2020
03:30:48,255 --> 03:31:01,255
So let me take you back, if I may, on a boring story. But the original usage of the first time soft and hard fork, the distinction was made was by Gavin Andresen in 2012.

2021
03:31:02,255 --> 03:31:11,255
And he said, there's too many people running different versions of the code. And they said, a version that requires everyone to update is probably dead on arrival.

2022
03:31:12,255 --> 03:31:15,255
So we can never do that. We'll call that a hard change. That's what he said.

2023
03:31:16,255 --> 03:31:22,255
And he said, but if we do a change that does not require everyone to update, then we'll call that a soft change.

2024
03:31:23,255 --> 03:31:30,255
So that's the original meaning is actually a soft fork is one that does not require everyone to upgrade.

2025
03:31:31,255 --> 03:31:45,255
Now you see, this is just like completely incompatible with Luke Dashjr's version, which he says that you are not, unless you run a network, something that enforces every soft fork, you are not even running a Bitcoin Core node.

2026
03:31:46,255 --> 03:31:49,255
So he is like, they're just 180 degrees separated.

2027
03:31:49,255 --> 03:32:03,255
Yeah, I think it depends on usage of the soft fork and validating the rules of network, right? Because I still, I think I am on Luke's side, although I don't fully understand, I don't know his point of view.

2028
03:32:04,255 --> 03:32:12,255
But from my point of view, at least, it's not good if you see anyone can spend opcode that you don't understand, right?

2029
03:32:13,255 --> 03:32:18,255
So because then it can be an invalid spend of that one.

2030
03:32:19,255 --> 03:32:31,255
Yeah, I think you're 100% correct. One reason why you're certainly correct, and I presented about this exact topic at Building on Bitcoin in Lisbon, I think it was like June, July 2018 or something.

2031
03:32:31,255 --> 03:32:43,255
So I gave a talk on this exact topic, and one reason why you are especially correct, that you shouldn't, if you see opcodes that you don't understand, and you don't know the rules being enforced, that's bad.

2032
03:32:44,255 --> 03:32:58,255
One reason is that if two different people try to soft fork on opnop5, or opnop7 or whatever, but they use different rules, then that actually, one of them triggers a hard fork in practice.

2033
03:32:59,255 --> 03:33:04,255
Because they are just like one and the same thing.

2034
03:33:05,255 --> 03:33:11,255
So that's a case where soft fork plus soft fork equals hard fork, which is the whole point of soft fork is to not do the hard fork.

2035
03:33:12,255 --> 03:33:27,255
There's one thing, before I continue my story though, I mean, so you're completely right, and what I was saying in the 2018 talk is that what we should actually do is we should have a range of behavior where we know that it is unknown.

2036
03:33:28,255 --> 03:33:32,255
And actually sidechains are one of the few things that meet this criteria.

2037
03:33:33,255 --> 03:33:48,255
But the intriguing thing actually is the opnop, because you understand why with sidechains, as you say, I know that there's a sidechain in slot 9, I know that I don't know what the rules are, I know that a BitBoy 100 withdrawal has to do these criteria.

2038
03:33:49,255 --> 03:33:54,255
So the sidechain is actually a solution to this problem, and that's why I call it consensus and dissent.

2039
03:33:55,255 --> 03:33:58,255
The problem of dissent, like if people fight over opnop5, what do we do?

2040
03:33:59,255 --> 03:34:00,255
Like how do we know what happened?

2041
03:34:01,255 --> 03:34:18,255
But one intriguing thing is not only do sidechains do that, but the opnops themselves were put in there by Satoshi, and it was deliberately explained that they would be reserved for later use in that way.

2042
03:34:19,255 --> 03:34:45,255
So it's kind of weird, like you say, well, I don't know what opnop5 is, but actually when you downloaded whatever version of the software you did download, that version of the software came with like the understanding, the fully and unanimously agreed on understanding that these are the things that have not been used yet, so watch out for that.

2043
03:34:45,255 --> 03:34:57,255
It was kind of like, you see what I'm saying, it's not really like it was completely undefined, it was like saying, we reserve these for future use, so if they start being used, then you just conclude, oh, I'm living in the future now.

2044
03:34:58,255 --> 03:35:10,255
I think the SPV comparison comes from like, as you don't know the rules of the new, as you don't know the rules of the opnop5.

2045
03:35:10,255 --> 03:35:15,255
You do know that it was reserved for future use, though, and so you say, well, I guess I don't care.

2046
03:35:15,255 --> 03:35:35,255
Yeah, well, there's a risk that if there is an incorrect spend from the transaction that uses the opcode, you risk yourself going on a chain that is not valid, right?

2047
03:35:35,255 --> 03:35:52,255
If the hash power, one option is to try to cheat you, you could end up in a wrongful chain, so to say. So, that's why, from a principle standpoint, it looks similar to SPV to me.

2048
03:35:53,255 --> 03:36:00,255
As in SPV, you trust the hash power as well there, you don't really validate the transactions.

2049
03:36:00,255 --> 03:36:26,255
It's a very interesting philosophical conversation, but let me lay down some weird paradoxes for you to resolve, if this is your point of view, which is that every protocol that exists, any protocol that could have a full and an SPV version, it is an SPV version of something.

2050
03:36:26,255 --> 03:36:34,255
So, every protocol is an SPV protocol of something else, and a full protocol of itself.

2051
03:36:35,255 --> 03:36:38,255
SPV just means you're not checking all the rules.

2052
03:36:39,255 --> 03:36:55,255
So, for example, I could have a rule, I could get it together with the miners, and I could say, we're going to have this mandatory 8 terabyte extension block that we know is mandatory, but everyone else, we're just going to put the hash of it in the block, the blockchain.

2053
03:36:55,255 --> 03:37:06,255
You must have it, or the block is invalid, and I get 100% of the hash rate to upgrade, 100% of the hash rate plus me, I'm just myself.

2054
03:37:07,255 --> 03:37:09,255
And we secretly do this.

2055
03:37:11,255 --> 03:37:19,255
You have no – see, this is why I tried to say, before I return to this example, let me remind you that I tried to say there are different types of soft fork.

2056
03:37:20,255 --> 03:37:43,255
And this is what I presented on in Lisbon, where ones where you say, we are taking something that was reserved for future use, that is kind of a different kind of thing than the wrong S-value, the signature, and that is a different kind of thing from just censoring transactions, which is sort of a tightening the rules soft fork.

2057
03:37:44,255 --> 03:37:47,255
The S-value thing is a censorship soft fork.

2058
03:37:48,255 --> 03:37:51,255
Evil soft fork, precisely, right.

2059
03:37:52,255 --> 03:38:00,255
Okay, so returning to my thing about – because you say the principle of the matter is you don't want to be degraded to SPV.

2060
03:38:01,255 --> 03:38:09,255
But in my example, I'm making – I'm going from Bitcoin Core version 25 or 26.

2061
03:38:10,255 --> 03:38:13,255
I'm going to Bitcoin version 27, but it's secret.

2062
03:38:14,255 --> 03:38:16,255
You don't know that there's a new thing.

2063
03:38:17,255 --> 03:38:19,255
All the miners have upgraded to it.

2064
03:38:19,255 --> 03:38:24,255
Now you have been, quote, degraded to SPV, but you didn't even know that you were.

2065
03:38:25,255 --> 03:38:26,255
Yeah, I agree.

2066
03:38:27,255 --> 03:38:30,255
There can't be secret rules that miners enforce, right?

2067
03:38:31,255 --> 03:38:36,255
We cannot possibly know if they enforce certain rules themselves.

2068
03:38:37,255 --> 03:38:40,255
That is actually problematic, especially for censorship and stuff.

2069
03:38:41,255 --> 03:38:52,255
Well, it is kind of problematic, but what I'm actually going to argue is that it is completely and totally unavoidable in every possible way.

2070
03:38:53,255 --> 03:39:07,255
So now let's imagine a situation where once every 4,000 times, miners take – they become offended by a certain transaction, and they're determined to reorg it out of the blockchain.

2071
03:39:08,255 --> 03:39:13,255
So this is the miners' insult paradox.

2072
03:39:14,255 --> 03:39:20,255
I give you my first paradox, which is the mandatory 8-terabyte extension block that no one knows about, paradox one.

2073
03:39:21,255 --> 03:39:35,255
Then paradox two is occasionally, miners will become irrationally offended by a transaction that has too many 4s in the TXID, and they just decide, well, how could this have happened?

2074
03:39:35,255 --> 03:39:39,255
I hate this transaction, and they reorg the blockchain to get rid of it.

2075
03:39:40,255 --> 03:39:53,255
Well, in that case, every single human in the world that's not the miners is in SPV mode relative to that because there is a new rule that no one knows about.

2076
03:39:54,255 --> 03:39:57,255
It's just an onset of a psychology.

2077
03:39:58,255 --> 03:40:01,255
It's just something that could happen.

2078
03:40:01,255 --> 03:40:03,255
They could just decide they want to.

2079
03:40:04,255 --> 03:40:11,255
You could say, well, they won't reorg because reorg costs them money, but then you're just arguing for SPV mode the whole time.

2080
03:40:11,781 --> 03:40:15,781
Because then you're saying nothing will reorg, and everything will be fine, and blah, blah, blah.

2081
03:40:15,781 --> 03:40:25,781
So it's kind of like these are paradoxes that – to me, these paradoxes mean that Luke Desch, Jr. cannot be right.

2082
03:40:25,781 --> 03:40:36,781
But maybe not to you. But to me, they mean that something like we don't actually know – I have no way of knowing if I'm running a full node or not.

2083
03:40:37,781 --> 03:40:39,781
I take my best guess.

2084
03:40:39,781 --> 03:41:03,781
I agree. That is problematic. But I'm not sure – I see your point, of course, but I'm not sure why you would not choose to upgrade the core software to support the new opcodes to be more certain that you are following all the mentioned rules and thus are a full node.

2085
03:41:04,781 --> 03:41:15,781
Yes, you're right that you would if that was your goal. But remember, that isn't always people's goal. People are complex. So for example –

2086
03:41:16,781 --> 03:41:25,781
I would argue that you should run SPV then, right? I would argue that you should run SPV instead if you don't want to – that seems like the best option if you just want to –

2087
03:41:25,781 --> 03:41:28,781
Could you repeat what you said?

2088
03:41:28,781 --> 03:41:45,781
Sorry, I was just saying that if they don't want to follow certain rules, I don't see why you would follow any rules then. It makes more sense to just run an SPV client because that's much cheaper than validating the signatures and stuff.

2089
03:41:45,781 --> 03:42:01,781
So for me, it's either follow all the things or just follow nothing. I don't see why you would pick and choose which softworks you want to enforce. That does make sense to me at least.

2090
03:42:02,781 --> 03:42:13,781
First of all, you're absolutely right about that which is that in practice, none of this actually really matters because what people do instead is they don't run – they don't enforce – they don't go a la carte with the rules.

2091
03:42:13,781 --> 03:42:28,781
They basically say, do I want to upgrade to version 25 or not? And so version 25 comes with innumerable changes, one of which might be a new version 28 or whatever, version 27.

2092
03:42:28,781 --> 03:42:37,781
But I'll answer your fundamental question because you say, why wouldn't someone want to be on the absolute most synchronized version?

2093
03:42:38,781 --> 03:42:45,781
There are two important answers to that question, very important. One is philosophical and one is practical.

2094
03:42:45,781 --> 03:42:55,781
The practical one I already gave you at the very beginning of the story where I said what you should do is you upgrade to the node and you wait and you just run your node and you're not doing anything fancy.

2095
03:42:55,781 --> 03:43:03,781
You're just receiving payments and you don't want to touch your setup because every time you touch your setup, you're at risk of being hacked.

2096
03:43:04,781 --> 03:43:10,781
So people don't upgrade, and even back in 2012, that's how Gavin Andresen started all this.

2097
03:43:10,781 --> 03:43:17,781
It's where he said, listen, not everyone upgrades. A lot of people just don't upgrade, so it's probably too late.

2098
03:43:17,781 --> 03:43:23,781
If we were relying on everyone to upgrade, we're probably dead, so we can't do that anymore, but we want to continue to upgrade.

2099
03:43:24,781 --> 03:43:32,781
I was going to say that it makes sense for miners to upgrade. Those are the guys that really need to upgrade in a soft fork, right?

2100
03:43:32,781 --> 03:43:40,781
The majority of hash power needs to import the rules, otherwise you risk chain splits and stuff.

2101
03:43:40,781 --> 03:43:47,781
But you're right that a soft fork means that not everyone at once needs to be coordinated and up to the software.

2102
03:43:48,781 --> 03:43:52,781
Well, that's what it meant in the past, and that's what it sort of still means to me, but now it means...

2103
03:43:52,781 --> 03:43:54,781
Yeah, I agree with that.

2104
03:43:54,781 --> 03:44:07,781
Now, the second reason is, of course, if we decide that we must, come hell or high water, always upgrade to the latest version, kind of no matter what, like if that's the principle,

2105
03:44:07,781 --> 03:44:18,781
well, now we've handcuffed ourselves to the railroad tracks, so to speak, because it's only a matter of time before this is used against us, where we say...

2106
03:44:18,781 --> 03:44:29,781
I mean, according to Luke's point of view, he has various intriguing ways around this that I can try to regurgitate, if you're still interested.

2107
03:44:30,781 --> 03:44:43,781
You have to upgrade to the latest version. So what if the latest version is bad? What if the latest version just has a keylogger or is run by North Korea or something?

2108
03:44:43,781 --> 03:44:51,781
Now we have to upgrade to the latest version, no matter what, or we're in SPV and Bitcoin has failed.

2109
03:44:52,781 --> 03:45:09,781
So Luke has a weird... Luke's view about this is that you slowly expand the concept of what is or is not a full node to include the entire Bitcoin development process and the open source software development process and the entire community.

2110
03:45:09,781 --> 03:45:23,781
So he's kind of asking for kind of a lot, but that's kind of the road that he goes down, and maybe he'll show up and he can talk about this. I don't think he probably doesn't do SPV, because I bet he doesn't do...

2111
03:45:24,781 --> 03:45:34,781
What I see some people on Twitter and other places claim is that software doesn't concern them, right?

2112
03:45:35,781 --> 03:45:42,781
Because I don't see it that way. I see Bitcoin as a consensus system, right? So full nodes and networks should follow and enforce the rules.

2113
03:45:42,781 --> 03:45:53,781
And it's true that soft forks makes it possible to circumvent this, because you rely on the hash power maintaining a single chain, right?

2114
03:45:53,781 --> 03:46:07,781
And there's no split in half and stuff. But even if you don't use a soft fork, you still are affected by it indirectly.

2115
03:46:08,781 --> 03:46:16,781
You could introduce a soft fork that has some kind of bug in it that will split different nodes in half.

2116
03:46:17,781 --> 03:46:31,781
But you know that that actually is the advantage of the soft fork, is that in that particular case, if you split off, then it must be the case that your bug actually caused a hard fork and you are on the wrong side, the side that's going to lose.

2117
03:46:32,781 --> 03:46:34,781
And this is exactly what happened in July 2015.

2118
03:46:35,781 --> 03:46:42,781
Right. But what I'm saying is that it would still affect you, even if you don't necessarily run the soft fork.

2119
03:46:42,781 --> 03:46:46,781
You can go through all the actual examples. Take your op checksig example.

2120
03:46:47,781 --> 03:46:48,781
Yeah.

2121
03:46:48,781 --> 03:46:56,781
And the scenario would be something like, it's a new op code that started as anyone can spend.

2122
03:46:58,781 --> 03:47:05,781
And it turns out, though, we make it so that you can only spend if you do X, Y, and Z during a full moon or something.

2123
03:47:06,781 --> 03:47:08,781
We soft fork some new rules onto it.

2124
03:47:09,781 --> 03:47:21,781
And now, I'm a merchant running an old version, and someone spends, they have received money to this new op code, and they spend that money to me.

2125
03:47:22,781 --> 03:47:23,781
And to me, it looks like anyone can spend.

2126
03:47:24,781 --> 03:47:26,781
But actually, the rules are being broken.

2127
03:47:27,781 --> 03:47:37,781
This is a transaction that breaks the whatever. It's not spent during the quarter moon or whatever I just said.

2128
03:47:38,781 --> 03:47:40,781
So it's not going to work.

2129
03:47:40,781 --> 03:47:56,781
So if I receive this, you're not talking about the case where 95% of miners are enforcing this, because then obviously it will not get six confirmations.

2130
03:47:57,781 --> 03:47:58,781
Do you understand that?

2131
03:47:59,781 --> 03:48:08,781
I think that if miners are enforcing 95%, then there's no problem really with not upgrading, right?

2132
03:48:09,781 --> 03:48:17,781
Because the miners will ensure that there is only one chain, and a temporary split will be resolved very quickly, probably.

2133
03:48:18,781 --> 03:48:26,781
So your software may warn you, it may say, listen, I'm being spent something that uses one of the OPNAP5s.

2134
03:48:27,781 --> 03:48:29,781
So maybe I should wait for more confirmations.

2135
03:48:30,781 --> 03:48:37,781
But how many confirmations you wait is kind of up to you, and reorgs are always possible.

2136
03:48:38,781 --> 03:48:40,781
We don't want to do anything to encourage reorgs, of course.

2137
03:48:41,781 --> 03:48:43,781
We want to discourage reorgs.

2138
03:48:44,781 --> 03:48:54,781
But it's not like reorgs predate, reorgs certainly predate like OPNAP5 or whatever.

2139
03:48:55,781 --> 03:48:56,781
Those have always compound.

2140
03:48:57,781 --> 03:49:00,781
So you're not really saying that.

2141
03:49:01,781 --> 03:49:05,781
You're kind of saying something like, I don't know how I got these coins.

2142
03:49:06,781 --> 03:49:19,781
But the real failure mode is kind of to say, the failure mode is mostly the people who receive them to the new OP-CHECKSIG.

2143
03:49:20,781 --> 03:49:28,781
They're the ones taking the risk, because they could be in a situation where this rule is actually not enforced,

2144
03:49:29,781 --> 03:49:32,781
and then they're just going to straight up lose their coins, because they started as anyone can spend coins.

2145
03:49:33,781 --> 03:49:41,781
Well, the lost receiver will also risk it, even if they use OP-CHECKSIG1 or whatever.

2146
03:49:42,781 --> 03:49:45,781
The whole chain might break if there's a really bad situation.

2147
03:49:46,781 --> 03:49:50,781
Yes, but that's like the reorg case.

2148
03:49:51,781 --> 03:49:52,781
Yes, yeah.

2149
03:49:53,781 --> 03:49:55,781
But you see, that's kind of the point though, isn't it?

2150
03:49:56,781 --> 03:50:14,781
The old thinking was, if there is a split on how this rule is enforced, if it's a soft change, then if the miners are enforcing it,

2151
03:50:15,781 --> 03:50:23,781
then the blocks will only be found on the side, the longest chain will always be on the side that enforced the rules.

2152
03:50:23,781 --> 03:50:24,781
So this is kind of intriguing.

2153
03:50:25,781 --> 03:50:30,781
The original soft fork logic is really kind of very different from what people seem to have in mind today,

2154
03:50:31,781 --> 03:50:43,781
which is something like the UASF SegWit thing, where people think it's something the community does and the miners play no role.

2155
03:50:44,781 --> 03:50:46,781
But in the past, the miners played the absolutely essential role.

2156
03:50:47,781 --> 03:50:52,781
So, you know, that's fine, but I'm just saying that was how it was.

2157
03:50:53,781 --> 03:50:57,781
I think people in Yandron are very confused about soft forks and even hard forks, probably.

2158
03:50:58,781 --> 03:51:00,781
There is a lot of confusion out there.

2159
03:51:01,781 --> 03:51:09,781
An important thing to point out is that the many different versions of the soft fork are sometimes opposite of each other, actually.

2160
03:51:10,781 --> 03:51:14,781
Because the soft fork used to mean tighten the rules.

2161
03:51:15,781 --> 03:51:18,781
I mean, excuse me, the tighten the rules thing kind of came later.

2162
03:51:19,781 --> 03:51:24,781
The soft fork used to mean this is a chain split that will resolve itself without anyone doing anything.

2163
03:51:25,781 --> 03:51:30,781
And it's because the new opcode, the new chop checksig, you could either break the rules on an old node,

2164
03:51:31,781 --> 03:51:35,781
or you could enforce the rules with a new node.

2165
03:51:36,781 --> 03:51:43,781
And this is exactly the logic of what happened in July 2015, where you can only...

2166
03:51:44,781 --> 03:51:52,781
Since breaking the rules works on the old nodes and enforcing the rules works on the old nodes, that is why the old nodes have the biggest advantage.

2167
03:51:53,781 --> 03:51:58,781
So if you have the miners plus something that works on both networks, you'll always win.

2168
03:51:59,781 --> 03:52:03,781
Maybe this is a little rambly, but if you have something that works on both networks,

2169
03:52:03,781 --> 03:52:06,781
if it's backward and forward compatible, it's really forward compatible.

2170
03:52:07,781 --> 03:52:08,781
This is another thing that people don't really know.

2171
03:52:09,781 --> 03:52:14,781
The feature is forward compatible, which is a very rarely used term.

2172
03:52:15,781 --> 03:52:24,781
Forward compatible is when the feature will work on a piece of software that is in the past.

2173
03:52:25,781 --> 03:52:29,781
Backward compatible is the other way around.

2174
03:52:30,781 --> 03:52:34,781
This is another thing that everyone describes as backward compatible, but they really mean forward compatible.

2175
03:52:35,781 --> 03:52:38,781
But it doesn't matter because everyone knows what they're talking about.

2176
03:52:39,781 --> 03:52:46,781
Anyway, where I'm getting with this is it used to mean that if the miners were with a change that worked on either version,

2177
03:52:47,781 --> 03:52:52,781
the old nodes could safely use the new version.

2178
03:52:53,781 --> 03:53:08,781
Whereas if you had a change such as Bitcoin Cash block size increase, in that scenario, everyone must upgrade.

2179
03:53:09,781 --> 03:53:13,781
So no matter what the miners do, there will be two chains.

2180
03:53:14,781 --> 03:53:21,781
And everyone must, in order to recombine into one chain, which is of course the whole point of Satoshi software is to keep everyone on just one chain.

2181
03:53:22,781 --> 03:53:29,781
And in a sense, every altcoin is like a weird orphaned block of some kind in a vague abstract sense.

2182
03:53:30,781 --> 03:53:34,781
Because it's all consensus to deter double spending and to deter inflation.

2183
03:53:35,781 --> 03:53:45,781
So in the case of a layer one block size increase, everyone, in order to get back on the same network,

2184
03:53:45,781 --> 03:53:54,781
everyone must upgrade their software to change that one to an eight, or change that one to a 16, or whatever the number is.

2185
03:53:55,781 --> 03:54:00,781
So that was the old definition.

2186
03:54:01,781 --> 03:54:07,781
And then later on, people kind of came up with the tighten the rules, which I think I regard as a kind of rule of thumb.

2187
03:54:08,781 --> 03:54:10,781
Because actually the Evil Fork showed that that was not the case.

2188
03:54:11,781 --> 03:54:24,781
And the other things were also like the S value signature thing was technically, it shrank the S value soft fork, shrank the values of S that were allowed.

2189
03:54:25,781 --> 03:54:28,781
But it's not like I freely chose an S, there was a piece of software doing it.

2190
03:54:29,781 --> 03:54:35,781
So in that way, it was actually basically a hard fork, because it required me to do something.

2191
03:54:35,781 --> 03:54:37,781
It gets weird with the S value, right?

2192
03:54:38,781 --> 03:54:40,781
Because I would say it is the tightening of rules.

2193
03:54:41,781 --> 03:54:48,781
But as everyone needs to upgrade, it basically becomes a hard fork as well then, because as we talked about.

2194
03:54:49,781 --> 03:54:55,781
It's forcing, it's impelling, kind of like whipping the user, you must upgrade.

2195
03:54:56,781 --> 03:55:00,781
Yeah, so that becomes a hard fork in practice then, because you have to upgrade, right?

2196
03:55:01,781 --> 03:55:02,781
Yes, by the old definition.

2197
03:55:02,781 --> 03:55:07,781
Yes, but you see now that the old definition and the new definition are actually in conflict sometimes.

2198
03:55:08,781 --> 03:55:09,781
Yeah, I see it for myself.

2199
03:55:10,781 --> 03:55:30,781
If you were to activate BIP300 via soft fork secretly, and then a bunch of people run the user-resisted soft fork to ban all uses of whatever it is, opnap5, ban all BIP300 messages.

2200
03:55:30,781 --> 03:55:38,781
Then those people actually hard fork themselves if miners ignore those people.

2201
03:55:39,781 --> 03:55:41,781
But there's actually some nuance to it.

2202
03:55:42,781 --> 03:55:43,781
I'm going to try to explain it again.

2203
03:55:44,781 --> 03:55:48,781
BIP300 is good because you turn it on with a soft fork that is harmless to everyone else.

2204
03:55:49,781 --> 03:55:54,781
You can also turn it off with a second soft fork that is harmless to everyone else.

2205
03:55:54,781 --> 03:56:05,781
And both of these soft forks are actually soft forks in both the tightening the rules sense and in the, if a majority of miners do it, then it doesn't affect anyone else's sense.

2206
03:56:06,781 --> 03:56:15,781
So, because you have first BIP300 is activated, you take opnap5 or something, and you enforce it, you use the soft fork.

2207
03:56:16,781 --> 03:56:23,781
But then if for some reason people decide, oh, wait a minute, BIP300 was a mistake, we need to purge this forever.

2208
03:56:24,781 --> 03:56:27,781
The miners just say opnap5 is banned henceforth.

2209
03:56:28,781 --> 03:56:29,781
You tighten the rules again.

2210
03:56:30,781 --> 03:56:31,781
You soft fork it again.

2211
03:56:32,781 --> 03:56:45,781
And now this doesn't matter if you ran the pre-drivechain version, the post-drivechain version, the pre-anti-BIP300 version, or it doesn't matter which of the three regions of time that you're in.

2212
03:56:46,781 --> 03:56:55,781
Any of those, since if you run any of those nodes, they will just be all on the same network and they'll all see the same thing and they'll all just see no more opnap5.

2213
03:56:56,781 --> 03:57:02,781
Opnap5 will be gone and everything else will be 100% fine and completely and totally unaffected.

2214
03:57:03,781 --> 03:57:21,781
But what some people have in mind is they say if BIP300 is activated by miners, we will run a soft fork to tighten the rules, to fight the miners, to tighten the rules and eliminate opnap5.

2215
03:57:22,781 --> 03:57:28,781
We will say we refuse to allow opnap5 into any block.

2216
03:57:29,781 --> 03:57:30,781
If we do, it's invalid.

2217
03:57:31,781 --> 03:57:34,781
If we see that the transaction is invalid, that block is invalid.

2218
03:57:36,781 --> 03:57:45,781
Now what would actually happen in practice is the miners would try to figure out what's the economic value at stake, who are these people.

2219
03:57:46,781 --> 03:57:48,781
If it was Coinbase, that's different than if it's some guy.

2220
03:57:49,781 --> 03:58:03,781
But I'm just saying since you asked all these philosophical questions, we'll say imagine some people do run that software but the miners, in quotes, which is to say more than 50% of the miners or 100% of the miners.

2221
03:58:04,781 --> 03:58:06,781
The 100% of the miners do not.

2222
03:58:07,781 --> 03:58:10,781
So let's say BIP300 activates with classic miner activated soft fork.

2223
03:58:11,781 --> 03:58:22,781
That new thing, the user-resisted thing to ban opnap5, that is a soft fork in the tighten the rules sense.

2224
03:58:23,781 --> 03:58:26,781
But actually it is a hard fork because the only people joining those people in the old sense.

2225
03:58:27,781 --> 03:58:39,781
It's a hard fork in the old sense because only the people who run that, those people who run the user-resisted fork, they will eventually see an opnap5 mined in a Bitcoin block.

2226
03:58:40,781 --> 03:58:42,781
They will reject it as invalid.

2227
03:58:43,781 --> 03:58:50,781
They will be on their own network with their own little nub or whatever you want to call it, their own little tip.

2228
03:58:51,781 --> 03:58:56,781
And the other network will proceed without them because they'll say that's invalid.

2229
03:58:57,781 --> 03:59:05,781
But everyone else, everyone who ran an old version, everyone who is indifferent, all the miners, those people will be on that network.

2230
03:59:06,781 --> 03:59:07,781
So is this making sense?

2231
03:59:07,781 --> 03:59:08,781
Yeah, it does.

2232
03:59:09,781 --> 03:59:22,781
This is something I've also been thinking about because like UASF, whether it be in SegWit or BIP300, like if you are a minority group, you will make a chain split.

2233
03:59:23,781 --> 03:59:28,781
And that will be a permanent chain split because you will expect the hash power to keep going with BIP300.

2234
03:59:29,781 --> 03:59:36,781
So it effectively becomes a hard fork as well, even though, as you said, the user-resisted soft fork will be a tightening of rules or soft fork.

2235
03:59:37,781 --> 03:59:46,781
It becomes a hard fork because it creates a chain split where the majority hash power stays on the BIP300.

2236
03:59:47,781 --> 03:59:53,781
So the same thing could have happened with SegWit in 2017.

2237
03:59:54,781 --> 04:00:04,781
Like if the BIP-148 people would try to block the non-signaling blocks and stuff.

2238
04:00:05,781 --> 04:00:14,781
But in that case, we also had BIP-91, I think it was called, that also did censorship stuff to enforce the 95% threshold.

2239
04:00:15,781 --> 04:00:16,781
So yeah, I see what you're saying.

2240
04:00:17,781 --> 04:00:20,781
In some situations, soft forks become hard forks.

2241
04:00:21,781 --> 04:00:24,781
Or I like to call them chain splits, permanent chain splits.

2242
04:00:25,781 --> 04:00:26,781
They become it in practice.

2243
04:00:28,424 --> 04:00:40,424
Yes, by the old definition and the new definition, both the loosening the rules definition and a fork that does not resolve itself, only the hard fork is a chain split.

2244
04:00:40,424 --> 04:00:50,424
A soft fork is never a chain split, which gives it a very ironic name, since of course every other fork we see, a fork in the road, a culinary fork, those are always splitting things.

2245
04:00:50,424 --> 04:00:55,424
But a soft fork would never do that by the original definition.

2246
04:00:55,424 --> 04:01:07,424
Because you can't just go your own without the miners, right? So that's why it becomes weird, like a UASF thing.

2247
04:01:07,424 --> 04:01:23,424
There is a similar situation to Bitcoin Cash, where if you upgrade, then you are on the new network. If you do not, then you are not. So that would be just an interesting situation where they are the same.

2248
04:01:24,424 --> 04:01:40,424
I think you were saying whether or not it could have happened with SegWit. Yes, this is another important point, which is that as I told the story before, this is just me telling what I think happened.

2249
04:01:40,424 --> 04:01:52,424
But there was really no case against SegWit. It was just the miners were frustrated and they were going to withhold SegWit until they got the block size increase that they wanted, which was also not popular.

2250
04:01:52,424 --> 04:02:10,424
Because some people wanted it, but not very many, and also the block size increase itself was fraught with unanswered questions, like are we going to continue to do a hard fork every time the blocks fill up, or when will we stop increasing the block size?

2251
04:02:10,424 --> 04:02:22,424
None of these questions had really been answered. I think all of this stuff was the kiss of death for everyone who wanted the L1 block size increase.

2252
04:02:22,424 --> 04:02:36,424
If you wanted the L1 block size increase, what you had to do was propose one complete permanent schedule or something to do instead. You say this is what we'll do instead.

2253
04:02:36,424 --> 04:02:49,424
Instead, they were like, we want to hard fork to two megabytes now, and then with it presumably being the case that when the two megabyte blocks filled up, they would then want to hard fork again.

2254
04:02:49,424 --> 04:02:58,424
And all the reasons for doing so would just apply double, so they would probably get what they wanted. So that was why I think people didn't actually like the block size increase.

2255
04:02:59,424 --> 04:03:03,424
I don't think it was presented or thought out.

2256
04:03:03,424 --> 04:03:13,424
There was a couple of other proposals out there, like a 17% increase every year or something like that, and then there was some kind of dynamic schedule.

2257
04:03:13,424 --> 04:03:31,424
But I think all of them was pretty insanely aggressive. The only one I think, now in hindsight, was like Luke Dashjr. also had a proposal that will actually decrease the block size initially, and then over time it will actually go past one megabyte.

2258
04:03:31,424 --> 04:03:45,424
But that one was really, really unpopular back in 2017, and for good reason, because the opinion was different back then. But I think now in hindsight, his proposal actually looks like the best one of the bunch.

2259
04:03:45,424 --> 04:04:06,424
But yeah, none of the proposals got any traction, unfortunately. So we're stuck with this mindset of hating on block size increases, because I don't think they're bad. They're not necessarily bad, it's just a matter of how aggressive you are.

2260
04:04:07,424 --> 04:04:18,424
But I think what certainly was bad was the hard fork itself. I don't think people took seriously. This is a horrible problem to just inflict on the community that had never had stuck together the whole time.

2261
04:04:18,424 --> 04:04:33,424
To say, well, everyone's going to go off and gather firewood, and some of us are going to meet at point A, and some of us are going to meet at point B. And you're like, that's not a reasonable thing to say. So a hard fork is very expensive.

2262
04:04:33,424 --> 04:04:51,424
And people took Luke Dashjr's thing as a sort of insult, which of course it wasn't. And of course Luke was the only person to have any kind of principled take on what is the correct number. What should the block size be?

2263
04:04:52,424 --> 04:05:03,424
Back then, no one else really had anything, including me. I was saying basically at the time, the hard fork – this isn't worth – 2X is not worth the hard fork, because I think the hard fork is not good.

2264
04:05:04,424 --> 04:05:20,424
And as you heard me just say to that other guy, that other guy who came up here, Cakes or whatever, Shiny Cakes, the dog. And so the stage was just that actually people wanted SegWit. People had worked on it.

2265
04:05:20,424 --> 04:05:35,424
There was an enormous amount of thought put into SegWit. There was an enormous amount of excitement around Lightning. SegWit was being held up for no reason. The block size increase was not as popular as it was.

2266
04:05:35,424 --> 04:05:48,424
It had many legitimate supporters, but it was just not – it was not like in the same state. There was all this SegWit 2X. The SegWit 2X stuff was like – people thought SegWit 2X was still coming.

2267
04:05:49,424 --> 04:06:03,424
So there was a weird perplexing situation where miners signed that SegWit 2X document that everyone hates, which they sort of should in some extent, but the document says that they'll activate SegWit or whatever, which they did.

2268
04:06:03,424 --> 04:06:21,424
It just said SegWit then. So there was a lot of stories about that, but what I'm getting at and why I bring it up and why I react to it, because you brought it up, which is actually relevant to BIP300, which is to say – because we were talking about what could have happened with SegWit and why what happened did happen.

2269
04:06:21,424 --> 04:06:31,424
This is actually related to this Napoleon thing that I was saying before about the good idea is just the good idea, and it's kind of a matter of time. It's a matter of when, not if.

2270
04:06:31,424 --> 04:06:43,424
So where I'm going with all this rambling is people actually wanted SegWit, and they didn't want the large block increase in that way, like on August 1st or whatever.

2271
04:06:43,424 --> 04:07:01,424
And that's why the UASF could have gone the other way, but if you had stayed, you would really have been on the minority, because you would be – even if you were a miner and you decided, I will break with the UASF.

2272
04:07:01,424 --> 04:07:13,424
Well, so many people had run the – so many people were wearing the hats, and they had it in their thing, and so many people wanted to move forward from the controversy.

2273
04:07:13,424 --> 04:07:23,424
Remember, SegWit itself was a block size increase from 1 to 4 megabytes, so it was the 2.3 megabyte compromise.

2274
04:07:23,424 --> 04:07:32,424
So if you compare – if you had to compare them, like how popular was SegWit versus how popular was this 2 megabyte hard fork, it's very disproportionate.

2275
04:07:32,424 --> 04:07:48,424
But you see, this is relevant to the conversation we just had about BIP300 and whether or not it could be activated under a similar circumstance, because now you have to say, who would you be against if some people run the user-resisted soft fork?

2276
04:07:48,424 --> 04:08:04,424
It's the people who run the user-resisted fork versus everyone – the pro-drivechain people plus everyone who is indifferent, which is like 99% of the whole group.

2277
04:08:04,424 --> 04:08:20,424
Most people aren't indifferent, of course. So in that case, it's a lot easier to see why miners could activate BIP300 via soft fork and why the user-resisted soft fork would not work, because the user-resisted soft fork is not doing anything.

2278
04:08:20,424 --> 04:08:36,424
It's just mean-spirited. It's very similar to being against gay marriage or something, where it's like they're just stopping other people from using the feature, a feature that should make the coin more useful and generate more transaction fees and more users.

2279
04:08:37,424 --> 04:08:48,424
The people who are against drivechain – I don't think there's any case of anyone actually knowing anything about drivechain and being against it. It's just people repeat what they hear on Twitter or something.

2280
04:08:52,424 --> 04:08:59,424
But anyone can come up. Come on up and say whatever.

2281
04:09:07,424 --> 04:09:11,424
No? No one?

2282
04:09:17,424 --> 04:09:20,424
Henry, are you there? You're on mute.

2283
04:09:20,424 --> 04:09:22,424
Yes, I'm here.

2284
04:09:22,424 --> 04:09:24,424
Okay.

2285
04:09:28,424 --> 04:09:32,424
Anyone want to come up and say anything? No? No one?

2286
04:09:37,424 --> 04:09:40,424
The code is connecting.

2287
04:09:51,424 --> 04:10:00,424
We've gone for four hours. I want to mention that I have a hard stop at five, so we can go for one more hour if you want.

2288
04:10:01,424 --> 04:10:10,424
Okay, great. On the East Coast, it's already 5.10, but maybe you mean something else.

2289
04:10:11,424 --> 04:10:14,424
Oh, I meant 6.

2290
04:10:18,424 --> 04:10:23,424
Okay, yes, we have someone else. Dune Moon is here.

2291
04:10:23,424 --> 04:10:31,424
Dune Moon is here. He has his chakra open.

2292
04:10:31,424 --> 04:11:00,424
Yeah, sorry. Thanks for letting me up. Just a quick question. So, I admittedly haven't been following it too terribly closely, but you had made a comment about the demand for these features and that that would maybe drive – pardon the pun – this chain.

2293
04:11:00,424 --> 04:11:24,424
This change eventually, anyway, almost like as an inevitability. If that is the case, why is there such an urgency now? Why is it seeming like it's being portrayed as something super urgent to change and get activated now, as opposed to letting that natural demand kind of push the issue later?

2294
04:11:25,424 --> 04:11:40,424
Yes, well, I don't – that's an interesting question. It has some nuance. I mean, one thing to say is this idea is from November 2015, so in general, it's moved very slowly.

2295
04:11:41,424 --> 04:11:53,424
But that doesn't really answer what you're really saying, which is that now people are more anxious about it, I think, activating it quickly, which I agree with you about that.

2296
04:11:54,424 --> 04:12:18,424
And I think if I had to guess, I would say that it is actually – I think part of it is that the culture has stagnated for a little while, and people want – they're becoming frustrated with the old things, and they are more interested in – they want something new.

2297
04:12:18,424 --> 04:12:39,424
And this is the type of thing that would just like open the floodgates of novelty, because you could just have – you have the ETH sidechain, and then it's just kind of like you don't need to participate in the old slow Bitcoin Core development process.

2298
04:12:40,424 --> 04:12:52,424
But yeah, I don't know. I don't really think that it is – I think – I mean I think there's some truth to what you say. I mean my point of view is like I had this idea a while ago.

2299
04:12:53,424 --> 04:13:08,424
I put out stuff pointing out that the idea is good. I'm kind of proven right every year, and the critics become crazier and crazier, and they argue for weirder and weirder things.

2300
04:13:09,424 --> 04:13:22,424
Like they used to argue that people aren't in control of their own Bitcoin, and that someone – a security officer should be able to stop them from spending their Bitcoin to a certain script, which was like a weird idea.

2301
04:13:23,424 --> 04:13:36,424
And now the idea is something like it's bad when miners earn more revenues. So it's kind of like – I think now it's kind of just like played itself out, and it's kind of like why are we still waiting?

2302
04:13:37,424 --> 04:13:52,424
I don't really know – I don't really think there's an urgency per se, but I do think that every year the competing coins get – I mean namely Ethereum.

2303
04:13:52,424 --> 04:14:06,424
I think they continue to make progress, and it's only a matter – like for example Ethereum could decide that they are going to make a small block ossified L1 and then do various other kinds of things, roll-ups or whatever, things that are very drivechain like.

2304
04:14:07,424 --> 04:14:16,424
And then they could say we want – we have the L1 ossified. I mean Ethereum is now proof of stake, so it's pretty different.

2305
04:14:17,424 --> 04:14:21,424
But yeah, I don't know. What do you mean? Do you mean anything specific when you say urgency?

2306
04:14:22,424 --> 04:14:35,424
Well, I guess since you brought up Ethereum, I guess a lot of critics would point to the lack of utility that has been demonstrated so far in real terms.

2307
04:14:35,424 --> 04:15:02,424
And so if that utility hasn't really been realized on Ethereum really, like truly, then why the urgency in opening up something that could replicate that in some fashion on Bitcoin just yet when there's all kinds of possible hydrogenics that would come with that change as well, perhaps, right?

2308
04:15:02,424 --> 04:15:18,424
That we don't know the future. I know that you've thought it through very exhaustively and you're very, very, very certain, but the truth is we don't really know how this complex system will react to having this incremental new functionality.

2309
04:15:19,424 --> 04:15:31,424
People have brought up the miner incentives and all that jazz. So since we don't know the future, there is still a chance that despite your exhaustive thinking on it, it will cause something to go awry.

2310
04:15:32,424 --> 04:15:51,424
And without that actual real tangible benefit or urgency or demand that is tangible right there, that has maybe been demonstrated in some fashion, even in an incremental small way in these other coins we talk about, then why take that risk?

2311
04:15:51,424 --> 04:15:56,424
It seems like a foolhardy systemic risk to take for no reason at this juncture.

2312
04:15:57,424 --> 04:16:12,424
I completely disagree. I mean, first of all, the miner incentives thing isn't real. It just means that miners may get paid more money. But the more important thing is that we take the risk either way.

2313
04:16:12,424 --> 04:16:27,424
So if you have a risk of someone inventing something new that's better and it replaces Bitcoin, this is all open source software, then that will obviously affect Bitcoiners and they will obviously also affect mining incentives.

2314
04:16:27,424 --> 04:16:33,424
Because if Bitcoin goes to zero, then the miners are cut out. So they go to nothing.

2315
04:16:34,424 --> 04:16:51,424
So the risk is kind of there no matter what. And the BIP300, it could be turned on with a soft fork, as I mentioned, and then just turned off. So it actually also is no risk, even if it did hypothetically could do something bad, which it really can't.

2316
04:16:52,424 --> 04:17:04,424
So it's actually the reverse of the way I see it, because I think that the risk is basically zero and the upside is enormous. The upside is very big.

2317
04:17:05,424 --> 04:17:20,424
You say that you don't really see it, but it's like wrapped Bitcoin is basically this idea just on ETH and only a much worse version. But it has billions of dollars of mark five, six billions of dollars in market cap. Maybe not. I don't know what it has today. Four billion, maybe.

2318
04:17:21,424 --> 04:17:29,424
But that's one thing you have. The fees paid on Ethereum are 50 times what they are in Bitcoin, or at least they were recently.

2319
04:17:30,424 --> 04:17:47,424
You have people building these things that they would want to use. It's like the whole Filecoin, not Filecoin specifically, but the whole family of things, the storage, whatever, the large blocker people.

2320
04:17:48,424 --> 04:18:03,424
And all of this is ruined by Metcalfe's law because it's all the square of the number of users we want. If we had everything focused in one coin, it would be much, much better than having it spread over many altcoins.

2321
04:18:04,424 --> 04:18:18,424
So we have a situation where the upside is enormous. The upside is making every transaction in the world a Bitcoin transaction and taking over completely, which we can't do now.

2322
04:18:19,424 --> 04:18:31,424
I see the gains, the potential gains there. The upside is there potentially. It will build out at some point in ways that we're not even aware of right now.

2323
04:18:31,424 --> 04:18:50,424
I'm just talking about the current state of things on the altcoin land. You mentioned Filecoin. You mentioned some of these other projects. They haven't actually provided any real scaled utility.

2324
04:18:51,424 --> 04:19:02,424
They seem to just result in a pump and dump scheme, a failed project that can't scale, can't do the thing that was initially set out to do. It's a bunch of experimentation. And yeah, you're going to expect a vast majority of things to fail.

2325
04:19:02,424 --> 04:19:14,424
But beyond the ability to provide a Ponzi scheme, what utility are we trying to really emulate here so far?

2326
04:19:15,424 --> 04:19:24,424
Well, I mean, Zcash. What about Zcash? Zcash is an example where the organization is weird and it has a dev tax and everything. It has inflation.

2327
04:19:24,424 --> 04:19:36,424
But the core idea of having one reusable address that has unbeatable privacy, that is an idea that everyone in Bitcoin used to want.

2328
04:19:36,424 --> 04:19:42,424
I don't know. I think now maybe some people pretend like they never wanted it, but that's just lying to themselves.

2329
04:19:42,424 --> 04:19:46,424
So what do you think of privacy? Is privacy real?

2330
04:19:46,424 --> 04:19:52,424
Yeah, no, I'm saying there's definitely potential gain, like juice. There's juice there to squeeze for sure.

2331
04:19:52,424 --> 04:19:58,424
But is privacy just like a pump and dump scheme or something? What about the fact that Monero may be...

2332
04:19:58,424 --> 04:19:59,424
I haven't said that.

2333
04:19:59,424 --> 04:20:00,424
Well, you said everything.

2334
04:20:00,424 --> 04:20:10,424
Well, you mentioned Zcash. I mean, if you look at its history, it looks like, if you look at the chart, it looks like a sequence of pump and dumps as all the altcoins do.

2335
04:20:10,424 --> 04:20:16,424
But I don't understand why you don't get that that is because it is an altcoin. It is not a sidechain.

2336
04:20:16,424 --> 04:20:20,424
Well, that's a conjecture for sure. And that may or may not be true.

2337
04:20:20,424 --> 04:20:25,424
You can't pump a number sidechain. It's a one-to-one peg.

2338
04:20:27,170 --> 04:20:28,170
It can neither pump nor dump it.

2339
04:20:29,170 --> 04:20:41,170
No, I mean, like whether there would be the utility gain. You're saying that they haven't gained utility because they are a pump and dump or it's been tied up in that.

2340
04:20:41,170 --> 04:20:51,170
I'm saying like if they demonstrate the utility, then there would be like a more tangible cause and reason to be able to come over here and make this change on Bitcoin.

2341
04:20:52,170 --> 04:21:00,170
Yeah, but they already have software where you can download it and use it and you have a reusable Z address that is fixed.

2342
04:21:00,170 --> 04:21:05,170
You can just put it in your Twitter profile or whatever, put it, you know, do whatever you want with it.

2343
04:21:05,170 --> 04:21:10,170
But the point is people send coins so that you do not know the amount, the sender or the receiver.

2344
04:21:12,170 --> 04:21:16,170
Now, that is what many people in Bitcoin wish they could build on Bitcoin.

2345
04:21:17,170 --> 04:21:18,170
Yeah, that's very powerful.

2346
04:21:20,170 --> 04:21:26,170
The assumption is that these sidechains wouldn't exceed the value of Bitcoin in general.

2347
04:21:31,170 --> 04:21:37,170
Because it's like putting a $20 bill into an ATM and then saying, well, it's the assumption that it will never give you 30.

2348
04:21:37,170 --> 04:21:42,170
Yes, that is. It's not an assumption. It's programmed into the rules.

2349
04:21:43,170 --> 04:21:45,170
How so?

2350
04:21:45,170 --> 04:21:51,170
It's just literally what the software does. If you use the software and you click, you do 13.2 percent.

2351
04:21:51,170 --> 04:21:56,170
But yeah, you see, you select five Bitcoin and you deposit them into a sidechain.

2352
04:21:56,170 --> 04:22:03,170
You say, I want to pay two Bitcoin to this person, pay half a Bitcoin fee and I put 1.5 into sidechain number eight.

2353
04:22:03,170 --> 04:22:09,170
You do that on L1. Sidechain number eight will credit you 1.5 Bitcoin.

2354
04:22:09,170 --> 04:22:13,170
That's just what it does. Then if you want to withdraw, you get some Bitcoin over there.

2355
04:22:13,170 --> 04:22:20,170
You have 2.5. You say, I want to withdraw. I have these Bitcoin on L2. I want to withdraw.

2356
04:22:20,170 --> 04:22:25,170
You type in whatever. I want to send 2.5 to this mainchain address. It's the L1 address.

2357
04:22:25,170 --> 04:22:30,170
And you click the button and then that is what it does.

2358
04:22:30,170 --> 04:22:34,170
It does all that unilaterally without interacting with any other human being.

2359
04:22:34,170 --> 04:22:39,170
There's no other human being doing that. It's just you and the rules of the software.

2360
04:22:43,170 --> 04:22:44,170
Go ahead.

2361
04:22:44,170 --> 04:22:46,170
Did you have a question?

2362
04:22:46,170 --> 04:22:50,170
Oh, I was just going to say, that leads to the question.

2363
04:22:50,170 --> 04:23:00,170
You probably addressed it. The migration of mining power to preferentially go into the sidechains because of the higher rewards.

2364
04:23:01,170 --> 04:23:19,170
The miners don't go anywhere. The miners stay on L1 and it's the merge miners modification to the new piece of software that allows it to ride along for free.

2365
04:23:19,170 --> 04:23:27,170
The transaction selection that they include in blocks. Isn't there a MEV issue here?

2366
04:23:27,170 --> 04:23:29,170
No, not really.

2367
04:23:29,170 --> 04:23:35,170
Well, you say not really. So not really or you just don't think that it's important?

2368
04:23:35,170 --> 04:23:44,170
The real answer is no, there is not. But I sigh in despair because people just say there is on Twitter. But there is not at all.

2369
04:23:44,170 --> 04:23:48,170
When they say MEV, what they mean is miners are collecting more...

2370
04:23:48,170 --> 04:23:51,170
Is it a case of there's none that you can foresee?

2371
04:23:51,170 --> 04:23:54,170
No, it's literally not possible.

2372
04:23:54,170 --> 04:23:55,170
Okay.

2373
04:23:55,170 --> 04:24:04,170
And I asked many times, Alex B and these other people, I told them, write down an example with a pen and a piece of paper and you'll see that there is none.

2374
04:24:04,170 --> 04:24:08,170
And they have never done this, never taken me up on this challenge.

2375
04:24:08,170 --> 04:24:18,170
And then I did a podcast with Fiatjaf and he said two people messaged him or maybe he said one of them after the...

2376
04:24:19,170 --> 04:24:30,170
But at the podcast, he said at least one person had messaged him and said they tried to write it down, but then they realized that it would not be possible for there to be MEV.

2377
04:24:30,170 --> 04:24:39,170
What merge mining is doing is the sidechains block is worth a certain amount of money.

2378
04:24:39,170 --> 04:24:45,170
If there's MEV, it means they can reorganize transactions to extract extra money.

2379
04:24:45,170 --> 04:24:52,170
But the way it works in drivechain is that extra money just counts as part of the block because the miners are not even looking at the block.

2380
04:24:52,170 --> 04:25:01,170
So whoever is assembling the block just pays themselves all the transaction fees and all the fees due to MEV and no one else sees what they do.

2381
04:25:01,170 --> 04:25:07,170
So the block is worth whatever it is and then they just... layer one miners just get paid on L1.

2382
04:25:07,170 --> 04:25:09,170
So they don't even see the sidechain block.

2383
04:25:09,170 --> 04:25:12,170
They get paid all the transaction, all the value of the block.

2384
04:25:12,170 --> 04:25:14,170
They don't even see it.

2385
04:25:14,170 --> 04:25:18,170
So how's this? This is Namecoin. How's it like Namecoin plus?

2386
04:25:18,170 --> 04:25:22,170
Namecoin uses old merge mining. That's traditional merge mining.

2387
04:25:22,170 --> 04:25:24,170
Right. So it's different.

2388
04:25:24,170 --> 04:25:27,170
Okay. Yes.

2389
04:25:27,170 --> 04:25:33,170
Well, in this, the sidechain block, the world of the side...

2390
04:25:33,170 --> 04:25:41,170
I think blind merge mining is like the inevitable equilibrium outcome of all merge mining anyway.

2391
04:25:41,170 --> 04:25:44,170
So it doesn't even matter. There really is no difference.

2392
04:25:44,170 --> 04:25:51,170
But basically what blind merge mining is doing is it's saying the miner doesn't even want to pay the cost of running the sidechain node.

2393
04:25:51,170 --> 04:26:01,170
And there happen to be many sidechain nodes out there already that are just regular people who are using the blockchain.

2394
04:26:01,170 --> 04:26:03,170
Like the timestamp?

2395
04:26:03,170 --> 04:26:08,170
You can just team up with them since they already exist.

2396
04:26:08,170 --> 04:26:12,170
So it's like many people are running Bitcoin nodes today but not mining.

2397
04:26:12,170 --> 04:26:14,170
But a miner could team up with them.

2398
04:26:14,170 --> 04:26:19,170
This is the same thing where many people run the L2 nodes, the sidechain nodes.

2399
04:26:19,170 --> 04:26:22,170
The L1 miners just team up with them.

2400
04:26:22,170 --> 04:26:27,170
And they say, listen, I'm not running this node, but you already have a node.

2401
04:26:27,170 --> 04:26:35,170
So someone tell me what the block hash is supposed to be and how much fees I'm supposed to get.

2402
04:26:36,170 --> 04:26:38,170
And then they'll just mine the block.

2403
04:26:38,170 --> 04:26:50,170
So what the blind merge mining does is someone pays the miner on L1 the fee balance in return for the miner just mining the block without asking any questions.

2404
04:26:50,170 --> 04:26:53,170
So the miners don't look at the sidechain block.

2405
04:26:53,170 --> 04:26:56,170
They don't pay any sidechain node costs at all.

2406
04:26:56,170 --> 04:26:58,170
And they get all the fee.

2407
04:26:58,170 --> 04:27:06,170
And the reason is that BIP301 makes it so that only one bid, only one thing is valid for a sidechain block.

2408
04:27:06,170 --> 04:27:12,170
So they're all basically bidding up the different nodes of saying, I'll pay you this much.

2409
04:27:12,170 --> 04:27:13,170
I'll pay you $4.

2410
04:27:13,170 --> 04:27:14,170
I'll pay you $5.

2411
04:27:14,170 --> 04:27:15,170
I'll pay you 5 BTC.

2412
04:27:15,170 --> 04:27:16,170
I'll pay you 5.5 BTC.

2413
04:27:16,170 --> 04:27:19,170
I'll pay you 5.512 BTC.

2414
04:27:19,170 --> 04:27:22,170
And the miners will take whichever one pays them the most.

2415
04:27:22,170 --> 04:27:24,170
That is how the miners get all.

2416
04:27:24,170 --> 04:27:29,170
They just get all the money that they would have gotten otherwise.

2417
04:27:29,170 --> 04:27:32,170
And all those rewards are paid in Bitcoin or in L1?

2418
04:27:32,170 --> 04:27:33,170
L1.

2419
04:27:33,170 --> 04:27:36,170
They get paid in L1 and then they just say they include a hash.

2420
04:27:36,170 --> 04:27:42,170
So in that sense, it's no different than open timestamps or something or just opportunity.

2421
04:27:42,170 --> 04:27:44,170
So I guess this is a broad question.

2422
04:27:44,170 --> 04:27:48,170
You're obviously the spearhead of this push.

2423
04:27:49,170 --> 04:27:56,170
What's your motivation at this heart that is providing so much fire for you to stay with this and to see this through?

2424
04:27:56,170 --> 04:27:58,170
What is it you're trying to do?

2425
04:27:58,170 --> 04:28:04,170
I think the critics are so clueless that I just think there must be something wrong with the world.

2426
04:28:04,170 --> 04:28:06,170
Well, it can't be the critics that are driving you.

2427
04:28:06,170 --> 04:28:08,170
I mean, you obviously believe in this very, very strongly.

2428
04:28:08,170 --> 04:28:11,170
So critics aside, what is motivating you?

2429
04:28:11,170 --> 04:28:17,170
One thing that you want Bitcoin to be doing that it's not doing and that this will achieve.

2430
04:28:18,170 --> 04:28:25,170
I mean, so that's not really how – this was never a controversial idea in the past.

2431
04:28:25,170 --> 04:28:31,170
Only kind of like after the SegWit block size war did every soft fork become controversial.

2432
04:28:31,170 --> 04:28:37,170
So it's kind of like – but I'll give you a little bit of a timeline because it's very well known, which is that I was interested in prediction markets.

2433
04:28:37,170 --> 04:28:43,170
And I wrote my own experimental blockchain that is just very, very, very different from Bitcoin.

2434
04:28:43,170 --> 04:28:47,170
So I knew that attaching it to Bitcoin would require something weird.

2435
04:28:47,170 --> 04:28:56,170
And someone else tipped me off to this two-way peg idea, and I came up with a version of it a long time ago.

2436
04:28:56,170 --> 04:29:01,170
And then I kind of ignored it for a little while.

2437
04:29:01,170 --> 04:29:10,170
Well, I was working on my prediction market software, which was now called Bitcoin Hivemind, which used to be called Truthcoin.

2438
04:29:10,170 --> 04:29:18,170
And that is why my Twitter handle is Truthcoin, which is because my last name is very difficult to spell, and Truthcoin is not.

2439
04:29:18,170 --> 04:29:22,170
So that sort of happened.

2440
04:29:22,170 --> 04:29:26,170
And then I was trying to attach that to Bitcoin.

2441
04:29:26,170 --> 04:29:33,170
So I looked into Blockstream's research on sidechains, and I realized that they had not actually produced anything.

2442
04:29:33,170 --> 04:29:36,170
They had said they would produce something, but they had not.

2443
04:29:36,170 --> 04:29:41,170
So since I had to actually use it, I was confronted with this reality.

2444
04:29:41,170 --> 04:29:44,170
And so that was the original motivation.

2445
04:29:44,170 --> 04:29:53,170
But since then, it's just clear to me that this idea solves all of the very serious problems that Bitcoin faces.

2446
04:29:53,170 --> 04:30:04,170
So it just is like I didn't really plan it to be this way, but it just ended up being that it really is the best idea.

2447
04:30:04,170 --> 04:30:12,170
And actually, the other ideas that I used to support wholeheartedly, now I see them as being not good enough.

2448
04:30:12,170 --> 04:30:14,170
They're good, but they're not good enough.

2449
04:30:14,170 --> 04:30:16,170
And I didn't plan any of that to happen.

2450
04:30:16,170 --> 04:30:18,170
And, you know, none of this was controversial.

2451
04:30:18,170 --> 04:30:29,170
Back in 2015 or 2014, many people proposed many different ideas for, in particular, scaling Bitcoin.

2452
04:30:29,170 --> 04:30:33,170
And so lots and lots of ideas were proposed.

2453
04:30:33,170 --> 04:30:35,170
And this was one.

2454
04:30:35,170 --> 04:30:41,170
And this was not even this was a version of things that this was the extension block that had preexisted.

2455
04:30:41,170 --> 04:30:44,170
So my original motivation was this prediction market sidechain.

2456
04:30:44,170 --> 04:30:56,170
But now it's clear that this this is probably the only type of idea that can actually solve, for example, disagreement among people.

2457
04:30:56,170 --> 04:31:01,170
And that you want the Bitcoin tent to continue to grow.

2458
04:31:01,170 --> 04:31:06,170
We want everyone to be able to join because of network effects.

2459
04:31:06,170 --> 04:31:09,170
And so that's big.

2460
04:31:09,170 --> 04:31:13,170
But it happens to also be the only good scaling idea, which I didn't plan on happening at all.

2461
04:31:13,170 --> 04:31:20,170
I had no idea until maybe I would say a year and a half ago that it would be the only one that would actually probably work.

2462
04:31:20,170 --> 04:31:26,170
Other than maybe I could think of like one and a half other.

2463
04:31:26,170 --> 04:31:31,170
But I had no idea that that would be the case back when I first came up with it.

2464
04:31:31,170 --> 04:31:34,170
I also don't understand why is our privacy situation so bad?

2465
04:31:34,170 --> 04:31:38,170
We could have the Zcash privacy situation.

2466
04:31:38,170 --> 04:31:45,170
I don't see I think there's just lots of cope when people talk about the altcoins all being useless.

2467
04:31:45,170 --> 04:31:47,170
It's not true.

2468
04:31:47,170 --> 04:31:50,170
For example, darknet markets are Monero only now.

2469
04:31:50,170 --> 04:31:58,170
So and that's a case where there's no pump and dump because they everyone on both sides is buying and selling for fiat instantaneously.

2470
04:31:58,170 --> 04:32:06,170
So I see actually that having been in the Bitcoin community for a very long time.

2471
04:32:06,170 --> 04:32:10,170
I have actually seen it get more and more irrational and cult like.

2472
04:32:11,170 --> 04:32:17,170
And this idea would would break that back open and fix it would literally just fix every problem that we have.

2473
04:32:17,170 --> 04:32:20,170
I mean, what else will fix the security budget? Nothing.

2474
04:32:20,170 --> 04:32:23,170
What else will ossify layer one and allow us to shrink the L1 block?

2475
04:32:23,170 --> 04:32:33,170
How do we shrink the L1 block size and ossify layer one realistically without giving people a kind of pressure release valve and some other way to be robust?

2476
04:32:33,170 --> 04:32:40,170
Not only to do their own weird ideas, but also how do we stay robust to technological progress?

2477
04:32:40,170 --> 04:32:51,170
If we ossify L1, this is the only way there is also like Namecoin, which has enormous potential, but was sort of dropped completely.

2478
04:32:51,170 --> 04:32:55,170
Instead, we have said what we do is terrible.

2479
04:32:55,170 --> 04:32:58,170
I mean, I have my own prediction markets project, which a lot of people really like.

2480
04:32:59,170 --> 04:33:04,170
I have quotes on BitcoinHiveMind.com from big Bitcoiners about it.

2481
04:33:04,170 --> 04:33:08,170
So is this the right stage? Is this the right stage for this to happen?

2482
04:33:08,170 --> 04:33:18,170
Or I mean, at the adoption level that we're at and the kind of value profit Bitcoin is providing in various use cases, we're still relatively low adoption.

2483
04:33:18,170 --> 04:33:20,170
But it is still. It is still.

2484
04:33:20,170 --> 04:33:23,170
Well, I mean, you're thinking that this is like this.

2485
04:33:24,170 --> 04:33:27,170
This is what is necessary in order to propel adoption.

2486
04:33:27,170 --> 04:33:34,170
But all I see is that adoption is just on rails and it is continuing to thrive even through these bear markets.

2487
04:33:34,170 --> 04:33:42,170
But that we're going to kind of break through in this next cycle into more mainstream adoption.

2488
04:33:42,170 --> 04:33:47,170
And part of that is Bitcoin's like kind of unchanging nature.

2489
04:33:47,170 --> 04:33:54,170
And it's the value prop of it being the sound hardest money and it is not susceptible to change.

2490
04:33:54,170 --> 04:34:01,170
If we're now inviting all these other projects to start building and doing similar things, like they're going to attract some negative attention.

2491
04:34:01,170 --> 04:34:06,170
If you start building things on Bitcoin that are, I don't know, attracting us.

2492
04:34:06,170 --> 04:34:10,170
Could it attract us to see attention if some of these products migrate over to Bitcoin?

2493
04:34:10,170 --> 04:34:15,170
Does that start kind of muddying the waters for what the world at large image wise of seeing Bitcoin as?

2494
04:34:15,170 --> 04:34:19,170
I'm just saying it might not be the right stage for this to be happening right now.

2495
04:34:19,170 --> 04:34:22,170
Like it could if it's inevitable anyway.

2496
04:34:22,170 --> 04:34:24,170
And then we have this in our back pocket.

2497
04:34:24,170 --> 04:34:28,170
It does all the wonderful things that you say it's going to do.

2498
04:34:28,170 --> 04:34:33,170
Then it doesn't, by my estimation, it doesn't really need it right now.

2499
04:34:33,170 --> 04:34:37,170
We're not seeing adoption slow or fall off the S curve.

2500
04:34:39,170 --> 04:34:44,170
Well, I disagree. I think the adoption is like one one thousandth of where it should be.

2501
04:34:44,170 --> 04:34:46,170
I think we have failed.

2502
04:34:46,170 --> 04:34:55,170
I think we have failed to like I think the we haven't there's not enough competition in software development.

2503
04:34:55,170 --> 04:35:05,170
And so it has stagnated. And I think this attitude that Bitcoin will succeed no matter what is, you know, Greg Maxwell once said that that was the only thing that could kill Bitcoin.

2504
04:35:05,170 --> 04:35:11,170
And I think he's I think he is more right than most of us would prefer.

2505
04:35:12,170 --> 04:35:16,170
But, you know, I know.

2506
04:35:16,170 --> 04:35:22,170
But do you think that someone who came in here and, you know, you just you said, like, what is merge mining?

2507
04:35:22,170 --> 04:35:26,170
And you didn't know that, you know, you were awfully ignorant.

2508
04:35:27,170 --> 04:35:46,170
I'm just saying, how far is a community going to get if someone who knows literally nothing about something can just come in and say, I don't think this is the right time?

2509
04:35:46,170 --> 04:35:50,170
I think consciousness is a virtue, especially in Bitcoin.

2510
04:35:51,170 --> 04:35:54,170
So people, it would be even more reckless for people.

2511
04:35:57,170 --> 04:36:04,170
No, no, be even more reckless for people that don't know what you're saying or being ignorant to just sign up wholesale and say, yes, I believe you, Paul.

2512
04:36:04,170 --> 04:36:06,170
Let me just go in and jump on.

2513
04:36:08,170 --> 04:36:11,170
Right. Yeah, I don't I absolutely don't ask people to do that.

2514
04:36:12,170 --> 04:36:16,170
No, that's why it's gone. How do you think it made it from 2015 to 2023 without, you know.

2515
04:36:17,170 --> 04:36:30,170
No one, no one, you know, I remember going on your website a while back, you had like a mint, a mint system, you know, for creating equal denominations of coins that are perfectly fungible.

2516
04:36:32,170 --> 04:36:41,170
Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, I have I have I think as others, I'm not like, you know, special, just a normal person in Bitcoin land here.

2517
04:36:42,170 --> 04:36:51,170
But, you know, people do follow. And if that demand presented itself, more people would jump in and really figure out what's going on with this and get all the nuts and bolts.

2518
04:36:52,170 --> 04:36:58,170
That's what I'm saying. But I don't think that a natural organic demand is there right now. It's like it seems a little bit forced.

2519
04:36:59,170 --> 04:37:01,170
But isn't it a chicken and egg problem, though?

2520
04:37:01,170 --> 04:37:13,170
Um, well, I mean, you can't use it. How can there be any demand? How can there be any demand at all if the feature is unavailable?

2521
04:37:14,170 --> 04:37:24,170
Right. I meant like as far as, oh, this needs to happen because it's an existential threat. Now, I laid out an argument. Bitcoin is just fine.

2522
04:37:25,170 --> 04:37:30,170
It doesn't seem to be showing any signs of the dire straits that you're talking about.

2523
04:37:30,170 --> 04:37:38,170
All I'm seeing is Ethereum, you know, kind of shooting itself in the foot by making all these alterations and changes to itself.

2524
04:37:38,170 --> 04:37:42,170
It was able to get all this attention from the SEC.

2525
04:37:43,170 --> 04:37:47,170
There's there's there. They didn't make a new high against Bitcoin.

2526
04:37:48,170 --> 04:37:50,170
So the aggregate market isn't valuing it.

2527
04:37:50,170 --> 04:37:57,170
I agree that I'm a huge critic of Ethereum and I don't think Ethereum is very good, but I don't think we should have any competitors at all.

2528
04:37:57,170 --> 04:37:59,170
We should just be number one.

2529
04:37:59,170 --> 04:38:03,170
And it should be 99% Bitcoin that does not exist.

2530
04:38:04,170 --> 04:38:09,170
I agree. I just like I guess I'm drawing attention to the urgency again.

2531
04:38:09,170 --> 04:38:10,170
Like, is this the right time?

2532
04:38:10,170 --> 04:38:15,170
Well, I mean, you're also saying like, why should more people build on Bitcoin?

2533
04:38:15,170 --> 04:38:17,170
Like, that would be bad. That's what you were saying before.

2534
04:38:18,170 --> 04:38:20,170
No, I'm not saying it's bad.

2535
04:38:20,170 --> 04:38:23,170
You said someone might build something on Bitcoin and there would be a VC thing.

2536
04:38:23,170 --> 04:38:25,170
Well, OK, right now.

2537
04:38:26,170 --> 04:38:29,170
I mean, we already have that kind of thing all the time.

2538
04:38:29,170 --> 04:38:36,170
It's actually worse now because if we can have something like, you know, Sam Bankman Freed is not even really Bitcoin.

2539
04:38:37,170 --> 04:38:40,170
And then we get we get so.

2540
04:38:41,170 --> 04:38:43,170
So, yeah, anyway, we have some people with their hands up.

2541
04:38:43,170 --> 04:38:44,170
Yeah. Yeah.

2542
04:38:45,170 --> 04:38:47,170
Thank you for your time. I appreciate it.

2543
04:38:47,170 --> 04:38:48,170
Thanks.

2544
04:38:52,170 --> 04:38:58,170
I guess. DJ, why don't you go since Hemp has already went before.

2545
04:39:01,170 --> 04:39:05,170
Thanks, Paul, for holding these spaces.

2546
04:39:05,170 --> 04:39:10,170
I've been listening to the last last couple of them, so appreciate all the effort you're putting into this.

2547
04:39:11,170 --> 04:39:22,170
I'm just curious. I wonder what if you know what Luke Dashjr. thinks of of drivechains.

2548
04:39:22,170 --> 04:39:28,170
I know he's been a big proponent of wanting to reduce block sizes down to 300k.

2549
04:39:28,170 --> 04:39:34,170
So I was just curious if you if you know what he said, because I can't find him on Twitter anymore.

2550
04:39:35,170 --> 04:39:39,170
He is on neutral and you can find him on Nostr.

2551
04:39:39,170 --> 04:39:44,170
And I saw him make a comment saying clarifying that he was neutral on it.

2552
04:39:45,170 --> 04:39:47,170
So is that all he said?

2553
04:39:48,170 --> 04:39:52,170
I think he should be able to go to drivechain that X, Y, Z or something.

2554
04:39:52,170 --> 04:39:54,170
One of those drivechains or drivechain.

2555
04:39:54,170 --> 04:39:56,170
I think drivechain that X, Y, Z.

2556
04:39:58,170 --> 04:40:02,170
I think the quote is there on this site, I think.

2557
04:40:05,170 --> 04:40:07,170
The other thing was.

2558
04:40:08,170 --> 04:40:23,170
So with assuming BIP300 gets merged in, then all these sidechains, they wouldn't be able to fund themselves through issuing some kind of new coin.

2559
04:40:23,170 --> 04:40:25,170
Is that right?

2560
04:40:26,361 --> 04:40:32,441
Well, not really, because you just deposit your BTC and then they show up over there.

2561
04:40:33,401 --> 04:40:38,841
On the sidechain, you could have multiple coins running at the same time. So you have a BTC there

2562
04:40:38,841 --> 04:40:43,320
and you could have other stuff. That would be kind of like having a stock market or something

2563
04:40:43,320 --> 04:40:49,160
or an art market in the case of NFTs or whatever. They're having that over there.

2564
04:40:50,761 --> 04:40:54,441
But you'd have BTC. BTC comes in and out as the one to one rate.

2565
04:40:56,761 --> 04:41:03,000
Okay. And then what would be some examples? I know you've touched on a few, but maybe just

2566
04:41:03,881 --> 04:41:12,601
by category, what would be some examples of what you would think would be early users of,

2567
04:41:12,601 --> 04:41:18,601
not early users, but early projects that would jump on to this capability, assuming it's brought live?

2568
04:41:19,480 --> 04:41:26,201
Well, I think Zcash, copying Zcash would be good for anyone who wants privacy, which is not

2569
04:41:26,761 --> 04:41:32,200
everyone, but I think it's a great option. And we should all have the option to use the Zcash

2570
04:41:33,560 --> 04:41:40,521
mode of Bitcoin. I think we should just copy, we already have software that copies the latest

2571
04:41:40,521 --> 04:41:47,000
Zcash, latest Ethereum full node also. So I think why not just copy, you copy the number one

2572
04:41:47,880 --> 04:41:54,841
competitor, then you're kind of like saying that no one is safe. So I think we should do that just

2573
04:41:54,841 --> 04:42:04,361
for the memes. And why not copy BCH and BSV also for the memes, but also because to just neutralize

2574
04:42:04,361 --> 04:42:09,240
the idea that large block scaling could be good for some people, which it certainly is for some

2575
04:42:09,240 --> 04:42:17,560
people. So we just take all that. I think Namecoin has enormous potential and can just completely

2576
04:42:17,560 --> 04:42:26,280
fix a lot of what happens on the internet. And it's a very big, I can go into detail on that

2577
04:42:26,280 --> 04:42:31,161
if you want, but I think that that idea is huge. And so she also thought it was big.

2578
04:42:33,481 --> 04:42:38,840
I have my own prediction markets idea that a lot, I like it. A lot of other people like it.

2579
04:42:39,400 --> 04:42:42,920
If you go to bitcoinhivemind.com, you can research it.

2580
04:42:42,920 --> 04:43:09,400
We actually have this already.

2581
04:43:10,361 --> 04:43:16,681
We have a version that has 119 already activated, 118 also.

2582
04:43:17,560 --> 04:43:23,000
Stuff like that makes sense to do on drivechains, not necessarily technology coming from other

2583
04:43:23,000 --> 04:43:27,161
chains, although that's also cool, but also just releasing all the different

2584
04:43:27,161 --> 04:43:31,881
software and stuff that we like Bitcoiners have developed.

2585
04:43:40,361 --> 04:43:46,681
Yeah, we also have a idea for, I mean, we have already this idea of the BitAsset sidechain,

2586
04:43:46,681 --> 04:43:53,721
which is like anyone can go over there and mint new coins or mint new NFTs or something.

2587
04:43:53,721 --> 04:43:59,801
And you think, well, what is the good of that? Well, I think it is good because as long as you

2588
04:43:59,801 --> 04:44:05,321
sequester all that into like a little zoo, all those things will be compared to each other.

2589
04:44:05,721 --> 04:44:07,801
And then they won't really be compared with BTC.

2590
04:44:08,920 --> 04:44:12,920
And also, I just think the core idea is actually a pretty good idea.

2591
04:44:15,081 --> 04:44:20,120
It's not the worst. People like, you know, Hal Finney likes the crypto trading cards idea.

2592
04:44:20,760 --> 04:44:25,081
People like art. People like collectibles. They're going to do it anyway.

2593
04:44:25,081 --> 04:44:29,321
They're going to do it on Ethereum if we can't do it somewhere on Bitcoin.

2594
04:44:30,200 --> 04:44:33,640
And then that's just for NFTs. And then it's like for the other assets,

2595
04:44:33,640 --> 04:44:38,920
it's like you can have this stock bond market. You can have all kinds of things,

2596
04:44:38,920 --> 04:44:44,361
anything that is like a concert ticket or whatever, you could have them as tradable coins.

2597
04:44:45,160 --> 04:44:48,681
And that's not everyone is going to go for that, but I think some people would.

2598
04:44:50,121 --> 04:44:56,121
And definitely people are doing it regardless. A lot of people who have

2599
04:44:56,121 --> 04:45:01,081
a lot of years of experience in that industry, such as Bruce Fenton,

2600
04:45:01,961 --> 04:45:05,561
they are certain that that is going to be a huge use case.

2601
04:45:06,440 --> 04:45:10,841
So a lot of this software we have already built and you can already try to run yourself.

2602
04:45:12,040 --> 04:45:17,801
If you go to our site and download, you can try it out. We have versions of a lot of this.

2603
04:45:18,760 --> 04:45:27,480
Yeah, so I think those are a lot that that would be enough for people to get into at first.

2604
04:45:39,480 --> 04:45:44,281
Oh, Shinobi is here in the audience, I think. I can't always tell.

2605
04:45:44,600 --> 04:45:51,081
I can't always tell. Changes his name. Yes, come on up, Shinobi, say something.

2606
04:45:53,640 --> 04:45:55,241
Say whatever it is you want to say.

2607
04:45:57,961 --> 04:46:01,720
Or don't. But there he is.

2608
04:46:02,440 --> 04:46:06,841
Or alternatively, I could have invited him up and he will not come up, and then

2609
04:46:09,001 --> 04:46:13,401
I don't know what would be appropriate to conclude in that situation.

2610
04:46:17,241 --> 04:46:22,040
But while we're waiting for him to make up his mind, we've got another 14 minutes before

2611
04:46:22,600 --> 04:46:26,600
Henry has to go. And me too, of course. I've been going through this all day.

2612
04:46:40,600 --> 04:46:43,001
Anyone else want to say anything? Come up and say anything.

2613
04:46:43,401 --> 04:46:43,961
Or don't.

2614
04:46:47,640 --> 04:46:52,600
Just since nobody else is. Yes. Just one more question about the security budget you mentioned.

2615
04:46:54,841 --> 04:46:59,961
How you seem pretty definitive that the security budget is an issue, but that that also is kind

2616
04:46:59,961 --> 04:47:03,640
of an outstanding question. We don't know the future. We don't know what the future will be.

2617
04:47:03,640 --> 04:47:08,440
But we do know that the security budget is an issue, and we don't know when it's going to be.

2618
04:47:08,440 --> 04:47:12,521
The security budget is an issue, but that also is kind of an outstanding question. We don't know

2619
04:47:12,521 --> 04:47:19,961
the future. There's the case to be made that if it realizes its potential, and at that level,

2620
04:47:20,760 --> 04:47:25,961
to be the global reserve currency, and you take the number of transactions you can fit in the

2621
04:47:25,961 --> 04:47:34,200
block currently at that price, the fee structure is commensurate with what the payout is now.

2622
04:47:34,200 --> 04:47:39,880
So it'd be kind of somewhat constant, if you will, moving forward in time as Bitcoin appreciates,

2623
04:47:40,600 --> 04:47:45,720
and more higher, higher fee levels are accrued to the miners. What do you take

2624
04:47:45,720 --> 04:47:50,681
issue with with that scenario? A giant piece of writing explaining in detail why that

2625
04:47:51,241 --> 04:47:59,801
scenario and other scenarios is not going to happen. So. In a nutshell. Is there a nutshell?

2626
04:47:59,801 --> 04:48:08,200
Well, yes, there is, which is the transaction price is in opportunity costs. So the better

2627
04:48:08,200 --> 04:48:15,241
way to think about it is putting it in dollars. It is unrelated to the U.S. dollar exchange rate,

2628
04:48:16,200 --> 04:48:19,561
and that's exactly why you might as well put it in dollars. You could put it in sandwiches.

2629
04:48:19,561 --> 04:48:28,600
You could say how many five dollar sandwiches does it cost me when I make a layer one transaction,

2630
04:48:28,600 --> 04:48:33,001
which is the only thing that matters to Bitcoin. Well, I mean, actually,

2631
04:48:33,001 --> 04:48:41,001
Drivechain is the only exception where the only L2 that pays on L1 also. But we're talking on L1,

2632
04:48:42,760 --> 04:48:47,561
how many sandwiches, how many five dollar sandwiches do you give up in terms of value?

2633
04:48:47,561 --> 04:48:50,681
So you see, that doesn't make absolutely no difference with the exchange rate.

2634
04:48:50,681 --> 04:49:01,160
Is. None whatsoever. I don't know if you're doing the first GDP of the globe,

2635
04:49:02,681 --> 04:49:07,321
each Bitcoin is going to be a tremendous amount. Right. So let's say it's worth

2636
04:49:07,321 --> 04:49:13,881
50 million dollars. No longer five dollars. Yeah. The sandwich. OK, the sandwich is no longer

2637
04:49:13,881 --> 04:49:20,121
five dollars, but it's the amount of Bitcoin that is equal to one sandwich is what I'm saying.

2638
04:49:21,241 --> 04:49:25,720
Oh, well, I'm saying the sandwich is actually bigger. Sorry, I guess I misspoke. You actually

2639
04:49:25,720 --> 04:49:29,801
have like you're saying we have economic growth and now we have. Yeah, yeah. Well,

2640
04:49:29,801 --> 04:49:34,040
not just the growth, but what the percentage that Bitcoin represents is growing. Right. Like

2641
04:49:34,040 --> 04:49:40,121
as it grows, it is representing a larger and larger slice of that total pie.

2642
04:49:40,920 --> 04:49:46,280
But let's say that tomorrow, tomorrow, the GDP is unaffected and it is the same. Well, just

2643
04:49:47,241 --> 04:49:52,201
because it hasn't had time to as a result of Bitcoin adoption. So tomorrow,

2644
04:49:52,840 --> 04:50:01,160
all fiat currencies are replaced with BTC. It reaches its ceiling and it hits the ceiling

2645
04:50:02,040 --> 04:50:05,561
and it's worth the most amount it can be worth, which is probably, I don't know,

2646
04:50:05,561 --> 04:50:10,361
maybe like twenty five million dollars per coin. Yeah, probably no more dollars in this world

2647
04:50:10,361 --> 04:50:15,160
because dollars are gone. But whatever whatever you could have bought with twenty five million

2648
04:50:15,160 --> 04:50:21,881
dollars as a percent of GDP, like whatever stuff I could have bought with twenty five million

2649
04:50:21,881 --> 04:50:26,280
dollars, if I had twenty five million dollars, that's what you can buy with one Bitcoin in this

2650
04:50:26,280 --> 04:50:30,361
new world. Is that making sense so far? Well, let's let's take it this way. If you take all

2651
04:50:30,361 --> 04:50:33,720
the fiat currency in the world, like to rough orders of magnitude, we have thirty trillion,

2652
04:50:33,720 --> 04:50:39,641
let's say. All right. But in global GDP, you've got like nine hundred trillion. So now in a

2653
04:50:39,641 --> 04:50:44,040
Bitcoin world, Bitcoin is now kind of swapping out and becoming that thirty trillion. Obviously,

2654
04:50:44,040 --> 04:50:48,920
U.S. dollars don't exist anymore, but it's it's a fraction of the total, I guess, aggregate value

2655
04:50:48,920 --> 04:50:53,881
in the world. But it's going to you know, that ratio is still going to be there. And so in that

2656
04:50:53,881 --> 04:50:59,321
ratio, it's going to get larger and larger as we proceed in adoption, as it gets closer and closer

2657
04:50:59,321 --> 04:51:04,040
to that outcome. And when I'm saying fully adopted, I'm saying fully adopted tomorrow.

2658
04:51:04,040 --> 04:51:10,040
Everyone switches and we pay everyone. It's fully adopted. Yeah. The value of the mining

2659
04:51:10,280 --> 04:51:15,400
words would be immense. Yeah, that's because of the block subsidy. Of course, that would be huge.

2660
04:51:15,960 --> 04:51:20,201
So I'm talking about you're talking about the fees before the block subsidy is a problem that

2661
04:51:20,201 --> 04:51:27,881
every 16 years it goes down by ninety five percent, ninety four percent. So that's shrinking

2662
04:51:27,881 --> 04:51:33,561
rapidly. So I was talking about I was trying to illustrate to you that the fees are completely

2663
04:51:33,561 --> 04:51:38,920
the scenario is like a wire, right? That's where it kind of breaks out to be about the same,

2664
04:51:38,920 --> 04:51:42,920
that the transaction fees would kind of would rise to to about the same level as what a wire

2665
04:51:42,920 --> 04:51:49,480
is now, like fifteen, twenty, twenty five dollars equivalent thereof. And that layer, that layered

2666
04:51:49,480 --> 04:51:53,480
money model, like what? So you're you're you're kind of not throwing away that layered money model.

2667
04:51:53,480 --> 04:52:00,920
OK, let's not that's not fully the model is the layered money. OK, but what's what's wrong with

2668
04:52:00,920 --> 04:52:06,121
that version of it where you have transactions at the fifteen, twenty, twenty five dollar range,

2669
04:52:06,121 --> 04:52:12,201
like a commensurate with a wire? And is that still I mean, and that would provide the fee

2670
04:52:12,201 --> 04:52:17,561
revenue, the security budget would be I mean, if we think that today is OK, then that would be

2671
04:52:17,561 --> 04:52:23,720
that would be the same then at that level. Well, I don't think people will be willing to pay

2672
04:52:25,400 --> 04:52:31,641
high fees. They pay for wires now. I have a I have a document in the first security

2673
04:52:31,641 --> 04:52:38,840
budget article. I explain the total amount of even if Bitcoin I have this modeled out where

2674
04:52:38,840 --> 04:52:45,720
if Bitcoin reaches its highest value and you can see that the security budget, the block subsidy

2675
04:52:45,720 --> 04:52:53,960
have having that the subsidy every four years causes it to rapidly shrink as a percentage of

2676
04:52:53,960 --> 04:53:00,201
GDP. So I can get to that, so I mean, I don't know, I have actual numbers in that spreadsheet

2677
04:53:00,201 --> 04:53:04,600
and you could look at them if you really are that interested. But I think to answer your question

2678
04:53:04,600 --> 04:53:09,561
about I think people won't pay because of the presence of competitors. It would be like WeChat

2679
04:53:09,561 --> 04:53:16,441
pay charges zero. And well, we're saying this in an environment where Bitcoin has actually

2680
04:53:16,441 --> 04:53:21,720
taken that percentage of the pie. So if it is that big, it just it's going you know, it's kind

2681
04:53:21,720 --> 04:53:26,441
of like you can't say a competitor would step in. It's a completely different. No, no, no,

2682
04:53:26,441 --> 04:53:30,361
that was a completely different thing that I said, because you said as the exchange rate goes up,

2683
04:53:30,361 --> 04:53:38,761
the fees will go up. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, but they will. Because as it's getting that adoption,

2684
04:53:38,761 --> 04:53:46,761
like it is the dominant thing. As Bitcoin succeeds, then people will like Bitcoin more and then

2685
04:53:46,761 --> 04:53:52,361
they'll be willing to. Yes. Well, I'm kind of saying the exact same thing as you, except in

2686
04:53:52,361 --> 04:53:57,480
reverse. I'm saying the fees will go up, they won't like it very much and they will counter

2687
04:53:57,480 --> 04:54:01,881
adopt it, which is exactly what happens is the fees go up and people stop using it. They stop

2688
04:54:01,881 --> 04:54:07,080
liking it also. And then the fees go back down. And that's why the fees have never really risen

2689
04:54:07,080 --> 04:54:14,040
above 50 cents ish. They sometimes do. But in general, for a transaction, they really don't.

2690
04:54:14,040 --> 04:54:19,400
They sometimes do little periods, but then they come back down. Right. Okay. But like,

2691
04:54:19,400 --> 04:54:23,561
if you take a long term view, I thought I saw a chart that showed a general aggregate

2692
04:54:23,561 --> 04:54:29,480
tick up in fees over time. Section three of the article that you haven't read yet

2693
04:54:29,480 --> 04:54:35,241
is called the false view of an automatic upward trend in P and that is what that whole section

2694
04:54:35,241 --> 04:54:40,761
is about. Are you pulling a Jason Lowry on me? I think you're pulling a Jason Lowry on me.

2695
04:54:40,761 --> 04:54:45,400
Well, I mean, if you like. You haven't read my thesis.

2696
04:54:45,400 --> 04:54:50,280
Yeah, no, obviously that's one of the reasons why I'm here. I'm trying to learn more.

2697
04:54:51,561 --> 04:54:59,881
I'm giving away mine for free. It's fine. I don't, you know, not everyone has to read

2698
04:54:59,881 --> 04:55:03,881
everything that has ever been written before talking to someone in a conversation. I don't

2699
04:55:03,881 --> 04:55:09,321
believe that. I'm in this space, right? I'm trying to like get your take on things.

2700
04:55:09,881 --> 04:55:19,400
And my view is that a coin is very different from what I call a BL1TXN, the layer one Bitcoin

2701
04:55:19,400 --> 04:55:28,600
transaction. Those are different things. And they are as different from each other as gold is from

2702
04:55:28,600 --> 04:55:34,520
Visa's revenue in the last quarter or something. So they're just completely different things.

2703
04:55:35,321 --> 04:55:41,080
They have almost nothing to do with each other. And it's a mistake to think so. Like,

2704
04:55:41,801 --> 04:55:47,641
there's only 21 million coins and there's no real competitor to BTC, the coin.

2705
04:55:48,361 --> 04:55:56,280
But that's not the case for the transacting. Transacting is in a world where, in fact,

2706
04:55:56,681 --> 04:56:05,321
because wire transfer used to be $75 and the prices actually come down, most people,

2707
04:56:06,840 --> 04:56:12,520
what I'm trying to say is that in general, the cost of a transaction has plummeted over time.

2708
04:56:12,520 --> 04:56:16,441
You used to actually have to carry around coins. You can only transact with people near you.

2709
04:56:17,080 --> 04:56:23,881
But then credit cards came out and then, you know, like the Medici's like invented checks

2710
04:56:24,840 --> 04:56:30,441
and then credit cards came out. And now there's Venmo and each time the cost is very low. And

2711
04:56:30,441 --> 04:56:34,361
then with WeChat pay, the cost is actually negative because the government wants, of course,

2712
04:56:34,361 --> 04:56:39,480
to surveil everyone. So they'll be pushing that. They're pushing that on everyone.

2713
04:56:40,040 --> 04:56:45,641
So they are not going to be charging the like they're going to be keeping it, quote, free,

2714
04:56:45,641 --> 04:56:51,160
unquote. And so we just live in a world where everything around us is becoming cheaper all

2715
04:56:51,160 --> 04:56:58,441
the time in terms of labor time because of technological progress. So it's like, you know,

2716
04:56:58,441 --> 04:57:02,201
it's easier to get a sandwich. It's easier to get a suit today per labor hour.

2717
04:57:04,121 --> 04:57:08,280
Because everything we make is we just get better at making everything get better at getting

2718
04:57:09,480 --> 04:57:19,001
wool, uranium, whatever we want as a species. So people's expectations for what a transaction

2719
04:57:19,001 --> 04:57:23,720
should cost are falling and will continue to fall, especially all the software and stuff

2720
04:57:24,600 --> 04:57:30,201
is already being written. It's always getting better. Like, you know, a SQL database isn't

2721
04:57:30,201 --> 04:57:39,320
getting any worse. So. The which is what. WeChat pay or the CBDC is going to use.

2722
04:57:41,320 --> 04:57:47,320
So so it's like people's tolerance for paying high transaction fees, I think,

2723
04:57:47,320 --> 04:57:52,680
will only go down from where it is now. They'll think, why am I why would anyone use Bitcoin when

2724
04:57:53,480 --> 04:57:59,560
Venmo is free? Whereas we would never have had that problem before. I remember a time before

2725
04:57:59,560 --> 04:58:04,761
anyone had heard of Venmo. But when I had still heard of Bitcoin, I think I was like 2012 or

2726
04:58:04,761 --> 04:58:09,641
something, but no one had heard of there was no Venmo really. Someone is going to look this up

2727
04:58:09,641 --> 04:58:14,200
and say Venmo was created in whatever year. But I don't remember anyone in the world caring or

2728
04:58:14,200 --> 04:58:21,241
knowing anything about Venmo or WeChat pay. But until, you know, over the last 10 years,

2729
04:58:21,241 --> 04:58:30,121
that has changed. So I think people won't be willing to pay. And it will actually work the

2730
04:58:30,121 --> 04:58:35,960
other way around. If the fees go up, then we will get negative adoption and it will be

2731
04:58:36,440 --> 04:58:40,761
a very circular. It'll be like a chicken and egg will be sort of.

2732
04:58:43,641 --> 04:58:49,161
I don't think that the so yeah, I think I wrote this giant article about why I think the security

2733
04:58:49,161 --> 04:58:54,761
budget is a problem. And also, I only write an article in the first place if I disagree with

2734
04:58:54,761 --> 04:59:00,600
what most people think most of the time. So I write these articles and they have a certain title

2735
04:59:00,600 --> 04:59:04,840
and then people say, well, I don't agree with you. And I'm like, yes, I already knew that. But

2736
04:59:04,840 --> 04:59:09,161
that's why I wrote the article. And then I say, did you read the article? And they say no. And I

2737
04:59:09,161 --> 04:59:15,800
say, well, how is the conversation going to go? I already know. So but I don't expect everyone to

2738
04:59:17,641 --> 04:59:22,440
completely agree with the security budget thing. But I do think that there's no real reason to

2739
04:59:22,440 --> 04:59:27,401
suggest it will work on the path that it's on. There's no reason to suggest that it will work

2740
04:59:27,401 --> 04:59:37,080
because it like there's no evidence. There's no evidence to suggest that either because

2741
04:59:37,080 --> 04:59:44,440
the Bitcoin fees see part of what happens is the so-called trend is mostly an artifact of the way

2742
04:59:44,440 --> 04:59:50,361
fees were calculated back in the era when fees were like beneath one cent or beneath 10 cents

2743
04:59:51,161 --> 04:59:56,440
when it effectively makes no difference. So you have to screen all that out because no one cares

2744
04:59:56,440 --> 05:00:03,560
if Bitcoin is either the cheapest payment method or it's not. So if Bitcoin is the cheapest and it

2745
05:00:03,560 --> 05:00:11,161
goes from being one tenth of a cent to costing four cents, that is not really a 40x increase.

2746
05:00:11,161 --> 05:00:15,800
No one actually care. It was the cheapest thing before and is the cheapest thing after.

2747
05:00:17,080 --> 05:00:22,121
But then once it crosses the line of being significantly more expensive than a credit card

2748
05:00:22,200 --> 05:00:28,121
or significantly more expensive than Zelle or whatever, then people will care. So no one cared

2749
05:00:28,121 --> 05:00:34,121
before. So every time it goes into the caring region, what happens is it's only a matter of time.

2750
05:00:34,121 --> 05:00:42,041
A couple days and a couple cases a week where the fees fall back down. The only time the fees

2751
05:00:42,041 --> 05:00:46,440
have gone up and stayed up for any serious length of time, which is also temporary,

2752
05:00:47,320 --> 05:00:55,401
that has been when there is this enormous huge price bubbles where no one could even everyone's

2753
05:00:55,401 --> 05:01:00,600
getting so rich that no one could possibly care about the fee. And that's when we have $50 fees

2754
05:01:00,600 --> 05:01:05,800
sometimes. But then otherwise other times we don't. So if we live in a world where it's very easy to

2755
05:01:05,800 --> 05:01:10,921
send people money for free, I don't think people will pay $75 for Bitcoin transaction, which is the

2756
05:01:11,881 --> 05:01:19,080
world that we are headed towards. I don't know why anyone pays a wire transfer. The legacy

2757
05:01:19,080 --> 05:01:23,800
financial system is really screwed up. It's really scamming people out of this wire transfer. People

2758
05:01:23,800 --> 05:01:28,361
pay because they have no alternative. They pay Western Union. Henry, you can maybe just make

2759
05:01:28,361 --> 05:01:33,641
me the host or something if you have to go. Okay.

2760
05:01:33,641 --> 05:01:37,960
Okay, cool. Thanks.

2761
05:01:45,241 --> 05:01:50,761
Okay, I guess I'm a host now. Wait. Now I'm a host. Am I?

2762
05:01:52,041 --> 05:01:55,881
Yes. If I leave, it doesn't end the space.

2763
05:01:56,761 --> 05:02:05,320
It may. But I will have to go get my kids from school. So if I might lose reception at some

2764
05:02:05,320 --> 05:02:09,320
point. So if the space rugs, I apologize for that. And we'll pick up next week.

2765
05:02:10,440 --> 05:02:12,680
I don't know. Maybe if he leaves, it will crash the space.

2766
05:02:15,401 --> 05:02:20,121
If it does, then too bad. Then I guess we've given a lot of, I mean, we've gone for a long

2767
05:02:20,121 --> 05:02:24,761
time anyway. So why don't you, you could read my article if you want, Dune Moon,

2768
05:02:24,761 --> 05:02:31,161
or you could just not read it. You know, in which case that's fine also.

2769
05:02:32,921 --> 05:02:39,001
Yeah, well, no, I could read. It's kind of what I'm saying. Like, I know you're steeped in this.

2770
05:02:39,001 --> 05:02:42,041
There's a lot of people and there's a lot of people who are steeped in it, but you know,

2771
05:02:42,041 --> 05:02:48,121
on the critical side, and there's others like myself who are vaguely aware of the various

2772
05:02:48,680 --> 05:02:53,560
machinations going on in the Bitcoin space. And we come in and we pay more attention when

2773
05:02:53,560 --> 05:02:57,800
things come to a head. And so that's kind of where my statement was coming from with

2774
05:02:58,440 --> 05:03:03,720
the urgency that, you know, it felt like the urgency isn't really here for this right now

2775
05:03:03,720 --> 05:03:08,521
in this moment. It's not quite time. It's not as time yet, you know?

2776
05:03:09,641 --> 05:03:14,121
Maybe. Well, I kind of think it's kind of the other way around a little bit where it's kind of

2777
05:03:14,121 --> 05:03:22,440
like people only get, the idea will only get attention if people push for it. So if you never

2778
05:03:22,440 --> 05:03:28,761
push for it, then it will, no one will ever pay attention to it. But don't you think like,

2779
05:03:28,761 --> 05:03:33,320
I mean, this idea that like people come in and they quickly rush through a change,

2780
05:03:33,320 --> 05:03:40,281
I mean, that really cannot apply to something that has been around since 2015, right? I mean,

2781
05:03:40,281 --> 05:03:47,560
like, how is that even possible? Yeah, well, that's kind of my point. Like, I think most

2782
05:03:47,560 --> 05:03:53,001
Bitcoiners are aware that there is a thing called drivechain as a proposal. And, you know, it does

2783
05:03:53,001 --> 05:03:58,680
invade ideas about what it might do that are not too far off base, but they don't know all the

2784
05:03:58,680 --> 05:04:04,361
technical details or, you know, have the credence built up for the certainty that you have with

2785
05:04:04,361 --> 05:04:14,041
being so steeped in it for so long. But that doesn't mean that without an outside impetus,

2786
05:04:14,041 --> 05:04:18,921
right, as we get further along something, that they would then turn to it, right? They would

2787
05:04:18,921 --> 05:04:23,800
be able, just the knowledge that it's there, it's in the back pocket, and then they'll turn to it

2788
05:04:23,800 --> 05:04:30,041
when necessary to then, you know, it'll accelerate is what I'm saying. And the fact that it hasn't

2789
05:04:30,041 --> 05:04:36,921
accelerated, it speaks to this lack of demand and urgency for it in Bitcoin right now in this moment

2790
05:04:36,921 --> 05:04:41,001
of its evolution, and, you know, into the global reserve currency.

2791
05:04:41,001 --> 05:04:47,161
What would you mean, like, lack of? What do you mean by that?

2792
05:04:48,680 --> 05:04:58,361
Just that traction wise, I mean, it's not, like you said, 2015, right? If it was something that was

2793
05:04:59,241 --> 05:05:06,600
so obviously needed, and it was an urgency that can existential kind of like, oh, this is,

2794
05:05:06,840 --> 05:05:11,881
we're really going to shore this up, then I think you would see a bigger kind of like aggregate

2795
05:05:11,881 --> 05:05:17,720
emergent movement towards it. And that's not to say that it doesn't happen, or that it's not

2796
05:05:17,720 --> 05:05:21,800
correct. And all the things you're saying aren't correct. But it just feels like that aggregate

2797
05:05:21,800 --> 05:05:27,720
movement isn't happening because the environment in which, you know, the utility that this provides

2798
05:05:27,720 --> 05:05:32,121
isn't quite there yet, the environment for it isn't there yet. Like it needs, it's like I said,

2799
05:05:32,680 --> 05:05:37,161
but like, this is not quite it's time yet. I don't know. Like, it's just my own personal feeling.

2800
05:05:41,800 --> 05:05:46,600
But you know, it's time could be tomorrow or something. So I guess I kind of agree with you

2801
05:05:46,600 --> 05:05:49,480
that. But isn't that kind of?

2802
05:05:50,840 --> 05:05:55,720
Well, Bitcoin doesn't die tomorrow because Bitcoin 300 isn't adopted.

2803
05:05:57,001 --> 05:06:01,080
Well, yeah, Bitcoin is not going to die tomorrow because Bitcoin 300 is not adopted. But I think

2804
05:06:01,080 --> 05:06:04,600
that you're saying like not in the next week or the next month or the next year.

2805
05:06:06,761 --> 05:06:08,281
If it is near death?

2806
05:06:09,161 --> 05:06:13,161
Well, I mean, with what's at stake? And yeah, that's kind of the argument of a lot of people,

2807
05:06:13,161 --> 05:06:15,881
right? Like this is not just a normal project.

2808
05:06:17,080 --> 05:06:24,761
Why do you say, why do you frame it as though BIP300 is something that has a risk of harming BTC?

2809
05:06:25,960 --> 05:06:28,761
Everything has a risk. Any change has a risk of harming BTC.

2810
05:06:29,641 --> 05:06:33,080
It's a complex system that doesn't just involve the code. It involves all the people involved

2811
05:06:33,080 --> 05:06:38,921
and all the players. It's a massively complex system. I guess that's like a red flag, right?

2812
05:06:38,921 --> 05:06:43,720
From a systems thinking standpoint, when you have something that's so certain, so like over the top,

2813
05:06:43,720 --> 05:06:47,720
100% guarantee that there's all the bases are covered. I thought through every recourse,

2814
05:06:47,720 --> 05:06:53,560
this is a slam dunk, nothing bad, no second, third order effects could possibly be bad.

2815
05:06:55,080 --> 05:06:58,281
That's just a big red flag, right? And that's what puts off some people.

2816
05:06:59,161 --> 05:07:08,440
No, that's not what I was saying. I'm saying you treat the adopting it as a risk, but not

2817
05:07:09,161 --> 05:07:14,680
passing on it. When it's something like the guy who, the people behind Netflix,

2818
05:07:14,680 --> 05:07:19,800
they offered to sell to Blockbuster and Blockbuster turned them down.

2819
05:07:20,761 --> 05:07:26,761
They thought it was some kind of risk to their business model. Well, it ended up being a risk

2820
05:07:26,761 --> 05:07:30,281
because Blockbuster went completely out of business because of Netflix, basically.

2821
05:07:31,560 --> 05:07:35,800
So you say, blah, blah, blah. This is a red flag. What about the third, fourth order effects?

2822
05:07:36,521 --> 05:07:41,480
But it's really you who is totally 100% completely ignoring that whole dimension,

2823
05:07:41,480 --> 05:07:47,480
because whether or not it's not just adding something as a risk, every single thing is a

2824
05:07:47,480 --> 05:07:51,401
risk. And just because you say, I don't know anything about this, how is it the case that

2825
05:07:51,641 --> 05:07:56,521
deposited coins trickle down? Because I can't credit in coins. I know literally nothing about

2826
05:07:56,521 --> 05:08:00,200
anything. Yeah, you're right. You're right to point back to me that there's that possibility,

2827
05:08:00,200 --> 05:08:07,401
for sure. But it's not to say that your example that you gave is the rule that occurs. In the vast

2828
05:08:07,401 --> 05:08:13,001
majority of more cases, when a company decides to pivot because they see a new upstart doing

2829
05:08:13,001 --> 05:08:16,041
something and they don't want to get left behind, they end up doing it at their peril. They

2830
05:08:16,041 --> 05:08:26,361
misallocate and it hurts them. But the only way that is true, this is just a bunch of meta talk.

2831
05:08:27,080 --> 05:08:34,440
The only way to actually know which argument should actually have more bearing is to actually

2832
05:08:34,440 --> 05:08:39,720
explore the content of the idea. And I did explain to you that you can turn GIP300 on with a soft

2833
05:08:39,720 --> 05:08:43,001
fork. And then if there was some kind of problem with it, you can turn it off with a soft fork

2834
05:08:43,001 --> 05:08:48,041
also. And it'd be like as if it had never happened. So the risk is actually zero.

2835
05:08:50,200 --> 05:08:55,641
You got to be careful with zero. You got to be careful with zero. When I hear zero,

2836
05:08:55,641 --> 05:09:01,480
there's more red flags. Something's so certain. I don't know. I don't see how you could possibly...

2837
05:09:01,480 --> 05:09:09,401
What do you think it would do? Because we don't have the BIP now, which is the state that you

2838
05:09:09,401 --> 05:09:17,241
want us to stay in. And if we activate the BIP on OpNap 5 and then ban OpNap 5, we are in exactly

2839
05:09:17,241 --> 05:09:25,241
the same protocol, the exact same Bitcoin protocol. You say we, but this is like an aggregate kind of

2840
05:09:25,241 --> 05:09:31,320
ad hoc mixture of all kinds of different interests. There's no we really. It's just

2841
05:09:31,320 --> 05:09:35,560
everybody acting independently. And then there's the emergent behavior that comes out of that

2842
05:09:35,560 --> 05:09:39,560
complex system. I'm talking about everyone who runs... I'm talking about every Bitcoin node.

2843
05:09:40,361 --> 05:09:46,521
It would behave the same after the two soft forks as it did right today, before any.

2844
05:09:47,320 --> 05:09:54,121
It'd be exactly the same. So that's the state that you say you want us to remain in until...

2845
05:09:55,001 --> 05:10:02,761
Well, I'm just questioning the timing at this point, right? That maybe in time... And me

2846
05:10:02,761 --> 05:10:08,600
actually being on this space is maybe another point in your favor that, okay, it's maybe

2847
05:10:08,600 --> 05:10:15,161
starting to attract the attention of individuals such as myself who would otherwise be uninterested.

2848
05:10:16,121 --> 05:10:21,560
Yes. But do you think that... What have I said to you? I said, this is a red flag.

2849
05:10:22,361 --> 05:10:27,001
You are asleep at the wheel. There's no way that you could possibly know

2850
05:10:27,881 --> 05:10:33,881
everything that Ethereum, Zcash, and every other project and every other 15-year-old

2851
05:10:33,881 --> 05:10:40,361
MIT genius is coming up with in their spare time. There's no way that you could possibly know what

2852
05:10:40,361 --> 05:10:45,960
all those people are doing and that it wouldn't affect BTC and compete with it and displace it.

2853
05:10:46,680 --> 05:10:51,401
And so you are the one who is making all the risk for the rest of us.

2854
05:10:51,960 --> 05:10:55,720
Well, I don't know. What do you mean for the rest of you? No, we're all acting on our own.

2855
05:10:56,440 --> 05:11:00,680
Like in our own self-interest. And if I'm making a decision, I'm doing it for myself, right?

2856
05:11:00,680 --> 05:11:05,080
Your actions delay the arrival of whatever, Bith 300, whatever.

2857
05:11:05,080 --> 05:11:09,960
Perhaps, but I'm seeing something... It takes all of us, right? It takes all of us

2858
05:11:11,320 --> 05:11:15,480
to be acting and to cause this emergent... I mean, I agree with you, but I'm saying that

2859
05:11:16,200 --> 05:11:18,440
all I'm pointing out is that it's not really...

2860
05:11:21,560 --> 05:11:29,960
It's like we face many risks already and to just say...

2861
05:11:32,200 --> 05:11:36,440
That's, I guess, what I was referring to earlier, the urgency. I mean, it seems like

2862
05:11:37,241 --> 05:11:41,161
you're trying to paint a picture of more urgency right in this moment than there actually is.

2863
05:11:41,960 --> 05:11:43,080
Like I see there being...

2864
05:11:45,320 --> 05:11:52,761
I think that... I'm trying to paint a picture of...

2865
05:11:56,600 --> 05:12:02,440
If we're not going to... I think there is something that is kind of urgent, which is that a lot...

2866
05:12:04,564 --> 05:12:08,284
I guess the other space rugged, but I made this new one.

2867
05:12:08,284 --> 05:12:10,244
I don't know if we'll still get people.

2868
05:12:11,804 --> 05:12:14,604
Probably not, but I thought I would make it anyway.

2869
05:12:14,604 --> 05:12:18,444
See if people will come in

2870
05:12:20,324 --> 05:12:24,283
to continue the conversation.

2871
05:12:25,404 --> 05:12:29,523
Someone actually had requested, and I didn't notice,

2872
05:12:29,523 --> 05:12:30,863
to speak in the last one.

2873
05:12:34,244 --> 05:12:36,044
I think I can invite people.

2874
05:12:36,044 --> 05:12:37,724
Maybe I can remember.

2875
05:13:03,564 --> 05:13:22,924
Yeah, we did go for a while.

2876
05:13:22,924 --> 05:13:24,644
It is too bad that it got interrupted,

2877
05:13:24,644 --> 05:13:26,523
but we have gone for a while.

2878
05:13:26,644 --> 05:13:31,403
So if anyone wants to say anything,

2879
05:13:31,403 --> 05:13:37,044
then request to speak,

2880
05:13:37,044 --> 05:13:42,364
but it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if,

2881
05:13:42,364 --> 05:13:47,684
it would not be the worst thing in the world if we did end it.

2882
05:13:47,684 --> 05:13:49,324
Oh, look, dude moon is back.

2883
05:14:17,683 --> 05:14:31,724
What was the last thing we said?

2884
05:14:31,724 --> 05:14:32,924
I don't even know.

2885
05:14:32,924 --> 05:14:34,403
I was saying there's a risk.

2886
05:14:34,403 --> 05:14:36,603
There's always risk. There's risk to inaction.

2887
05:14:36,603 --> 05:14:40,364
Let's see.

2888
05:14:40,364 --> 05:14:42,884
We had someone else who wants to speak.

2889
05:14:42,884 --> 05:14:47,284
Add. Yes.

2890
05:14:47,284 --> 05:14:51,284
So this is, I'm just saying you can't get out of it by saying,

2891
05:14:51,284 --> 05:14:53,004
wait, wait, wait, what about the rail?

2892
05:14:53,004 --> 05:14:58,724
We should be careful because that is also risky.

2893
05:14:58,724 --> 05:15:00,203
That is not a real, you know,

2894
05:15:00,203 --> 05:15:02,763
that's like not a real thought in my point of view.

2895
05:15:04,804 --> 05:15:08,483
Well, when you bring the time element, it can be

2896
05:15:08,483 --> 05:15:11,524
because if we aren't facing that,

2897
05:15:11,524 --> 05:15:14,043
that risk and urgency right now,

2898
05:15:14,043 --> 05:15:17,043
and maybe it ramps up over time,

2899
05:15:17,043 --> 05:15:20,323
then it can meet a point where then it makes sense

2900
05:15:20,323 --> 05:15:24,884
to seriously look at drive-sharing, right?

2901
05:15:24,884 --> 05:15:27,164
No, but I'm saying as a general principle, though,

2902
05:15:27,164 --> 05:15:29,763
I'm just saying if we, because you can imagine a situation

2903
05:15:29,763 --> 05:15:34,364
where you did face such a thing,

2904
05:15:34,364 --> 05:15:38,004
you know, such a situation where urgency wasn't,

2905
05:15:38,004 --> 05:15:40,084
like if someone bursts into the room and says, oh, my gosh,

2906
05:15:40,084 --> 05:15:42,123
it's like this whole city is burning down.

2907
05:15:42,123 --> 05:15:45,843
We need to run for our lives.

2908
05:15:45,843 --> 05:15:47,724
Well, in that case, you're actually happy

2909
05:15:47,724 --> 05:15:52,763
that the person is causing you to like panic or whatever,

2910
05:15:52,763 --> 05:15:53,564
you know?

2911
05:15:53,564 --> 05:15:55,444
I'm saying as a matter of principle,

2912
05:15:55,444 --> 05:15:57,804
it's not automatically the case.

2913
05:15:57,804 --> 05:15:59,843
The urgency has to co-vary with whether or not

2914
05:15:59,843 --> 05:16:05,084
there actually is an actual imminent problem,

2915
05:16:05,084 --> 05:16:07,243
which is very hard to know.

2916
05:16:07,243 --> 05:16:11,564
Anyway, Soshin Joyer, we'll go back to Doon Moon, of course,

2917
05:16:11,564 --> 05:16:14,203
but Soshin Joyer did raise his hand.

2918
05:16:14,203 --> 05:16:15,043
Back in the other room.

2919
05:16:15,043 --> 05:16:16,284
Hey, what's up, guys?

2920
05:16:16,284 --> 05:16:17,164
Thanks for bringing me up,

2921
05:16:17,164 --> 05:16:18,763
and thanks for continuing the space.

2922
05:16:18,763 --> 05:16:21,324
I just wanted to add to the conversation

2923
05:16:21,324 --> 05:16:24,604
about immediate demand and like aggregate demand

2924
05:16:24,604 --> 05:16:27,484
and like why, you know, potentially people might say

2925
05:16:27,484 --> 05:16:31,083
there hasn't been demand for so many years, you know, why now?

2926
05:16:31,083 --> 05:16:33,243
But like from another point of view,

2927
05:16:33,243 --> 05:16:34,923
I would say that there's actually a lot of demand

2928
05:16:34,923 --> 05:16:37,683
because you can say that people that might have had demand

2929
05:16:37,683 --> 05:16:41,484
for other type of protocols or other type of,

2930
05:16:41,484 --> 05:16:42,764
you know, protocol design,

2931
05:16:42,764 --> 05:16:44,803
they already go to other chains.

2932
05:16:44,803 --> 05:16:47,444
So you can see that like just from this point of view,

2933
05:16:47,444 --> 05:16:50,083
there's a lot of demand for an EVM style chain

2934
05:16:50,083 --> 05:16:52,204
because they just, they actually have a lot of users.

2935
05:16:52,204 --> 05:16:53,683
So you can actually say that in a way

2936
05:16:53,683 --> 05:16:57,083
that's actually demand for a drivechain that has EVM

2937
05:16:57,083 --> 05:17:00,083
or like a chain that has a lot, like a bigger block size.

2938
05:17:00,083 --> 05:17:01,884
Like there's definitely demand for that too.

2939
05:17:01,884 --> 05:17:05,724
So to say that over time, there might be aggregate demand.

2940
05:17:05,724 --> 05:17:07,403
You might also say that over time,

2941
05:17:07,403 --> 05:17:09,363
that demand is going to be very hard to upkeep

2942
05:17:09,363 --> 05:17:10,484
because those people will leave

2943
05:17:10,484 --> 05:17:12,044
and then their incentive to come back

2944
05:17:12,044 --> 05:17:13,764
is really not that strong anymore.

2945
05:17:13,764 --> 05:17:16,803
So that point of view of like why there's so many years

2946
05:17:16,803 --> 05:17:17,764
is not demand.

2947
05:17:17,764 --> 05:17:19,963
You can say that that demand actually leaves

2948
05:17:19,963 --> 05:17:21,564
and like there's no reason for it

2949
05:17:21,564 --> 05:17:22,884
to even want to look back anymore

2950
05:17:22,884 --> 05:17:26,044
because you solved their use case in a different protocol.

2951
05:17:26,044 --> 05:17:28,683
So I just wanted to give that point of view.

2952
05:17:28,683 --> 05:17:29,724
Yeah, I completely agree.

2953
05:17:29,724 --> 05:17:31,284
I think it would have been better to do it,

2954
05:17:31,284 --> 05:17:33,604
much better to do it back in 2015.

2955
05:17:34,643 --> 05:17:36,884
When someone, if someone has a thing,

2956
05:17:36,884 --> 05:17:38,403
like almost all the altcoiners,

2957
05:17:38,403 --> 05:17:40,284
there's many scammer altcoiners,

2958
05:17:40,284 --> 05:17:42,843
but there are many that are pure of heart actually.

2959
05:17:43,923 --> 05:17:47,324
And Vitalik was co-founder of Bitcoin Magazine,

2960
05:17:48,444 --> 05:17:53,444
the company that does the Bitcoin events.

2961
05:17:54,803 --> 05:17:59,764
Vitalik was a co-founder and Roger was very sincere

2962
05:17:59,764 --> 05:18:00,604
in caring about Bitcoin.

2963
05:18:00,923 --> 05:18:02,123
A lot of these people are very sincere.

2964
05:18:02,123 --> 05:18:04,204
They try to do their thing on Bitcoin

2965
05:18:04,204 --> 05:18:06,204
and they leave, they can't.

2966
05:18:06,204 --> 05:18:07,884
And so, oh, hello.

2967
05:18:11,083 --> 05:18:13,564
So, hello.

2968
05:18:16,083 --> 05:18:18,243
Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Atomback.

2969
05:18:18,243 --> 05:18:20,444
Hello, just sort of pull up, keep going.

2970
05:18:21,564 --> 05:18:26,564
Okay, I was saying that in what we would have,

2971
05:18:27,204 --> 05:18:29,884
like I was repeating something that I said to you

2972
05:18:29,884 --> 05:18:34,683
in Amsterdam last year, where I said,

2973
05:18:34,683 --> 05:18:35,843
these people bubble up

2974
05:18:35,843 --> 05:18:37,683
and they want to do something in Bitcoin.

2975
05:18:37,683 --> 05:18:40,643
They want to do their, whatever their thing is,

2976
05:18:40,643 --> 05:18:44,484
Namecoin or whatever, Ethereum type of a thing.

2977
05:18:44,484 --> 05:18:47,004
And then they can't, and then they leave

2978
05:18:47,004 --> 05:18:49,284
and they start their own coin.

2979
05:18:49,284 --> 05:18:51,963
And now kind of like, they don't really want to come back

2980
05:18:51,963 --> 05:18:54,044
because the last thing they want to do

2981
05:18:54,044 --> 05:18:57,604
is after having been rejected by Bitcoin

2982
05:18:57,604 --> 05:19:00,284
and then making it starting from scratch

2983
05:19:00,284 --> 05:19:04,243
with their own altcoin and proving the use case out,

2984
05:19:05,884 --> 05:19:09,044
after they do that, then it's kind of an insult

2985
05:19:09,044 --> 05:19:13,604
to go back to BTC as a sidechain

2986
05:19:13,604 --> 05:19:16,083
and kind of lose what you worked hard to create

2987
05:19:16,083 --> 05:19:18,484
with your own two hands in the altcoin world.

2988
05:19:19,923 --> 05:19:22,083
And so, yes, that was something Satoshi and Joy

2989
05:19:22,083 --> 05:19:24,923
was kind of touching on.

2990
05:19:24,963 --> 05:19:28,484
Because Dune Moon was saying that possibly

2991
05:19:28,484 --> 05:19:30,683
there's not very much demand for this,

2992
05:19:31,923 --> 05:19:34,243
the idea of sidechains.

2993
05:19:34,243 --> 05:19:37,284
No, just right now, timing that, you know,

2994
05:19:37,284 --> 05:19:39,843
it isn't necessarily the existential change

2995
05:19:39,843 --> 05:19:41,643
that we need in this moment.

2996
05:19:41,643 --> 05:19:43,803
And we have it, we have the idea of it.

2997
05:19:43,803 --> 05:19:46,243
It's been fleshed out very well so far.

2998
05:19:46,243 --> 05:19:49,363
And we think that it's, you know, so well-covered

2999
05:19:49,363 --> 05:19:52,484
and all the third order effects are considered.

3000
05:19:52,523 --> 05:19:55,284
Okay, well, it can have its time.

3001
05:19:55,284 --> 05:19:56,764
It just doesn't seem like the aggregate,

3002
05:19:56,764 --> 05:19:59,324
you know, emergent horde is moving towards it.

3003
05:19:59,324 --> 05:20:01,843
And that might be, you know, kind of belying

3004
05:20:01,843 --> 05:20:05,444
and underlying truth that there isn't the urgent demand

3005
05:20:05,444 --> 05:20:06,843
for it right in this moment.

3006
05:20:10,724 --> 05:20:15,083
Well, I mean, I think there's other factors too, right?

3007
05:20:15,083 --> 05:20:20,083
Like there's some features required for Bitcoin.

3008
05:20:21,083 --> 05:20:23,083
Features required for Bitcoin to enable it, right?

3009
05:20:23,083 --> 05:20:24,604
Like a soft fork.

3010
05:20:24,604 --> 05:20:27,044
And so I think that's the first hurdle.

3011
05:20:27,044 --> 05:20:32,044
For end users, they get motivated to use something

3012
05:20:33,204 --> 05:20:34,963
when it's available and integrated

3013
05:20:34,963 --> 05:20:36,404
and there's hardware wallet support

3014
05:20:36,404 --> 05:20:37,644
and their exchange supports it

3015
05:20:37,644 --> 05:20:38,923
and all this kind of stuff, right?

3016
05:20:38,923 --> 05:20:43,324
Which is the first technology has to exist, I think,

3017
05:20:43,324 --> 05:20:45,723
in the life form with a soft fork.

3018
05:20:45,723 --> 05:20:49,163
I think that's the first hurdle is to figure out

3019
05:20:50,324 --> 05:20:54,803
what path is going to make them available in Bitcoin,

3020
05:20:54,803 --> 05:20:57,404
whether that's sort of finding a

3021
05:21:00,644 --> 05:21:05,283
poor man's drivechain kind of idea with using covenants

3022
05:21:05,283 --> 05:21:09,444
or some other technology that comes for other purposes.

3023
05:21:10,363 --> 05:21:14,243
By the way, I was just reading about,

3024
05:21:16,123 --> 05:21:16,964
what's it called?

3025
05:21:16,964 --> 05:21:19,524
Something on Rootstock, I think it's called like PAL.

3026
05:21:20,964 --> 05:21:21,803
PALPEG.

3027
05:21:24,084 --> 05:21:26,683
Kind of interesting, I didn't know about this before.

3028
05:21:29,004 --> 05:21:31,084
Yeah, I think I know a little about it.

3029
05:21:31,084 --> 05:21:36,084
It is basically, it's like half drivechain,

3030
05:21:36,483 --> 05:21:39,803
half federated, and then it automatically transforms

3031
05:21:39,803 --> 05:21:42,564
from one end to the other over time or something.

3032
05:21:42,564 --> 05:21:44,283
I think, or maybe that's something else.

3033
05:21:44,283 --> 05:21:48,803
They had something where there was a sort of policy

3034
05:21:48,803 --> 05:21:50,603
that was a mixture, right?

3035
05:21:50,603 --> 05:21:55,603
Like all processing blocks, but not the peg.

3036
05:21:56,043 --> 05:21:57,803
I think they have implemented something

3037
05:21:57,803 --> 05:22:01,524
where part of the threshold is

3038
05:22:03,764 --> 05:22:07,324
HSM signers, functionaries.

3039
05:22:07,324 --> 05:22:10,004
They call them functionaries, it's the same as Liquid does.

3040
05:22:10,004 --> 05:22:13,764
And part of it is merge mining with the idea,

3041
05:22:13,764 --> 05:22:16,723
and we had some, like, I've heard that discussed before,

3042
05:22:16,723 --> 05:22:18,163
but they actually went and implemented it.

3043
05:22:18,243 --> 05:22:20,683
It's kind of interesting because, you know,

3044
05:22:20,683 --> 05:22:22,644
they sort of harden each other a bit.

3045
05:22:22,644 --> 05:22:24,764
And if the miners go crazy,

3046
05:22:24,764 --> 05:22:26,644
even 100% of miners can't do something

3047
05:22:26,644 --> 05:22:27,844
because there are some functionaries,

3048
05:22:27,844 --> 05:22:29,844
and if the functionaries go crazy,

3049
05:22:29,844 --> 05:22:33,603
they don't have quite enough signatures to, you know,

3050
05:22:33,603 --> 05:22:37,404
take the coins, it gets the peg management policy

3051
05:22:39,123 --> 05:22:42,043
without some miner collusion or something, right?

3052
05:22:42,043 --> 05:22:45,923
But the PALPEG thing seems to be newer,

3053
05:22:45,964 --> 05:22:50,964
and that is basically two parts to it.

3054
05:22:52,764 --> 05:22:54,764
First part is the merge,

3055
05:22:55,644 --> 05:22:59,243
well, there are the functionaries of HSMs

3056
05:22:59,243 --> 05:23:01,844
that are signing blocks in a threshold, right?

3057
05:23:01,844 --> 05:23:06,844
And also sort of cosigning peg outs, right?

3058
05:23:10,324 --> 05:23:14,884
And of course the functionary code, you know,

3059
05:23:14,884 --> 05:23:18,084
looks at the unit stock sidechain,

3060
05:23:18,923 --> 05:23:21,204
but the PALPEG part is that they added

3061
05:23:21,204 --> 05:23:25,444
that the merge miners are going to,

3062
05:23:26,683 --> 05:23:27,964
I think they might actually deployed it.

3063
05:23:27,964 --> 05:23:32,964
So the merge miners look at the sidechain

3064
05:23:33,884 --> 05:23:38,404
and then they instruct the HSMs whether to sign or not

3065
05:23:38,404 --> 05:23:39,564
based on hash rate.

3066
05:23:40,483 --> 05:23:44,043
So they kind of artificially have the merge miners decide,

3067
05:23:44,043 --> 05:23:49,043
and then the, but the HSM functionary block signers

3068
05:23:53,163 --> 05:23:55,483
are still double checking it, right?

3069
05:23:55,483 --> 05:24:00,084
So they won't peg out unless the miners tell them to,

3070
05:24:00,084 --> 05:24:03,564
the merge miners, but they'll also reject

3071
05:24:03,564 --> 05:24:04,923
what the merge miners are saying

3072
05:24:04,923 --> 05:24:07,243
if it's not a valid peg out,

3073
05:24:07,243 --> 05:24:09,363
like they can't see any evidence

3074
05:24:09,363 --> 05:24:12,444
that this peg out is approved on chain.

3075
05:24:12,483 --> 05:24:17,483
So it's kind of interesting addition to the mechanism.

3076
05:24:22,363 --> 05:24:25,283
Yeah, they had this, I don't remember a lot of it,

3077
05:24:25,283 --> 05:24:27,683
but Sergio wrote this post about like,

3078
05:24:28,603 --> 05:24:33,243
it's very, very difficult to steal from it.

3079
05:24:33,243 --> 05:24:36,884
And, but it's more likely to like hang

3080
05:24:36,884 --> 05:24:41,283
or become like delayed, which is a good thing, I think.

3081
05:24:42,603 --> 05:24:44,603
Well, I mean, I haven't quite understand

3082
05:24:44,603 --> 05:24:48,764
the last part of it, but one thing that occurs

3083
05:24:48,764 --> 05:24:51,163
because some users were, you know,

3084
05:24:51,163 --> 05:24:54,683
jumping in and explaining the advantages of it.

3085
05:24:54,683 --> 05:24:58,844
And they were saying that the miners,

3086
05:25:00,043 --> 05:25:05,043
sorry, that the, yeah, that the miners would prevent a theft

3087
05:25:05,884 --> 05:25:10,884
if the functionaries went rogue and colluded

3088
05:25:11,803 --> 05:25:15,923
amongst themselves and tried to take the peg out,

3089
05:25:15,923 --> 05:25:18,163
you know, try to take the peg coins

3090
05:25:18,163 --> 05:25:21,723
without there being any peg out on the Rootstock sidechain.

3091
05:25:21,723 --> 05:25:24,923
And so they were saying, well,

3092
05:25:24,923 --> 05:25:26,923
the merge miners would stop them.

3093
05:25:26,923 --> 05:25:27,844
I was like, well, wait a minute,

3094
05:25:27,844 --> 05:25:29,444
how are the merge miners going to stop anything?

3095
05:25:29,444 --> 05:25:32,603
You know, these guys are just signing a valid transaction,

3096
05:25:32,603 --> 05:25:34,923
sending it to the main chain and it'll get mined.

3097
05:25:34,923 --> 05:25:35,923
Then I was like, wait a minute,

3098
05:25:35,923 --> 05:25:37,964
is there some kind of, you know,

3099
05:25:37,964 --> 05:25:40,404
miner-activated soft fork we don't know about

3100
05:25:40,404 --> 05:25:45,404
that they're actually rejecting invalid Rootstock peg outs,

3101
05:25:47,123 --> 05:25:49,123
you know, the proportion of miners which merge mine it,

3102
05:25:49,123 --> 05:25:51,283
which I think has been quite high at times.

3103
05:25:53,043 --> 05:25:56,363
But maybe they're just,

3104
05:25:57,683 --> 05:26:00,483
if they are a Rootstock merge miner,

3105
05:26:00,483 --> 05:26:05,363
they've added to the transaction validity test,

3106
05:26:05,923 --> 05:26:10,764
of any multisig that is a Rootstock peg out,

3107
05:26:10,764 --> 05:26:12,404
that it has to be a valid Rootstock peg out

3108
05:26:12,404 --> 05:26:15,444
according to the Rootstock sidechain,

3109
05:26:15,444 --> 05:26:17,404
or they're going to not add it to the mempool,

3110
05:26:17,404 --> 05:26:19,204
something like that, I'm guessing.

3111
05:26:19,204 --> 05:26:21,964
But it does mean that if there's enough miners,

3112
05:26:22,844 --> 05:26:26,404
just some miner who is not a Rootstock miner

3113
05:26:26,404 --> 05:26:28,564
could process it anyway, right?

3114
05:26:28,564 --> 05:26:31,683
The only way the Rootstock merge miners could stop it

3115
05:26:31,683 --> 05:26:35,524
is if they colluded to orphan the blocks of any miner

3116
05:26:35,524 --> 05:26:38,283
that makes a non, you know,

3117
05:26:38,283 --> 05:26:41,884
an invalid Rootstock peg out transaction,

3118
05:26:41,884 --> 05:26:43,363
which then becomes a consensus rule

3119
05:26:43,363 --> 05:26:46,204
and could cause a fork or something, right?

3120
05:26:46,204 --> 05:26:48,084
I'm curious how it actually works now.

3121
05:26:50,723 --> 05:26:52,884
We were talking about it earlier in the other space

3122
05:26:52,884 --> 05:26:56,884
about if miners secretly activate a soft fork rule,

3123
05:26:57,764 --> 05:27:00,004
and you don't even know that the rule exists,

3124
05:27:00,004 --> 05:27:03,404
how do you know that that's not happening all the time?

3125
05:27:03,404 --> 05:27:04,723
And in fact, you may remember,

3126
05:27:04,723 --> 05:27:09,324
I asked Matt Corral that exact question at scaling three.

3127
05:27:09,324 --> 05:27:11,524
I said, what if there was a mandatory extension block

3128
05:27:11,524 --> 05:27:14,283
that was eight terabytes or something,

3129
05:27:14,283 --> 05:27:16,644
but it was activated six months ago?

3130
05:27:16,644 --> 05:27:19,844
Paul, we talked about this in Miami recently, I remember.

3131
05:27:19,844 --> 05:27:21,483
And you'd find out as soon as somebody

3132
05:27:21,483 --> 05:27:22,363
tried to do something about it.

3133
05:27:22,363 --> 05:27:24,404
I mean, if you use drivechains, for example,

3134
05:27:24,404 --> 05:27:26,884
and you put some money into a drivechain,

3135
05:27:26,884 --> 05:27:28,483
and you were secretly running this fork,

3136
05:27:29,283 --> 05:27:31,683
unless literally 100% somehow knew about it,

3137
05:27:31,683 --> 05:27:34,603
but nobody else did, which is weird to think about,

3138
05:27:34,603 --> 05:27:36,163
but okay, hypothetically.

3139
05:27:36,163 --> 05:27:38,644
But in reality, somebody that's not a part of that group

3140
05:27:38,644 --> 05:27:39,483
is gonna know about it,

3141
05:27:39,483 --> 05:27:40,324
and they're gonna see the money there,

3142
05:27:40,324 --> 05:27:41,483
and they're gonna try to take it.

3143
05:27:41,483 --> 05:27:43,163
And the only way to stop them is gonna be to reorg,

3144
05:27:43,163 --> 05:27:44,723
and then it's gonna be obvious.

3145
05:27:46,644 --> 05:27:50,524
Well, it's 100%, it's like a hypothetical edge case

3146
05:27:50,524 --> 05:27:55,324
to make a kind of a philosophical point.

3147
05:27:55,363 --> 05:27:58,564
So it's saying like, if 100% of the miners

3148
05:27:58,564 --> 05:28:02,764
secretly had activated this, some kind of rule,

3149
05:28:02,764 --> 05:28:04,964
then it would really, there would be no blocks,

3150
05:28:04,964 --> 05:28:07,444
you know, there would really not be any blocks mined ever

3151
05:28:07,444 --> 05:28:08,404
that broke the rule.

3152
05:28:08,404 --> 05:28:11,363
And so maybe you would see transaction censorship.

3153
05:28:12,764 --> 05:28:15,363
Well, I need some transactions that didn't make sense.

3154
05:28:15,363 --> 05:28:17,243
Individual users would wonder

3155
05:28:17,243 --> 05:28:19,444
why there were a bunch of coins sitting around

3156
05:28:19,444 --> 05:28:22,444
without any normal signatures on them.

3157
05:28:23,444 --> 05:28:26,923
Yeah, or like if they use like opnop9 or something,

3158
05:28:26,923 --> 05:28:29,884
they would be like, what is that?

3159
05:28:29,884 --> 05:28:31,844
Well, I mean, you could do,

3160
05:28:32,844 --> 05:28:36,043
I mean, if it was a conspiracy, you could do,

3161
05:28:38,923 --> 05:28:43,923
you know, they could share a seed or a wallet.

3162
05:28:45,043 --> 05:28:47,923
And so, you know, they're actually anyone can spend,

3163
05:28:47,923 --> 05:28:52,004
but they just look like a signed transaction, right?

3164
05:28:53,004 --> 05:28:54,283
And then there's more.

3165
05:28:57,404 --> 05:29:00,884
Yeah, the one that I had, the magic,

3166
05:29:00,884 --> 05:29:04,283
the hidden terabyte extension block is like,

3167
05:29:04,283 --> 05:29:06,964
you only put the hash in up return,

3168
05:29:06,964 --> 05:29:09,084
but it's mandatory on layer one.

3169
05:29:09,084 --> 05:29:11,163
And it's also, it has many other rules

3170
05:29:11,163 --> 05:29:13,883
that are inside the extension block that are mandatory,

3171
05:29:15,283 --> 05:29:16,604
but no one knows about them.

3172
05:29:16,604 --> 05:29:19,683
And so then in that case, no one really can see

3173
05:29:19,683 --> 05:29:22,403
that something has happened, they just see an up return.

3174
05:29:23,283 --> 05:29:24,124
Yeah, in that case it's different,

3175
05:29:24,124 --> 05:29:25,003
a secret extension block

3176
05:29:25,003 --> 05:29:27,643
because you're not actually storing any Bitcoin anywhere.

3177
05:29:29,084 --> 05:29:29,923
Yes.

3178
05:29:31,803 --> 05:29:33,163
I mean, I think,

3179
05:29:35,204 --> 05:29:37,604
well, some Twitter threads about that during the week,

3180
05:29:37,604 --> 05:29:40,283
but you could make a similar argument

3181
05:29:40,283 --> 05:29:45,283
about other uses of Bitcoin finality,

3182
05:29:46,084 --> 05:29:50,084
like timestamping or something, you know,

3183
05:29:50,124 --> 05:29:54,324
there's open timestamps and finality wall,

3184
05:29:54,324 --> 05:29:58,163
and they put checksums into the main chain.

3185
05:30:00,403 --> 05:30:03,444
Now, of course they don't, you know,

3186
05:30:03,444 --> 05:30:06,163
try to reorganize the chain if they disagree about it,

3187
05:30:06,163 --> 05:30:11,163
but I think where it gets,

3188
05:30:13,564 --> 05:30:16,124
you know, if it's actually,

3189
05:30:17,803 --> 05:30:19,444
the part where it gets tricky is,

3190
05:30:19,964 --> 05:30:22,523
if there's hidden,

3191
05:30:22,523 --> 05:30:25,324
if the miner act is soft fork,

3192
05:30:25,324 --> 05:30:27,163
is, you know, creating forks,

3193
05:30:27,163 --> 05:30:30,683
like systematically orphaning certain things

3194
05:30:30,683 --> 05:30:33,444
based on rules you don't know about, right?

3195
05:30:33,444 --> 05:30:34,444
So that's not good.

3196
05:30:34,444 --> 05:30:37,084
Like, let's say the rules have bugs in,

3197
05:30:37,084 --> 05:30:39,964
and they, you know, mess the network up somehow,

3198
05:30:39,964 --> 05:30:42,523
and then cause it to stop progressing or to fork.

3199
05:30:44,364 --> 05:30:47,003
What we see, this is the point of the soft fork

3200
05:30:47,003 --> 05:30:50,084
is that the old nodes should be indifferent

3201
05:30:50,084 --> 05:30:52,403
to whether or not if the rules,

3202
05:30:52,403 --> 05:30:54,564
it should be indifferent to the bug, in a way.

3203
05:30:54,564 --> 05:30:55,803
Well, no, but I'm just saying like,

3204
05:30:55,803 --> 05:31:00,003
one of the reasons that you,

3205
05:31:00,003 --> 05:31:03,923
I mean, the normal upgrade approach for a soft fork,

3206
05:31:04,964 --> 05:31:07,244
I mean, you know, the miner act about a soft fork

3207
05:31:07,244 --> 05:31:12,244
is a kind of, you know, Bitcoin SV kind of concepts.

3208
05:31:13,244 --> 05:31:18,244
And where they're just saying, well, you know,

3209
05:31:22,564 --> 05:31:25,043
only the miners matter, only the miners run nodes,

3210
05:31:25,043 --> 05:31:26,643
trust what the miners say, right?

3211
05:31:28,003 --> 05:31:31,124
And so, but a normal soft fork,

3212
05:31:33,084 --> 05:31:38,084
the miners are just sort of helping coordinate transition,

3213
05:31:38,683 --> 05:31:42,484
and you could almost as easily use a flag day, right?

3214
05:31:42,484 --> 05:31:45,003
And so the procedure normally would be,

3215
05:31:45,003 --> 05:31:49,724
you know, get consensus for the soft fork upgrade,

3216
05:31:49,724 --> 05:31:54,724
then hopefully lots of high value nodes upgrade,

3217
05:31:55,163 --> 05:31:58,724
like exchange nodes, wallet nodes, and things like that.

3218
05:31:58,724 --> 05:32:02,364
And once there's like human coordination,

3219
05:32:02,818 --> 05:32:11,938
that that's happened, then the miner start the signaling type of

3220
05:32:12,978 --> 05:32:19,217
activation to arrive at a coordination point where the miners will also start enforcing that

3221
05:32:19,217 --> 05:32:25,457
consensus rule. But that means that already, so then, so from that point of view, you know,

3222
05:32:25,457 --> 05:32:30,818
because the point is that the miners are not enforcing the rules, the economic full nodes are,

3223
05:32:31,538 --> 05:32:34,738
and the miners are just there to order transactions, and they could literally,

3224
05:32:34,738 --> 05:32:39,378
you know, mine random numbers, but just the hash rate would go down. And if it was invalid,

3225
05:32:39,378 --> 05:32:44,018
we rejected by the nodes, right? So it's really the case that the miners are just there to order

3226
05:32:44,018 --> 05:32:51,457
transactions. And if you have a miner activated soft fork, it's kind of, it's not that people

3227
05:32:51,457 --> 05:32:58,257
don't know about it, they're not checking it, right? So they would not, and I think I could

3228
05:32:58,257 --> 05:33:04,257
get quite confused if there's a fork or something going on. Yeah.

3229
05:33:06,338 --> 05:33:11,218
Well, you know, actually, I mean, I don't really just, I don't really agree per se,

3230
05:33:11,218 --> 05:33:16,258
because, I mean, I think that this is a modern view of the soft fork that has emerged

3231
05:33:17,057 --> 05:33:25,697
ever since seclet blockade. But I, I tried to research back into the first usage of soft and

3232
05:33:25,697 --> 05:33:32,818
hard fork, and I found it. And it was Gavin Andrews in 2012. And he said, there are, he said,

3233
05:33:32,818 --> 05:33:39,858
there are soft changes and hard changes. And he said, there are some changes where we have to get

3234
05:33:39,858 --> 05:33:46,017
everyone to upgrade. But he said, that is basically, in 2012, he said, that is basically impossible

3235
05:33:46,017 --> 05:33:53,298
now. Yeah. And he said, a soft change is one where we only need a few people to change. So

3236
05:33:53,938 --> 05:34:00,258
intriguingly, this definition of the soft fork, this soft and hard changes later became soft and

3237
05:34:00,258 --> 05:34:05,697
hard fork when it became like a network split would be something we had to upgrade, like the

3238
05:34:05,697 --> 05:34:14,177
eight megabyte Bitcoin Cash hard fork. Yeah. Upgrade the software to be on the quote, right,

3239
05:34:14,738 --> 05:34:22,977
unquote, side of the chain. And then the soft fork is just one where as long as 50% or 51%

3240
05:34:22,977 --> 05:34:30,578
of the miners enforce the fork, you, everyone will be on the same side. So it really had nothing

3241
05:34:30,578 --> 05:34:36,738
to do with even, it was like, we can activate, but you see that this whole, this whole thing is

3242
05:34:36,738 --> 05:34:42,018
completely at odds with the idea of everyone agreeing on the soft fork. It says explicitly,

3243
05:34:42,018 --> 05:34:47,858
we will never get everyone to agree. And so it's an intriguing thing. But it shouldn't be

3244
05:34:47,858 --> 05:34:52,897
surprising because remember who started the contentious hard fork drama, right?

3245
05:34:54,337 --> 05:35:00,018
Like Gavin was not, you know, was kind of a hierarchical mindset, benevolent dictator for life

3246
05:35:01,137 --> 05:35:07,697
kind of attitudes and centralized thinking, right? So that, but I mean, like procedurally,

3247
05:35:07,697 --> 05:35:13,218
in terms of the planning that went in, when people were coordinating with node operators

3248
05:35:13,218 --> 05:35:21,458
and figuring out, you know, is, is there enough deployment to encourage the miners to upgrade and

3249
05:35:21,458 --> 05:35:26,498
start signaling that that's literally how it works, right? And for the, for those reasons,

3250
05:35:26,498 --> 05:35:32,098
because if, if the miners activate and nobody else has, they can unactivate. And then you've got

3251
05:35:32,098 --> 05:35:38,257
like, you know, something weird, like a technical hard fork where not enough people are paying

3252
05:35:38,257 --> 05:35:41,617
attention to notice or something, you know, something where the consensus rules aren't

3253
05:35:41,617 --> 05:35:48,818
enforced by nodes or something, right? Which is like not providing the normal Bitcoin security

3254
05:35:48,818 --> 05:35:54,498
model anymore. So that's where, that's where it actually works, right? So it is, but it is a

3255
05:35:54,498 --> 05:36:02,018
curiosity that technically it's true that if the miners, you know, if a cabal of miners did a secret

3256
05:36:02,018 --> 05:36:07,378
miner reactivated soft fork, you wouldn't be able to detect it at all. Like they could have secret

3257
05:36:07,378 --> 05:36:12,977
keys shared between the cabals that you literally can't even see, you know, the checksums or their

3258
05:36:12,977 --> 05:36:23,138
extended data that they're sharing on the side or something, right? Well, yes. I mean, all I'm trying

3259
05:36:23,138 --> 05:36:31,457
to point out is that the soft fork as was, it was framed back in that year, which I'm not saying that

3260
05:36:31,457 --> 05:36:37,777
that should be whatever, who cares about that? But I'm just saying that, isn't it interesting?

3261
05:36:37,777 --> 05:36:41,538
I'm saying, isn't it interesting that it's actually sort of the opposite now? I'm just

3262
05:36:41,538 --> 05:36:50,737
so remarking on that. It's like a historical thing where it was considered a problem in 2012 that not

3263
05:36:50,737 --> 05:36:56,818
everyone would upgrade. Like there would, he's saying, he's saying, I take it for granted,

3264
05:36:56,818 --> 05:37:03,218
there is no consensus on anything among the humans. So what we can do is we have to release

3265
05:37:03,218 --> 05:37:10,577
a new version that's compatible. And then if there's ever a block mind that the old version

3266
05:37:10,577 --> 05:37:16,818
was totally miner centric. So it said, if we have a fork where someone breaks the rule and someone

3267
05:37:17,457 --> 05:37:25,698
follows the rule, as long as we have, you know, one active chain, one longest chain tip

3268
05:37:25,698 --> 05:37:32,258
is, you know, block 3000A and 3000B. 3000A follows the rule, 3000B breaks the rule.

3269
05:37:33,057 --> 05:37:41,297
The logic was as long as more miners have, are mining the, enforce the rule one, that one will

3270
05:37:41,297 --> 05:37:45,538
always win. Yeah. Since it will always have the longest chain and therefore the feature will be

3271
05:37:45,538 --> 05:37:52,498
safe despite the fact that many people will not be upgrading to enforce it. So I agree with you

3272
05:37:53,457 --> 05:37:58,418
in general, but I just think it's very curious the way the criterion has sort of flipped completely

3273
05:37:58,978 --> 05:38:04,577
and become, you must get the human, the criteria is almost the hard fork criterion because what

3274
05:38:04,577 --> 05:38:08,498
Gavin was saying back then, and I'm not saying whatever, whatever about Gavin, but I'm saying

3275
05:38:08,498 --> 05:38:14,498
that he's saying we can't get consensus. We can't get everyone to agree to upgrade to this.

3276
05:38:14,498 --> 05:38:17,698
If we could, we would do the hard fork or whatever, because as you know, he was,

3277
05:38:18,337 --> 05:38:23,777
he thought the cost of that was much lower than certainly I think the cost is insurmountable,

3278
05:38:23,777 --> 05:38:28,737
but it's kind of the same problem of hard forking and getting everyone to agree on the soft fork

3279
05:38:28,737 --> 05:38:32,897
are kind of very similar because they both require agreement. Well, I mean, I think the

3280
05:38:32,897 --> 05:38:41,698
problem with a hard fork, you know, even if there is like agreement to do a type of upgrade,

3281
05:38:41,698 --> 05:38:45,297
that's a hard fork. The problem is the coordination is really difficult because,

3282
05:38:46,177 --> 05:38:49,378
you know, there's lots of nodes that people won't get around to upgrading.

3283
05:38:50,177 --> 05:38:55,538
If you do a soft fork, you know, they kind of work in a degraded SPV security model,

3284
05:38:56,098 --> 05:39:00,978
but they don't get like forked off the network, all this money or get bamboozled, right? Whereas

3285
05:39:02,258 --> 05:39:10,258
with a hard fork, it would be a mess, right? And, you know, what you're saying about Gavin,

3286
05:39:10,258 --> 05:39:15,777
I think just nobody else agreed with Gavin. That's why, you know, eventually the hard fork,

3287
05:39:16,498 --> 05:39:23,297
you know, the big block drama became, you know, part of the public discussion and then led to this

3288
05:39:23,297 --> 05:39:30,737
succession of failed contentious hard forks. And, you know, in particular, I recall with one of

3289
05:39:30,737 --> 05:39:37,457
them, I'm not sure if it was Classic or one of the other ones, he was specifically arguing,

3290
05:39:38,177 --> 05:39:47,218
it's a kind of, it's a miner-centric view, right? So he's saying that a two megabyte hard fork

3291
05:39:48,258 --> 05:39:54,418
is fine. And it's not really a hard fork to clients because clients are SPV and they couldn't

3292
05:39:54,418 --> 05:39:59,617
tell the block size, you know, because they was looking at the headers and the Merkle, you know,

3293
05:39:59,617 --> 05:40:05,857
the validation that a SPV client would do wouldn't be able to tell the block size was over a megabyte

3294
05:40:06,418 --> 05:40:11,857
because it doesn't, you know, download the block generally, it's just verifying

3295
05:40:13,218 --> 05:40:17,057
some basic things, right? And so he seemed to view that as a feature that, you know,

3296
05:40:17,057 --> 05:40:22,737
miners could just change the rules. And as long as the SPV clients would be bamboozled,

3297
05:40:22,737 --> 05:40:26,818
that was great from his point of view. But everybody else thought that was horrendous

3298
05:40:26,818 --> 05:40:32,337
and was like, oh no, we need to find some tricks so that SPV clients can

3299
05:40:33,297 --> 05:40:37,537
check that then they're on the right chain. But actually, I think what tends to happen in the end

3300
05:40:37,537 --> 05:40:42,898
is that there are much fewer SPV clients, people using like different types of clients now,

3301
05:40:43,537 --> 05:40:48,417
or clients with SPVs cross-checking with another server and stuff like that,

3302
05:40:49,698 --> 05:40:51,698
and Electrum protocol, all that stuff.

3303
05:40:54,818 --> 05:40:59,458
I didn't know that. That's an interesting idea that the, it is kind of interesting in a way

3304
05:40:59,617 --> 05:41:04,898
that that would, it is a kind of advantage that the SPV people don't have to quote,

3305
05:41:04,898 --> 05:41:08,258
it's kind of a weird situation, but that's a very SPV centric.

3306
05:41:08,258 --> 05:41:12,097
Yeah, yeah. Well, but you see, like, that was his mindset. So, you know,

3307
05:41:12,097 --> 05:41:16,018
what you were saying, the rest of what you're saying about how he was describing

3308
05:41:18,898 --> 05:41:22,498
the coordination is more of the same, right? It's not like...

3309
05:41:22,498 --> 05:41:26,977
He's lamenting the inability to get all the coordination.

3310
05:41:26,977 --> 05:41:29,698
Yeah, I mean, it's just saying like, well, you know,

3311
05:41:32,097 --> 05:41:37,778
he's not worried about centralization at all. He never was, right? So, if we could simplify the

3312
05:41:37,778 --> 05:41:42,657
engineering talk by saying, well, the miners will decide. You guys can say SPV,

3313
05:41:43,537 --> 05:41:48,818
and the miners can just miner activate soft fork everything. You can upgrade if you want,

3314
05:41:48,818 --> 05:41:53,778
but it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if you have consensus or not, we'll do it.

3315
05:41:54,097 --> 05:41:59,857
These are all things that fit into hard fork drama, I would say. But I doubt, you know,

3316
05:41:59,857 --> 05:42:06,097
any of the other frequent contributors would have agreed with any of that when he said it.

3317
05:42:10,417 --> 05:42:15,297
So, I'm wondering if this is a proper way to look at it, if the miners can be thought of

3318
05:42:15,297 --> 05:42:23,217
as like paid security guards by the economic full nodes. So, if that's a good way to look at it,

3319
05:42:23,217 --> 05:42:27,378
that miners are really just like paid security guards to enforce certain rules

3320
05:42:27,378 --> 05:42:32,657
by the economic full nodes, then if the miners added on their own secret rules,

3321
05:42:32,657 --> 05:42:37,458
that the economic full nodes aren't really endorsing, then they can add those, they can

3322
05:42:37,458 --> 05:42:41,938
remove those, but they're not really being enforced by economic full nodes. So, they're kind of like

3323
05:42:41,938 --> 05:42:49,057
irrelevant. And if they added some kind of rules that, for example, were against the

3324
05:42:49,057 --> 05:42:53,778
economic full nodes, and then that chain became the longest weighted chain, I don't think that

3325
05:42:53,778 --> 05:42:58,177
would really matter either, because in the end, miners would eventually capitulate to whatever

3326
05:42:58,177 --> 05:43:05,778
the economic full nodes, their rules of consensus do, because miners will like, they might mine a

3327
05:43:05,778 --> 05:43:11,217
longer chain that's heavier. But if those Bitcoin are worthless to, you know, to the economic full

3328
05:43:11,217 --> 05:43:15,458
nodes, then eventually they would have to capitulate anyways. So, from that point of view,

3329
05:43:15,458 --> 05:43:19,217
the miners really don't have the power, it's the economic full nodes that have the power,

3330
05:43:19,217 --> 05:43:26,177
and the miners are just enforcing what the economic full nodes say. So, then if you have

3331
05:43:26,177 --> 05:43:32,258
some kind of, you know, miner activated soft fork of a drivechain, if the economic full nodes are

3332
05:43:32,258 --> 05:43:36,737
not enforcing it, then it's kind of useless. Is that a proper way to look at it? Well, I think

3333
05:43:36,737 --> 05:43:41,458
it's pretty close. But I think, you say, how do we know what it is that the economic nodes say?

3334
05:43:42,177 --> 05:43:50,818
Weirdly, the miners are kind of a part of like a weird media format where we learn what that was,

3335
05:43:50,818 --> 05:43:55,537
in some extent. But I think the security guard analogy, I use that one all the time,

3336
05:43:55,537 --> 05:44:01,938
I think that's very good. I think like, they are the security guards. The secret eight terabyte

3337
05:44:01,938 --> 05:44:06,657
extension block is like if the security guards may have machine guns and stuff, if they go off

3338
05:44:06,657 --> 05:44:10,498
in their own little closet, and they have like a poker game that has its own rules,

3339
05:44:12,177 --> 05:44:16,417
then yeah, probably it's pretty secure over there. A lot of other people don't know about it,

3340
05:44:16,417 --> 05:44:22,177
so they're not harmed by it, they don't. So, I think it's a pretty good analogy overall.

3341
05:44:23,057 --> 05:44:29,297
I do think BIP300 in particular is a very weird thing to have activate only by miners,

3342
05:44:29,297 --> 05:44:35,138
because the whole point of BIP300 is to constrain the miners, and to make it easier for the miners

3343
05:44:35,138 --> 05:44:41,378
and regular users to trust each other. So, it doesn't work as well if the miners are the only

3344
05:44:41,378 --> 05:44:46,898
ones. That analogy, I sometimes use like a dog holding its own leash. It's like, well,

3345
05:44:47,698 --> 05:44:55,297
I don't know what the point of that is. But it's also the case that, but we were bringing it up

3346
05:44:55,297 --> 05:45:01,938
for an important philosophical reason, which is this idea that you are, if you don't upgrade to be

3347
05:45:01,938 --> 05:45:10,258
enforcing the latest soft fork, then you are to quote degraded, unquote, degraded to SPV.

3348
05:45:10,258 --> 05:45:12,977
Yeah, I think that's generally the case, generically the case.

3349
05:45:14,657 --> 05:45:23,057
But the thing about that is, how do you know that you, like, are you degraded that way now,

3350
05:45:23,057 --> 05:45:30,018
like, from some other protocol, of which Bitcoin Core version 25 is only the SPV

3351
05:45:30,018 --> 05:45:34,977
version of something else? How do you actually know whether or not you've been degraded? And

3352
05:45:34,977 --> 05:45:42,097
if you can't know, then, well, is that real? I mean, I think the reason, you know, sometimes

3353
05:45:42,097 --> 05:45:50,898
miners use, like, hacked up variants of Bitcoin Core or with things bolted onto it, because they

3354
05:45:50,898 --> 05:45:57,217
are, you know, trying to optimize something or shortcut something or adding some weird feature

3355
05:45:58,737 --> 05:46:04,578
for, like, I don't know, paid site injection of transactions and stuff. There's a standard way

3356
05:46:04,578 --> 05:46:09,938
to do that. But, you know, for whatever reason, they modify it. And, like, they're typically not,

3357
05:46:09,938 --> 05:46:18,258
like, experienced Bitcoin developers, right? So occasionally stuff is, like, blown up because

3358
05:46:18,898 --> 05:46:23,217
there's some unreviewed code that's dodgy and conflicts with each other or something. And so,

3359
05:46:24,977 --> 05:46:30,338
you know, like, there's a bit 66 hard fork, which was miners doing kind of dodgy stuff,

3360
05:46:31,857 --> 05:46:38,018
just shortcut verification and things. But I think, like, one of the things I would worry about,

3361
05:46:38,018 --> 05:46:41,458
and there was discussion about this, because it's not quite clear what Rootstock has been

3362
05:46:41,458 --> 05:46:45,537
doing at different times, and there's merge mining going on, right? Whether there's actually

3363
05:46:45,537 --> 05:46:52,338
any kind of not very talked about, I mean, not like a secret cabal, but just nobody really

3364
05:46:52,977 --> 05:46:58,498
knows about it, if there is anything like that going on. So one of the main things I'll worry

3365
05:46:58,498 --> 05:47:03,458
about with that is kind of similar to the extension block idea, which is that that's

3366
05:47:03,458 --> 05:47:07,378
kind of an extension block that we don't know about. And the main risk that people don't like

3367
05:47:07,378 --> 05:47:11,857
about extension blocks is, well, whatever code is running in this extension block

3368
05:47:12,818 --> 05:47:18,818
could have accidental fork risk, you know? Like Bitcoin has had issues in the past where,

3369
05:47:18,818 --> 05:47:25,778
you know, nodes on 32-bit machines could interpret certain transactions as valid,

3370
05:47:25,778 --> 05:47:31,297
where 64-bit machines would consider them invalid. And then boom, you know, you can construct a magic

3371
05:47:31,297 --> 05:47:37,217
transaction and split the network in two, right? Divided by, you know, subdivided into 32 and 64

3372
05:47:37,297 --> 05:47:42,578
bit full nodes, for example, right? That actually, I mean, didn't turn into a fork because people

3373
05:47:42,578 --> 05:47:48,578
quietly fixed it, but that bug actually existed for a little while. And so, you know, and Bitcoin

3374
05:47:48,578 --> 05:47:54,977
has got very rigorous testing and careful review of consensus change, and even then you can make

3375
05:47:54,977 --> 05:47:59,458
mistakes between versions or between different platforms of the same thing. So the question is,

3376
05:47:59,458 --> 05:48:04,818
if somebody's, you know, put together a bunch of hidden extension block code, you're maybe more

3377
05:48:04,818 --> 05:48:12,818
worried about them, like, forking the chain, right? And creating a problem than them doing

3378
05:48:12,818 --> 05:48:16,417
something hidden, because you can't really tell if they're doing something hidden anyway. You just

3379
05:48:16,417 --> 05:48:21,698
don't want to screw things up. So that's why you want to know, like, what people are doing,

3380
05:48:21,698 --> 05:48:27,297
have a look at it, and, you know, have people review it first or something.

3381
05:48:27,297 --> 05:48:37,857
Well, I mean, so, but in that case, isn't there, there's a bunch of software that's running,

3382
05:48:37,857 --> 05:48:46,258
that does not know anything about the extension block. And so the new protocol would fork,

3383
05:48:48,097 --> 05:48:53,617
and the old nodes would be indifferent to which fork, so they would just follow the heaviest

3384
05:48:53,617 --> 05:48:58,898
rule. And it would be no different than, it'd be reorg, of course, reorg is itself bad,

3385
05:48:58,898 --> 05:49:05,698
but it wouldn't really be split, right? I mean, I suppose it's possible that it could, like,

3386
05:49:08,737 --> 05:49:14,097
and with stuff, like, appear to stop from the main chain's perspective,

3387
05:49:15,217 --> 05:49:21,058
or, you know, keep bouncing backwards and forwards, reorganizing itself, or I don't know,

3388
05:49:22,018 --> 05:49:24,258
like, it's kind of weird, right, that there are

3389
05:49:25,778 --> 05:49:33,857
trends, like, blocks in existence on two sides of the fork, based on some rule that you don't know

3390
05:49:33,857 --> 05:49:41,378
about, or it's gone haywire. Well, from that point of view, would you just see whichever chain,

3391
05:49:41,378 --> 05:49:44,977
I mean, because you don't know about any other rules that accept the rules you know about.

3392
05:49:44,977 --> 05:49:49,138
So according to the rules you know, you would just see whichever chain is the heaviest.

3393
05:49:49,138 --> 05:49:52,658
Even if you see there's, like, you know, potentially two chains going off, like,

3394
05:49:52,658 --> 05:49:55,457
you would just, whatever one is the heaviest, that would be your valid one, right?

3395
05:49:55,457 --> 05:50:00,258
Right, but I mean, let's say these are, you know, approximately equal hash rate,

3396
05:50:01,538 --> 05:50:08,258
and they're both growing longer, but, you know, the fork point is quite deep, then,

3397
05:50:09,298 --> 05:50:15,617
you know, that could have, you know, you could have sort of, I don't know, you'd be switching

3398
05:50:15,617 --> 05:50:18,737
backwards and forwards from these chains, like, all the time or something.

3399
05:50:19,857 --> 05:50:24,977
That's because the hash rate is split, not because it has anything to do with

3400
05:50:24,977 --> 05:50:29,937
why it's split in the first place. Right, but I mean, normally...

3401
05:50:29,937 --> 05:50:33,457
If it still happened today... I mean, what would that look like?

3402
05:50:33,457 --> 05:50:36,418
A really long... So they'd fight over, there'd be, like,

3403
05:50:36,418 --> 05:50:42,977
one really juicy, there'd be one really juicy transaction fee, and there are two people who

3404
05:50:42,977 --> 05:50:46,577
try to grab it, and then it would be split on who grabbed it.

3405
05:50:47,298 --> 05:50:50,737
Yeah, but I mean, maybe one pulling ahead, and then the other pulling ahead,

3406
05:50:50,737 --> 05:50:54,817
and still fighting over the same fork. I mean, normally, the chain resolves,

3407
05:50:54,817 --> 05:50:59,457
because miners give up when they see the longer chain, right? But here, they're, like, persistently

3408
05:51:02,018 --> 05:51:05,378
trying to go after the same thing again and again, right? So they'll pull ahead on...

3409
05:51:05,378 --> 05:51:08,658
They just insist that the other person is totally invalid.

3410
05:51:08,658 --> 05:51:12,418
Yeah, I mean, because that's what they're doing, because they've got some defect in

3411
05:51:12,418 --> 05:51:17,378
their consensus logic and their hidden extension block. But for the rest of us,

3412
05:51:18,498 --> 05:51:22,097
it would look odd, right? Because you're like, well, why don't they stop? Like,

3413
05:51:22,097 --> 05:51:25,217
that's clearly a longer chain. It's as if they can't see each other with blocks or something,

3414
05:51:25,217 --> 05:51:30,658
right? And they just keep mining these two parallel chains, and you keep flicking back

3415
05:51:30,658 --> 05:51:35,697
and forth between them. Depends on who's currently winning, right?

3416
05:51:35,697 --> 05:51:40,018
Well, I think that case, though, still is like, they have an incentive to...

3417
05:51:41,857 --> 05:51:46,418
Like, you see what I mean? It's a lot like the July 2015 thing, where one of them is going to

3418
05:51:46,418 --> 05:51:52,498
lose a ton of money because of the 100 block maturity rule or whatever. So some people are

3419
05:51:52,498 --> 05:51:59,217
losing a lot of money. And yeah, I guess it's kind of intriguing. That is a case where the miners

3420
05:51:59,217 --> 05:52:04,577
would prefer, if they're on the losing side, they would actually prefer that more nodes be

3421
05:52:05,731 --> 05:52:09,891
like, you know, I don't know, pulling the plug early.

3422
05:52:09,891 --> 05:52:16,131
But I don't think those miners know that they're messed up, though, right? Because they would just be,

3423
05:52:17,731 --> 05:52:25,011
you know, be like that 32 versus 64-bit previous bug. But things like that,

3424
05:52:26,531 --> 05:52:31,571
it's quite fragile. It's quite easy to make by accident if you do anything of any complexity,

3425
05:52:31,571 --> 05:52:39,170
and there's not enough independent review on it. Somebody just hacks a bunch of stuff up

3426
05:52:39,170 --> 05:52:43,571
and does this. Then, you know, I think something like that is more plausible to happen.

3427
05:52:44,690 --> 05:52:52,771
And you just get two different chains, and the nodes each are rejecting and ignoring the other

3428
05:52:53,571 --> 05:53:00,370
block. Because, you know, back at the fork point, there's a 32 versus 64-bit bug or something like

3429
05:53:00,370 --> 05:53:07,491
that, right? Well, of course, I mean, the miners never wanted to be in this scenario,

3430
05:53:07,491 --> 05:53:14,690
we could guess. And in July, the 2015 thing, they also didn't really know, right? Like,

3431
05:53:14,690 --> 05:53:18,370
they didn't know that they had... Well, I mean, they kind of triggered it because they were

3432
05:53:18,370 --> 05:53:24,451
spied mining, actually, right? So somebody spied mining something invalid, and they just kept going.

3433
05:53:25,411 --> 05:53:30,851
I guess in that case, though, the miners thought that they... That was an interesting case, because

3434
05:53:31,571 --> 05:53:35,250
the miners put themselves on their own invalid network that only contained them,

3435
05:53:35,250 --> 05:53:39,970
and everyone running a full node was not on it. Including some people who...

3436
05:53:41,811 --> 05:53:43,650
All the people who had actually updated

3437
05:53:46,370 --> 05:53:53,250
were not on that, because they knew the fork point was invalid. And so the difference in this

3438
05:53:53,250 --> 05:54:01,731
case would be the old nodes would be indifferent. I think what would happen would be,

3439
05:54:03,891 --> 05:54:10,771
since it would never be an exact tie, the old nodes, if you were on the slight minority,

3440
05:54:11,491 --> 05:54:17,810
you would notice that you would be getting... At a certain point, you would ask, you know,

3441
05:54:17,810 --> 05:54:21,890
you would like peer with the other full nodes. The other full nodes would say the longest chain

3442
05:54:21,890 --> 05:54:28,371
is some completely different chain. And then I think the nodes would throw alerts and stuff,

3443
05:54:28,371 --> 05:54:31,890
like orphans and things. Yeah, I think there were a few alert messages.

3444
05:54:33,890 --> 05:54:38,450
So they would get the alerts, at least, pretty soon. Yeah. Because at some point,

3445
05:54:38,450 --> 05:54:41,970
everyone, all the miners on the minority chain, they'd peer with someone, and they would say,

3446
05:54:42,771 --> 05:54:46,610
you're not on the longest chain at all. What are you guys crazy? And then, actually,

3447
05:54:46,610 --> 05:54:51,890
what would happen would be, wouldn't they request? Their mining node on the minority chain

3448
05:54:51,890 --> 05:54:58,050
would request, and they would think that the fork point block was invalid, and then they would ban

3449
05:54:58,050 --> 05:55:07,810
each other. Right? Yeah, maybe. Would they not? I think they... If people said you invalid blocks

3450
05:55:07,810 --> 05:55:11,970
too much, you'd ban them, yeah. But then you actually get an even more split network.

3451
05:55:12,851 --> 05:55:17,970
Yeah, it'd be very split in that case. And they would say, because they would say,

3452
05:55:18,690 --> 05:55:22,690
let's say you have like, it's split into like the top row and the bottom row, based on something in

3453
05:55:22,690 --> 05:55:28,050
an extension block. You're in the bottom row, and it's only 48%. You know, it's not as though the

3454
05:55:28,050 --> 05:55:33,330
hash rate is there or something. What would happen would be, they'd peer with someone,

3455
05:55:33,890 --> 05:55:45,011
say, oh no, you have a longer chain. They give that miner the top row. They check the very next

3456
05:55:45,011 --> 05:55:51,090
block in the top row. It would break the extension block rules. So then it would be, this peer passed

3457
05:55:51,090 --> 05:55:56,050
to me an invalid block. It would depend on if they custom coded it to deal with this scenario or not,

3458
05:55:56,690 --> 05:56:01,411
because then it would just be immediate, like 24 hour ban, I think. If someone says they have

3459
05:56:01,411 --> 05:56:07,250
a thing and they pass an invalid block. The minority chain, I think, would get itself banned

3460
05:56:07,250 --> 05:56:15,651
off the entire network immediately. And then, I don't know if that counts as the problem fixing

3461
05:56:15,651 --> 05:56:22,690
itself. That's the network of hidden extension block nodes, right? The general Bitcoin network

3462
05:56:23,970 --> 05:56:30,051
thinks they're all valid, but might disagree about the height of them with this.

3463
05:56:30,051 --> 05:56:34,291
Well, I don't think so. Well, maybe, because what I'm saying, well, in my hypothetical example,

3464
05:56:35,331 --> 05:56:38,611
they wouldn't drop the block as invalid though, because they don't know about the

3465
05:56:38,611 --> 05:56:46,291
defective extension block issue, right? Right. But what I'm suggesting is there's a mandatory

3466
05:56:46,291 --> 05:56:51,970
eight terabyte extension block in every block. And so that has some kind of hash or something.

3467
05:56:51,970 --> 05:56:57,411
That's some kind of hash code. And so that is what they hand over. They say, here's this block.

3468
05:56:57,490 --> 05:57:00,851
Unwittingly, they have no idea that they're going to hand over the hash code.

3469
05:57:01,411 --> 05:57:06,770
The miners will then look for the extension, the mandatory extension block,

3470
05:57:07,731 --> 05:57:12,770
but they either won't find it or it will be invalid. And then they want to have some kind

3471
05:57:12,770 --> 05:57:17,411
of custom way of getting this extension block amongst themselves. So they would do that.

3472
05:57:17,411 --> 05:57:21,650
They would check the extension block and then it would be invalid. And then they would say,

3473
05:57:22,451 --> 05:57:27,250
this block is invalid, right? And then they would ban it.

3474
05:57:27,250 --> 05:57:34,051
I mean, half of them would, I mean, if it was in two halves, then those halves extension block

3475
05:57:36,370 --> 05:57:42,690
miners would block each other on two halves of the network, right? Something like that.

3476
05:57:42,690 --> 05:57:47,650
I think they would. Yes. But then they will know, right? Because they'll be like...

3477
05:57:48,611 --> 05:57:53,571
But I mean, that's the normal behavior, right? So then they might just see the hash rate drop a bit.

3478
05:57:59,250 --> 05:58:03,331
Yes. It would not be a good thing though.

3479
05:58:03,331 --> 05:58:03,891
No.

3480
05:58:03,891 --> 05:58:10,291
But for average users, they would just still continue with the longest chain. And then the

3481
05:58:10,291 --> 05:58:16,851
only people really getting hurt is the miners that forked off with the less of a hash rate,

3482
05:58:16,851 --> 05:58:21,411
right? Those are the ones that would really get hurt. Because if you're broadcasting a

3483
05:58:21,411 --> 05:58:26,291
transaction, it would eventually reach both miners and it would eventually reach the miners

3484
05:58:26,291 --> 05:58:30,770
that do have more hash rate. So your transaction would get included anyways.

3485
05:58:30,770 --> 05:58:35,571
I mean, you'd have to hope desperately that it wasn't the case that someone tried to double

3486
05:58:35,571 --> 05:58:42,930
spend during this time, which you would hope that they would not. If that were the case, then yes.

3487
05:58:43,891 --> 05:58:44,690
I mean, it would be...

3488
05:58:44,690 --> 05:58:47,970
But otherwise, they would be unaffected, which would be very funny. The only people

3489
05:58:47,970 --> 05:58:50,451
who would be affected would be the 100 block maturity.

3490
05:58:51,090 --> 05:58:55,891
I mean, you would see... There'll be some confusing artifact that you'd be able to see

3491
05:58:56,770 --> 05:59:04,451
manually, right? Which is there would be somebody progressing another fork over there,

3492
05:59:04,451 --> 05:59:09,331
even though there's clearly more work chained up there. They're not converging, right?

3493
05:59:09,331 --> 05:59:14,851
It's kind of like there's a network split, you know?

3494
05:59:16,131 --> 05:59:20,530
Like they're selectively not seeing the blocks, but they're seeing the transactions or something.

3495
05:59:24,291 --> 05:59:27,490
Well, yeah, this is my other thought experiment, other than the mandatory

3496
05:59:28,210 --> 05:59:34,051
eight terabyte extension block is also, what if occasionally the miners enter an irrational

3497
05:59:34,051 --> 05:59:41,250
psychological state and they feel compelled to do a 10 block reorg? And this is just something

3498
05:59:41,250 --> 05:59:47,411
that happens. It's like, you know, when the crescent moon happens or something, they must do

3499
05:59:47,411 --> 05:59:55,810
it. And that is also kind of saying we have all been degraded to SPV of a kind of mystical,

3500
05:59:55,810 --> 06:00:01,970
unknowable full node. This is my pushing back slightly against this whole degraded SPV thing

3501
06:00:01,970 --> 06:00:10,210
is like, is that it's kind of like I agree with it. I agree with the details of it. But I think

3502
06:00:10,210 --> 06:00:18,131
like every what I'm saying is every protocol is SPV of some other protocol that we may not know.

3503
06:00:19,731 --> 06:00:25,090
So every protocol at all, you can label them all like Bitcoin Core 25, Bitcoin Core 22,

3504
06:00:26,051 --> 06:00:29,731
all of them are SPV of something and full of themselves.

3505
06:00:31,011 --> 06:00:34,131
But they're in fact, they're SPV of an infinite number of variations,

3506
06:00:35,650 --> 06:00:40,130
multiple variations of the protocol, right? So there's actually, we're always in SPV mode of an

3507
06:00:40,130 --> 06:00:44,210
infinite number of things. But I mean, if those things are not getting any hash rate, then it's

3508
06:00:44,210 --> 06:00:51,890
not really right. Because they're hypothetical things. But that's my question about mandatory

3509
06:00:51,970 --> 06:00:58,371
miner extension block or mandatory miner psychological desire to reorg.

3510
06:01:00,851 --> 06:01:06,130
Then this is putting the miners back in the driver's seat of the soft fork.

3511
06:01:07,090 --> 06:01:12,770
I don't think the mystical once in a year mandatory 10 block reorg works because

3512
06:01:14,130 --> 06:01:19,731
it could go against the incentives of the miners. Because like, what purpose,

3513
06:01:19,731 --> 06:01:22,371
what like economic gain do they have from doing that?

3514
06:01:22,371 --> 06:01:28,371
I think he's just saying they're irrational. They're crazy and they don't mind losing money.

3515
06:01:29,171 --> 06:01:33,650
But if you want to say that the miners act irrationally, wouldn't you say then like

3516
06:01:33,650 --> 06:01:35,811
Bitcoin would be broken in general then?

3517
06:01:36,371 --> 06:01:41,731
Well, I don't agree that. I'm just trying to take an edge case so that we can, you know what I mean?

3518
06:01:41,731 --> 06:01:46,130
Like when physicists say, well, what if it was a black hole that was spinning at rotating at the

3519
06:01:46,130 --> 06:01:50,691
speed of light, like what would happen? You know, I'm just trying to sketch out the edges

3520
06:01:50,691 --> 06:01:55,970
so that if we sketch out the edges, then we should have like the interior, a decent glimpse

3521
06:01:55,970 --> 06:02:01,731
of the interior. So this is what people are saying, which is that you must get consensus

3522
06:02:01,731 --> 06:02:09,010
among everyone in the world to enforce your soft fork. And then the miners upgrade to be

3523
06:02:09,010 --> 06:02:15,650
compatible with that. And if you don't do that, then it is harming the full nodes.

3524
06:02:16,371 --> 06:02:19,970
But I'm saying, if you can't really know that you've been harmed,

3525
06:02:20,931 --> 06:02:25,171
then is that a real sentence? You know, is it a real harm? Because you don't know.

3526
06:02:25,171 --> 06:02:27,970
I mean, I think the harm is...

3527
06:02:27,970 --> 06:02:35,171
If they don't know they've been harmed, then they haven't been harmed. It's irrelevant.

3528
06:02:35,171 --> 06:02:38,851
But you also don't get anything. It's also irrelevant for you because it's like if you

3529
06:02:38,851 --> 06:02:43,090
try to enforce anything meaningful, that's the only time it matters.

3530
06:02:43,090 --> 06:02:45,570
I mean, an example of...

3531
06:02:46,371 --> 06:02:51,811
An example of a kind of harm is, you know, miners started doing spy mining. I mean,

3532
06:02:51,811 --> 06:02:59,010
people know what that is. Like, to speed up the transition between when a new block arrives

3533
06:03:00,130 --> 06:03:04,691
to save the time of having to actually verify it before they build on top of it. They would just...

3534
06:03:06,611 --> 06:03:09,731
But do you think that's bad? I actually think that's a good thing. I think that's like an

3535
06:03:09,731 --> 06:03:10,371
invention.

3536
06:03:10,371 --> 06:03:15,330
Well, I mean, it's not great because they're not verifying blocks, right?

3537
06:03:16,291 --> 06:03:22,051
No, but remember, the full node... Each of our full nodes is supposed to validate the

3538
06:03:22,051 --> 06:03:28,291
block. And also, they have an incentive to get it. Like, what they're doing is they have a...

3539
06:03:28,291 --> 06:03:32,130
It's like they've invented a kind of thing that's like ASP Boost or something where

3540
06:03:32,130 --> 06:03:37,411
it instantly validates a block, but it has some failure rate or something.

3541
06:03:37,411 --> 06:03:38,770
It's like some special chip.

3542
06:03:38,770 --> 06:03:41,570
Yeah, I think it's just like their business decision.

3543
06:03:42,530 --> 06:03:43,570
Yeah, I agree.

3544
06:03:43,570 --> 06:03:46,530
It's a business decision of theirs, and if they want, they take it or they don't.

3545
06:03:46,530 --> 06:03:51,811
But I mean, I'm just saying it did have a cost, though, because like the BIP66 fork

3546
06:03:51,811 --> 06:03:52,931
was pretty dangerous.

3547
06:03:52,931 --> 06:03:58,931
Yes, but that only... But what happened with the BIP66 fork was everyone who was running

3548
06:03:58,931 --> 06:04:04,450
their own full node was completely unaffected. I guess if you ran an old node, ironically,

3549
06:04:05,491 --> 06:04:09,330
you may have been re-org'd. It depends.

3550
06:04:09,330 --> 06:04:10,450
I mean, people could have lost...

3551
06:04:11,171 --> 06:04:15,251
If those miners had done that on purpose, they could have profited from it. I mean,

3552
06:04:15,251 --> 06:04:16,931
they did it by accident because they didn't...

3553
06:04:16,931 --> 06:04:20,371
Someone did a double spend. I remember on Reddit, someone said they did a double spend

3554
06:04:20,371 --> 06:04:23,171
as a demonstration and then gave the money to whoever.

3555
06:04:23,171 --> 06:04:27,010
Yeah, so someone could lose, right?

3556
06:04:27,010 --> 06:04:32,371
But that's from a re-org, and actually, I think that is covered by the whole fact that

3557
06:04:32,371 --> 06:04:38,851
the miners who mined the longer chain and then had to go back, the longer invalid chain

3558
06:04:38,851 --> 06:04:44,691
under BIP66, those miners lost all the money that they would have... That was just a clear

3559
06:04:44,691 --> 06:04:45,731
mistake on their part.

3560
06:04:45,731 --> 06:04:46,231
Yeah.

3561
06:04:47,090 --> 06:04:51,811
So I kind of think it's still covered because the miners were not... This is actually, I

3562
06:04:51,811 --> 06:04:57,411
think, a kind of a deep part of what I'm saying, which is that... Well, I think we're both

3563
06:04:57,411 --> 06:05:04,130
saying in a way, which is the miners are trying to solve... The miners are trying to cost

3564
06:05:04,130 --> 06:05:09,251
minimize. They don't want the stale blocks. They don't want orphan blocks. So they want

3565
06:05:09,251 --> 06:05:15,010
the block to propagate as quickly as possible. They don't want to wait. They want to move

3566
06:05:15,010 --> 06:05:20,371
on to the next block. So the spy mine is a very good way of describing it because they're

3567
06:05:20,371 --> 06:05:27,330
saying, they have switched over and I'm going to switch also. But I think the lesson learned

3568
06:05:27,330 --> 06:05:34,931
from the BIP66 is actually that spy mining is really good, but it has this... But make

3569
06:05:34,931 --> 06:05:40,611
sure you have the full node validate the block. So it's like you switch over immediately,

3570
06:05:40,611 --> 06:05:46,611
but have someone somewhere validate the block in the next 15, 16 seconds and then go back

3571
06:05:46,611 --> 06:05:51,411
and kill the block if it's invalid. So I really see that as a victory of the nodes over the

3572
06:05:51,411 --> 06:05:52,611
miners yet again.

3573
06:05:52,691 --> 06:05:59,890
Well, I mean, I think they fixed their code afterwards because it cost them money and

3574
06:05:59,890 --> 06:06:01,171
they could see it was bad, right?

3575
06:06:01,890 --> 06:06:06,931
That's exactly the whole point is that it cost them money. Spy mining was saving them

3576
06:06:06,931 --> 06:06:11,811
money, earning them money, but it had this... Satoshi and Joy said it's a business decision

3577
06:06:11,811 --> 06:06:17,330
and cost benefit analysis. And now they said, this works really well. What can we do to

3578
06:06:17,330 --> 06:06:21,330
minimize this cost of spy mining? And I think that they did do that.

3579
06:06:21,650 --> 06:06:28,851
Well, I think what they do is that... I mean, they do the spy mining, they mine an empty

3580
06:06:28,851 --> 06:06:35,570
block, and then they validate the block in the meantime. If it turns out it wasn't valid,

3581
06:06:35,570 --> 06:06:39,970
they change. They start working against themselves or try to orphan their own block if they found

3582
06:06:39,970 --> 06:06:49,330
one. And they start mining transaction keys. They switch to a new block that they construct

3583
06:06:49,330 --> 06:06:49,890
from their pool.

3584
06:06:53,010 --> 06:06:58,210
Right. So that's why I say it's just that they're climbing the ladder of mining invention,

3585
06:06:58,210 --> 06:07:01,090
just making mining work better, I think, every time.

3586
06:07:03,890 --> 06:07:09,330
Yeah. And I still think that mining a block without verifying it is...

3587
06:07:09,330 --> 06:07:13,650
Yes, but actually, think about that though. You're really now... You're going ironically

3588
06:07:13,650 --> 06:07:17,171
back into the SV philosophy because you're saying...

3589
06:07:17,330 --> 06:07:19,010
Everyone will be trusting the miners.

3590
06:07:19,010 --> 06:07:19,890
No, I think what I'm saying is...

3591
06:07:19,890 --> 06:07:24,371
If no one trusts the miners, then the miners can mine whatever weird, invalid stuff they want.

3592
06:07:24,371 --> 06:07:33,090
But people... I mean, I guess the people that it hurts are the SPV users, actually. The full

3593
06:07:33,090 --> 06:07:42,130
nodes are probably not going to be affected, right? And it's probably going to be infrequent

3594
06:07:42,691 --> 06:07:47,650
because there has to be a transition or something going on for it to blow up.

3595
06:07:47,650 --> 06:07:53,491
But it's still... I mean, some people... It's an empty block as well, right? I think it has

3596
06:07:53,491 --> 06:07:57,970
to be, basically, or they run the risk of having a conflict with a transaction that's

3597
06:07:57,970 --> 06:07:59,010
in there that they don't know about.

3598
06:08:00,371 --> 06:08:05,650
Well, if you go full tilt spy mode, where you just take the exact get block template

3599
06:08:05,650 --> 06:08:10,371
from the... You pass it through completely, then I would think that's the cleverest way

3600
06:08:10,371 --> 06:08:16,931
to spy mine. Because you say, I connect... I'm a pool. I'm whoever I am. I'm whatever.

3601
06:08:16,931 --> 06:08:23,411
I'm whatever I am. I'm brains or something. I'm a pool. And I mostly... I have my own node,

3602
06:08:23,411 --> 06:08:30,851
but I also... I connect to the boundary. I connect to AntsPool. And if AntsPool switches over,

3603
06:08:32,051 --> 06:08:36,530
they switch over from one block to something else and they have the... Whatever it is.

3604
06:08:37,251 --> 06:08:43,570
I can get the HashMerkle root or something. Then I just... I try to copy their get block

3605
06:08:43,570 --> 06:08:50,851
template and I just try to swap out the combo destination. That would be the coolest thing

3606
06:08:50,851 --> 06:08:54,450
to do, is copy the whole thing. I don't know if that's possible. But you know what I mean?

3607
06:08:54,450 --> 06:08:59,890
Because you're thinking... AntsPool knows what the first block was, so they know what to do

3608
06:08:59,890 --> 06:09:05,010
in the next block. So I'll just copy them. And then 15 or 16 seconds later when you have

3609
06:09:05,010 --> 06:09:09,890
the real block... They maybe don't give you enough API to swap it. I mean, I presume start

3610
06:09:09,890 --> 06:09:16,130
on V2 does, because it's trying to help you choose your own block. But I think they just

3611
06:09:16,130 --> 06:09:24,211
give you a hash or something. Like here, mine this. And therefore you don't know enough to change the

3612
06:09:25,490 --> 06:09:32,451
address probably. You do need to know the Merkle path in order to modify.

3613
06:09:35,971 --> 06:09:40,931
So I guess you must get the Merkle path. They probably give the whole thing, but I don't actually know.

3614
06:09:41,730 --> 06:09:47,730
I think there was this idea called... I gave it a name. I called it hipster mining, where instead

3615
06:09:47,730 --> 06:09:53,730
of mining the empty block, the new block has come in. Instead of mining the empty block,

3616
06:09:53,730 --> 06:10:01,250
what you do is you... If the mempool is a certain depth, you go like eight megabytes deep and you

3617
06:10:01,331 --> 06:10:07,250
pull the lowest fees that you think it's very, very, very unlikely that any of these were in.

3618
06:10:07,890 --> 06:10:08,931
Yeah, I thought about that.

3619
06:10:08,931 --> 06:10:10,691
Very, very likely that it may be true.

3620
06:10:10,691 --> 06:10:11,250
Yeah.

3621
06:10:11,250 --> 06:10:12,451
This is like a funny idea.

3622
06:10:12,451 --> 06:10:20,370
And also, sometimes the miners have transaction accelerators. It's not a guarantee, but there

3623
06:10:20,370 --> 06:10:26,610
may be situations where they could have transactions that they're fairly sure were not broadcast or

3624
06:10:26,610 --> 06:10:26,931
something.

3625
06:10:27,811 --> 06:10:32,691
I think they would have a better success rate just mining empty, because if you're going to

3626
06:10:32,691 --> 06:10:37,411
end up finding a block of a transaction that was already included by mistake, it's just not worth

3627
06:10:37,411 --> 06:10:37,650
it.

3628
06:10:37,650 --> 06:10:38,850
It's a multiple situation.

3629
06:10:38,850 --> 06:10:41,890
So it would depend on the fees versus the block subsidy, right?

3630
06:10:41,890 --> 06:10:42,211
Exactly.

3631
06:10:42,211 --> 06:10:46,291
If the fees are really worth it, then you might. But if the block subsidy is way more, then...

3632
06:10:46,291 --> 06:10:53,971
You know what? You could mine these stupid inscription things, right? Because

3633
06:10:54,530 --> 06:10:56,051
those were done by...

3634
06:10:56,051 --> 06:10:57,730
Identified by one hand.

3635
06:10:57,730 --> 06:11:02,291
Yeah, but they were done by a miner agreement, right? So the miners were just charging them

3636
06:11:02,291 --> 06:11:08,451
and then they were... Because it wasn't a standard transaction rate.

3637
06:11:08,451 --> 06:11:14,610
Well, if you have your own private transactions that wouldn't propagate through the network,

3638
06:11:14,610 --> 06:11:16,130
then you could just add those at any time.

3639
06:11:16,130 --> 06:11:21,490
Yeah. But I'm thinking of those bigger scripters that filled the whole block. They were like

3640
06:11:21,890 --> 06:11:27,971
that anyway, because the miner itself was generating the transaction and asking the

3641
06:11:27,971 --> 06:11:33,650
user to prepay the fees, like it's a private agreement, right? So there's no transaction

3642
06:11:33,650 --> 06:11:34,451
replay risk.

3643
06:11:40,451 --> 06:11:45,091
Unless that user gave it to different mining pools, but they probably wouldn't.

3644
06:11:45,890 --> 06:11:50,370
But I'm saying that the miner itself, I think, might create a transaction.

3645
06:11:52,130 --> 06:11:54,691
They just give them a JERF and a JPEG or whatever.

3646
06:11:54,691 --> 06:11:58,530
Ah, I see, I see. Usually, I think they give them the raw transaction.

3647
06:11:58,530 --> 06:12:01,650
Okay, then they could mess with them, possibly, yeah.

3648
06:12:06,982 --> 06:12:11,982
Plus, don't they have to flag exactly which Satoshi is the ordinal or whatever?

3649
06:12:12,982 --> 06:12:19,982
That's all done on the ordindexer side. So it's just a raw transaction that's given to them, from what I understand.

3650
06:12:20,982 --> 06:12:21,982
Yeah.

3651
06:12:22,982 --> 06:12:42,982
Yeah, but so it's like this idea of being reduced to SPV, because you don't know about, you aren't enforcing the latest rule. I still philosophically, I do not wholeheartedly accept this.

3652
06:12:42,982 --> 06:13:05,982
Well, I mean, you could say if you accept the mainline view that economic full nodes are what defines consensus, and then if you are a soft fork or more behind that, then you are SPV to the global Bitcoin consensus rate.

3653
06:13:05,982 --> 06:13:12,982
And the miners are having to follow, generate blocks that are compatible with that, or they don't get paid.

3654
06:13:14,982 --> 06:13:26,982
Well, I'm not sure I buy all those completely, because I mean, think about it like this. If you were earlier talking about how SPV, they wouldn't even know what the block size was. So that's like an extreme, that's like what I think of as SPV.

3655
06:13:27,982 --> 06:13:29,982
Yeah, I just mean like degraded…

3656
06:13:30,982 --> 06:13:54,982
Yeah, but of course, we all know that like, if you would not be like, you know, you switch from Bitcoin Core version 30 to 31, it's not like the block size will have changed and you'll still be, those old nodes will still know the block size, they'll still know about whatever, the CDSA signatures and all the things will be checked except for the one new thing.

3657
06:13:54,982 --> 06:14:21,982
Yeah, I mean, I think the reason I would say you're SPV is because, you know, pick a soft fork like Schnorr signatures or, you know, one of the other things, but like, you know, to a node before the upgrade, it looks like an optro effectively, right?

3658
06:14:21,982 --> 06:14:38,982
And so, if you are accepting things that you think are optro as valid, then the miners could collude and like make you believe you've got a ton of money in invalid blocks and other people would just like calmly ignore them, right?

3659
06:14:38,982 --> 06:15:05,982
So, yeah, it is going to require burning hash rate to catch out some people, but it's plausible too, right? You know, you could have an exchange that accepts one confirmation, it doesn't upgrade their stuff very well, some exchanges are not very good at upgrading, and you could, you know, run enough hash rate to do it and then they would accept a phantom deposit which you, you know, convert to something else and take out.

3660
06:15:05,982 --> 06:15:32,982
I mean, SPV in that sense, right? And I think all SPVs are the same in the sense that, you know, it doesn't matter what it is, they would all be exploitable because you're going to accept something that was previously always true, right? So you would accept something as true that is not according to the economic majority, right?

3661
06:15:33,982 --> 06:15:43,982
Well, yes. It's funny because normally the victim would be the person whose money is being taken, but that's not what you're saying in this case. It's the person who…

3662
06:15:44,182 --> 06:15:46,962
is the who...

3663
06:15:46,962 --> 06:15:47,342
You know what I mean?

3664
06:15:47,602 --> 06:15:48,342
You would take it out of...

3665
06:15:48,342 --> 06:15:53,862
would just point at some big transaction and say, here's 1000 Bitcoin, some

3666
06:15:53,862 --> 06:15:58,556
exchange made some coins around with a Schnoorl short

3667
06:16:06,760 --> 06:16:07,960
you can

3668
06:16:07,960 --> 06:16:13,871
just

3669
06:16:13,871 --> 06:16:18,191
your exchange and they say, great, you've got one confirmation that you can trade, you

3670
06:16:18,191 --> 06:16:19,631
can trade it and take it out, right?

3671
06:16:21,531 --> 06:16:24,631
And so I think that would absolutely work,

3672
06:16:26,982 --> 06:16:35,982
The interesting thing about that is that though it does require the miners to then re-org, like it's basically similar to a re-org.

3673
06:16:35,982 --> 06:16:36,982
Well, I mean that transaction…

3674
06:16:36,982 --> 06:16:37,982
More than you would think.

3675
06:16:37,982 --> 06:16:50,982
That whole block would be invalid to the rest of the network. So you'd be intentionally making an invalid block to target for a large fake transfer some people who didn't upgrade where you can convert them to money.

3676
06:16:51,982 --> 06:17:00,982
But what I'm saying is all this does is it prevents miners from needing to take the step of having a bunch of money to double spend.

3677
06:17:00,982 --> 06:17:09,982
That's actually the only marginal value of the attack to the miners I think. I may be mistaken though because I think I've never thought of this possibility before.

3678
06:17:10,982 --> 06:17:22,982
But I think if the miners have a thousand BTC, they can deposit it at the exchange that uses one confirmation and then just re-org it out by just mining more blocks elsewhere, right?

3679
06:17:23,982 --> 06:17:28,982
Well, no, I mean I think the thing is you could… it's kind of like the Finney attack, right?

3680
06:17:28,982 --> 06:17:44,982
Which is that you could rent 1% of hash rate until you get lucky and you get your invalid block that uses a bogus opt-true to move a bunch of money you have or don't have.

3681
06:17:44,982 --> 06:17:55,982
And that you don't have and do a fake deposit. But if you've got a re-org, now you've got to be really sure that you're going to overtake the network.

3682
06:17:55,982 --> 06:18:05,982
You need to control comfortably more than 50% of the network, right? So it's a higher risk, more expensive thing. And you've got to have the money, right?

3683
06:18:06,982 --> 06:18:21,982
Well, I mean I guess. I guess I'm saying something like the miners want to defraud this exchange that… I'm saying how much of the attack hinges on the fact that the exchange is a one confirmation exchange?

3684
06:18:22,982 --> 06:18:33,982
Because the exchange is getting this money in, and it's clearly – they have some kind of cost benefit in mind when they say, well, we only require one confirmation.

3685
06:18:33,982 --> 06:18:44,982
Even though it's a big receipt. So I'm saying a parallel world where there is no soft fork confusion because that's what we're talking about.

3686
06:18:45,982 --> 06:19:05,982
It's like this soft fork degradation effect. In a parallel world, they could just have the 100. Instead of having 1,000 coins that are locked behind like an op-nop 7 that no one knows about, they are 1,000 coins that actually the miners themselves have the key.

3687
06:19:05,982 --> 06:19:17,982
It's like pay to pubkey hash and they actually have the signature for. So in that scenario, it's very, very similar. They spend 1,000. They find a block.

3688
06:19:17,982 --> 06:19:29,982
Everyone else in the world sees this block as valid, but they go back and they rewrite it, and they orphan the block. And it's a reorg attack in that case.

3689
06:19:29,982 --> 06:19:44,982
What I'm saying is you can translate this attack into a reorg attack, and the only difference is that the miners did not need to already have the 1,000 coins in their possession when they began the attack.

3690
06:19:44,982 --> 06:19:48,982
I think a reorg attack requires more hash rate though, right?

3691
06:19:49,982 --> 06:20:01,982
Well, in this – okay, so you're saying you have only 1% of the hash rate and you – yeah, I think maybe that could be the case.

3692
06:20:02,982 --> 06:20:17,982
I think it's also – you need to distinguish here rational actors of miners or irrational, because once you start introducing that miners will act irrationally, then I think that consensus of Bitcoin or rules of Bitcoin kind of break.

3693
06:20:17,982 --> 06:20:30,982
But if you're going to say that all miners will act rationally, then you have to provide economic game theory for them to actually do this, because you can say that them doing this will hurt the price of Bitcoin, hurt the price of their ASIC, so it's not a rational move for them to do.

3694
06:20:31,982 --> 06:20:42,982
Not to nip it too badly, but if miners start acting irrationally, I mean, miners are just service workers for the users who end up buying the coin they value, so users are going to pay for the coins that follow the rules that they want.

3695
06:20:42,982 --> 06:20:48,982
And if you're a miner mining some other client rules, then you're not getting paid by those people.

3696
06:20:48,982 --> 06:20:53,982
Well, this scenario is all following the rules of all nodes anyways, really, right?

3697
06:20:54,982 --> 06:21:09,982
I mean I guess it's – I mean it's sort of making invalid blocks, so the other nodes don't care. They ignore it, right? In order to catch out and upgrade.

3698
06:21:09,982 --> 06:21:20,982
It's kind of like a free eclipse attack on the exchange, because the exchange will process this block, and then it will just immediately get blown off the network.

3699
06:21:21,982 --> 06:21:26,982
But I'm still trying to figure out to what extent does it actually benefit from the fact that you…

3700
06:21:26,982 --> 06:21:34,982
I mean it's a lot cheaper, right? Because the natural – I mean everybody – no other miners will build on it.

3701
06:21:35,982 --> 06:21:42,982
So it's like a pretty much throwaway invalid block, and you could create one just by renting enough hash rate and waiting.

3702
06:21:42,982 --> 06:21:55,982
Like 1% per day should do it, and that is probably going to be cheaper and easier to achieve, because you can rent hash rate, no problem, right?

3703
06:21:55,982 --> 06:22:07,982
If you actually wanted to have very high assurance of being able to orphan a deposit, then you've got to muster like 50% of the hash rate, right?

3704
06:22:07,982 --> 06:22:09,982
But I guess you can construct other variants.

3705
06:22:10,982 --> 06:22:15,982
It's kind of silly in any way though, because if you think about it – well, sorry.

3706
06:22:15,982 --> 06:22:24,982
I was going to say you can probably repair it, your version, to be effective.

3707
06:22:24,982 --> 06:22:35,982
Which is you deposit. You try to orphan. If you fail, you withdraw again, right?

3708
06:22:35,982 --> 06:22:39,982
If you succeed, you withdraw.

3709
06:22:40,982 --> 06:22:56,982
And so you sort of – you don't lose because you just – if you fail to do your reorg, you just withdraw the coin again.

3710
06:22:56,982 --> 06:23:02,982
No, I mean of course it's going to – failing to do the reorg is going to cost you, because you're running hash rate.

3711
06:23:02,982 --> 06:23:09,982
So you might have to do 1% of the hash rate for a day until you manage to do one reorg, right?

3712
06:23:10,982 --> 06:23:25,982
I think you need a lot of hash rate in every case, because even in the case where you – from the point of view of the exchange's old node, it will see one block paying it.

3713
06:23:25,982 --> 06:23:38,982
But if you are not on the longest chain, that – I mean what I'm trying to say is the old exchange node, it's open-minded to the new nodes that actually enforce the rules.

3714
06:23:38,982 --> 06:23:42,982
Oh yeah. It won't believe it for very long, right?

3715
06:23:42,982 --> 06:23:48,982
Right. So actually you do need a – you need like 51% hash rate in a way or something.

3716
06:23:48,982 --> 06:23:53,982
Or you need an exchange that accepts one confirmation, which is why I used that example, right?

3717
06:23:53,982 --> 06:23:55,982
Yeah, which is why they don't really do that.

3718
06:23:55,982 --> 06:24:00,982
I mean some accept not very much, because it's sort of competitive.

3719
06:24:01,982 --> 06:24:02,982
Yeah.

3720
06:24:02,982 --> 06:24:05,982
But three is pretty different than one.

3721
06:24:05,982 --> 06:24:06,982
Yeah.

3722
06:24:06,982 --> 06:24:11,982
I think they probably cut it. Well, it's like it's the same thing as anything else.

3723
06:24:12,982 --> 06:24:19,982
But I mean you can – I mean the exchange is just an example of how somebody could create mischief and still with it, right?

3724
06:24:19,982 --> 06:24:32,982
There are scammers that would probably figure out a way to do something with it by persuading somebody to do something irreversible based on one confirmation, right?

3725
06:24:33,982 --> 06:24:38,982
But that's what I'm trying to say is, is it actually just a reorg attack?

3726
06:24:38,982 --> 06:24:42,982
Like if it's – does it just hinge on confirmation logic?

3727
06:24:42,982 --> 06:24:45,982
You see what I mean? If it hinges on confirmation logic –

3728
06:24:45,982 --> 06:24:50,982
I think it's the same, yeah. I think it's the same basically as any reorg, even without like older nodes.

3729
06:24:50,982 --> 06:24:52,982
Yeah, I think the logic goes the same over there.

3730
06:24:53,982 --> 06:25:08,982
Because if I could just pin it all on the reorg thing, then I'm back in business with saying that there is no degradation, because this is just like a fictional degradation that is unknowable, kind of, for what I'm thinking about.

3731
06:25:09,982 --> 06:25:27,982
See, because it's kind of like saying we will pay them, but then the old node – it's because the old node is indifferent that the old node will accept the longest chain that has a different conflicting history for that opt true.

3732
06:25:27,982 --> 06:25:39,982
So that is exactly why it actually goes back to the Gavin Andresen era definition where they are indifferent, and then they will be following the miners.

3733
06:25:39,982 --> 06:25:51,982
So it is FPV in that sense, but it's the idea of if the miners are – this is because the whole – the question kind of is going in a couple different circles and doubling back on itself.

3734
06:25:52,982 --> 06:26:02,982
Because the soft fork is saying you're indifferent between two rule sets, but you're never indifferent on whether or not you follow the longest chain.

3735
06:26:02,982 --> 06:26:13,982
So it's kind of by definition the soft fork is saying whichever majority hash rate pick is the longest chain.

3736
06:26:13,982 --> 06:26:19,982
And that is why I find it so curious that this definition has flipped around and has become something else.

3737
06:26:21,982 --> 06:26:30,982
Not that I'm – I don't complain about that. I actually think it's fine for definitions to change or whatever. I'm not trying to say the old definition can stand, but I am saying…

3738
06:26:30,982 --> 06:26:41,982
I'm arguing that that old definition was a Gavin fork of people's views that everybody else immediately rejected.

3739
06:26:42,982 --> 06:26:53,982
Well, I think Gavin had a lot of views that people rejected. I agree with that. But I think this was the old understanding that you couldn't get everyone to upgrade.

3740
06:26:54,982 --> 06:27:02,982
And so what you would do is you would release a new version where people were indifferent between following the rules or not.

3741
06:27:02,982 --> 06:27:12,982
And then it's exactly because of that fact that whichever chain the miners were on was the chain that everyone was on.

3742
06:27:12,982 --> 06:27:20,982
And if the miners then upgraded, then the whole network upgraded. And that was – and I think that wasn't just Gavin I think, but I don't know.

3743
06:27:20,982 --> 06:27:35,982
I'm not sure because I wasn't paying attention at the time. I wasn't using Bitcoin or reading IFC and stuff when some of these really old forks were done.

3744
06:27:36,982 --> 06:27:51,982
But you'd want to ask some of the developers that were active, like Luke Dashjr or Greg Maxwell and people like that, how did that upgrade happen in practice?

3745
06:27:52,982 --> 06:28:12,982
Because the concept that they would try to talk to people running economic nodes and make sure they upgraded before they would ask miners to upgrade and then figure out an activation schedule, that was around since at least 2013.

3746
06:28:13,982 --> 06:28:27,982
Because I've heard people talking about it, but it probably was around a few years before as well, right? And you're only talking about that kind of timeframe. When Gavin was talking about this, it was probably what, 2012 or something?

3747
06:28:28,982 --> 06:28:38,982
Yes. This idea of the soft and hard chain was 2012, and then it was October, I think, 2012 when someone made a big glossary.

3748
06:28:39,982 --> 06:29:04,982
Because I was just researching the history of this idea. But it's true that you're right that the soft fork miners were not seen necessarily as causing the soft fork to happen per se, so much as it was saying this is the date at which we now know that enough other people have supported.

3749
06:29:05,982 --> 06:29:28,982
It was kind of something like, when is the soft fork activated? Okay, when 95% BIP-9 or whatever. And there were like in 2013, Gavin YOLO'd one or two of those. I think was it Pagescript-Hash was just YOLO'd on a day or something? And that's why that's the one that is half broken or something.

3750
06:29:28,982 --> 06:29:33,982
something one of them has like the I mean that was the extra That was a lesson in how

3751
06:29:33,982 --> 06:29:37,052
not to reach technical consensus that whole saga. Yeah.

3752
06:29:40,822 --> 06:29:41,497
And then

3753
06:29:41,537 --> 06:29:43,197
we were stuck with that for a very long time.

3754
06:29:43,477 --> 06:29:46,277
servers still are because who uses Pay to Witness, Cryptash?

3755
06:29:46,997 --> 06:29:49,417
Maybe some people do, I'm sure people do, but I don't.

3756
06:29:49,737 --> 06:29:51,657
used the regular Cray Multistink.

3757
06:29:53,117 --> 06:29:54,012
So I don't

3758
06:29:59,982 --> 06:30:05,982
Which was the first soft fork Google searches jammed up with stupid contentious forks?

3759
06:30:07,982 --> 06:30:13,982
I know a typical one. BitMEX Research has a table that is, I don't think I fully agree, but it's very good. Find the BitMEX Research.

3760
06:30:14,982 --> 06:30:19,982
But I'm not looking for network split type forks. I mean soft fork upgrades.

3761
06:30:20,982 --> 06:30:24,982
The first planned soft fork was the block-hiding coinbase, I think.

3762
06:30:25,982 --> 06:30:28,982
Oh no, I think that's pretty late, I think.

3763
06:30:28,982 --> 06:30:42,982
Socially himself did a few. And in particular, my belief is that changing the longest chain to the heaviest chain is theoretically a hard fork. And it's also, the up-and-up is also theoretically a hard fork.

3764
06:30:42,982 --> 06:30:44,982
That is a for sure a hard fork.

3765
06:30:45,982 --> 06:30:47,982
People do not follow that chain.

3766
06:30:48,982 --> 06:31:01,982
And then when would it have become problematic for the first time? I don't know, but definitely a block. Maybe it is block-hiding. I don't think so. I thought that was a different topic.

3767
06:31:02,982 --> 06:31:05,982
BitMEX has a thing for a hard fork, though.

3768
06:31:05,982 --> 06:31:14,982
There's a cool table. And there was, I think, no duplicate transactions? When was that? I don't know, but I don't really remember. This is going to be funny.

3769
06:31:14,982 --> 06:31:20,982
Everyone look it up on BitMEX and then laugh at us if we try that.

3770
06:31:20,982 --> 06:31:24,982
Yeah, I have the article already. I'm going to read it now.

3771
06:31:25,982 --> 06:31:30,982
Maybe I'll try to find something on BitMEX research. History of soft forks or something.

3772
06:31:30,982 --> 06:31:34,982
Well, Satoshi disabled the upper-variant calls.

3773
06:31:34,982 --> 06:31:35,982
Oh yeah, that's it.

3774
06:31:35,982 --> 06:31:37,982
That will be a soft fork, though.

3775
06:31:37,982 --> 06:31:43,982
That is a hilarious mistake, right? It's like op fork the network. Oops.

3776
06:31:44,982 --> 06:31:48,982
If you just use it, you've spontaneously forked the network.

3777
06:31:50,982 --> 06:31:59,982
It's a very strange one, because it seems to imply that Satoshi...

3778
06:32:01,850 --> 06:32:06,350
wanted... Satoshi seems to have... I think he made a mistake.

3779
06:32:06,850 --> 06:32:12,350
But that part of it, I think he's thinking, oh, I can make it so that different versions...

3780
06:32:12,850 --> 06:32:20,350
Different versions will... It's kind of like a sidechain-y kind of weird idea, where we can have multiple interoperable versions somehow.

3781
06:32:20,850 --> 06:32:24,350
I think he didn't really quite think it through. Because it's like...

3782
06:32:24,350 --> 06:32:30,850
I mean, you're sure he wasn't just thinking, oh, let's make the version available on the stack in case someone wants to write a program using it.

3783
06:32:31,350 --> 06:32:35,850
Yeah, I guess that's probably what he thought. He probably thought, well...

3784
06:32:36,350 --> 06:32:40,850
I mean, he was really right, though, because he made all this stuff available and then he soft forked it all out.

3785
06:32:41,350 --> 06:32:43,850
He deleted it all. So he was right to do it.

3786
06:32:44,350 --> 06:32:47,850
And the one thing he missed, he didn't put the op nops. He didn't actually...

3787
06:32:48,350 --> 06:32:50,850
So it's kind of funny, he had to put the op nops later.

3788
06:32:51,850 --> 06:32:57,350
Kind of an interesting... Definitely an interesting... Definitely a brilliant guy.

3789
06:32:57,850 --> 06:33:05,350
But yeah, that's kind of a funny... Well, then there was that horrible bug with op equal or something.

3790
06:33:05,850 --> 06:33:07,350
I don't know about that one.

3791
06:33:07,850 --> 06:33:11,350
Apriton, maybe? Apriton called you to spend any...

3792
06:33:11,850 --> 06:33:13,350
Yeah, you could spend anyone else's money.

3793
06:33:13,850 --> 06:33:14,350
No.

3794
06:33:14,850 --> 06:33:16,350
That didn't work.

3795
06:33:17,350 --> 06:33:24,850
If I read the table correctly, that was the first soft fork to disable the OP_RETURN.

3796
06:33:26,350 --> 06:33:30,850
And what did OP_RETURN do? To just take any coin, basically?

3797
06:33:32,350 --> 06:33:35,850
It would just exit the script, as far as I understand.

3798
06:33:36,350 --> 06:33:37,850
It immediately...

3799
06:33:38,350 --> 06:33:41,850
Yeah, and if there's anything on the stack, it's true.

3800
06:33:41,850 --> 06:33:42,350
So...

3801
06:33:44,850 --> 06:33:51,350
I'm not actually certain, but I think it's the modern usage of OP_RETURN as something that you never...

3802
06:33:51,850 --> 06:33:53,350
I think it's like accidental.

3803
06:33:55,850 --> 06:33:58,350
Well, then you reuse the code for something else.

3804
06:33:59,850 --> 06:34:03,350
But the original purpose was to just exit the script.

3805
06:34:03,850 --> 06:34:09,350
So if you just push a 1 to the stack and just exit immediately, then you could spend any output.

3806
06:34:11,850 --> 06:34:15,350
But the new purpose is embedding data, I suppose.

3807
06:34:16,850 --> 06:34:17,350
Yeah.

3808
06:34:21,850 --> 06:34:29,350
Bitmex research said that it counted as soft fork when they disabled the 14 other...

3809
06:34:29,850 --> 06:34:34,350
They disabled OP_CAT and disabled other things.

3810
06:34:35,350 --> 06:34:36,850
The sigops limit...

3811
06:34:41,350 --> 06:34:43,850
From 2010, they say that's a soft fork.

3812
06:34:44,350 --> 06:34:46,850
And the 1MB block size limit, of course.

3813
06:34:47,350 --> 06:34:49,850
July 19th, 2010.

3814
06:34:53,350 --> 06:34:55,850
But these aren't real soft forks. These aren't really anything.

3815
06:34:56,350 --> 06:34:59,850
I'm sorry, I was going to guess this, but I didn't guess it.

3816
06:35:00,350 --> 06:35:01,850
Instead, I looked it up, and I wished I had.

3817
06:35:01,850 --> 06:35:09,350
The first soft fork that seems to be real is disabling any transaction having the same TXID.

3818
06:35:09,850 --> 06:35:11,350
With the two exceptions.

3819
06:35:11,850 --> 06:35:14,350
That one is like in 2012.

3820
06:35:14,850 --> 06:35:18,350
But it's not really an upgrade, but it's a real thing.

3821
06:35:19,850 --> 06:35:23,350
Oh, and this one, pay to script batch is April 2012.

3822
06:35:23,850 --> 06:35:27,350
And this is the... Was this the YOLO'd? This is the YOLO'd one.

3823
06:35:28,350 --> 06:35:32,850
But it's 55% hash threshold.

3824
06:35:33,350 --> 06:35:33,850
Which... I mean...

3825
06:35:34,350 --> 06:35:36,850
Yeah, exactly. There's no threshold for that one.

3826
06:35:37,350 --> 06:35:40,850
I'm trying to recall if it's... I think it also had some same speeds, if I'm not mistaken.

3827
06:35:41,350 --> 06:35:47,850
You are right. March 2013, it is BIP34. Require the coinbase to include the block height.

3828
06:35:48,350 --> 06:35:53,850
That is the first one to use the 95%, which I thought was... I think of as a normal soft fork.

3829
06:35:53,850 --> 06:35:54,350
Yeah.

3830
06:35:55,850 --> 06:35:58,350
Which no one else does now, but that's fine.

3831
06:36:00,850 --> 06:36:05,350
Well, I mean, some of the other ones, did they not have miner signaling, I'm guessing?

3832
06:36:07,850 --> 06:36:14,350
They did not. Well, pay to script batch had 55% miner signaling, but there was something very funny happened,

3833
06:36:14,850 --> 06:36:18,350
where they kept moving the date because not enough miners had upgraded.

3834
06:36:18,850 --> 06:36:22,350
So, it was a little... It was very ad hoc.

3835
06:36:24,850 --> 06:36:31,350
But then this 95% thing was supposed to be used by BIP66 and other things.

3836
06:36:31,850 --> 06:36:38,350
Check lock time verify, relative lock time, check sequence verify.

3837
06:36:39,350 --> 06:36:55,850
So, I guess, despite the hidden extension block for experiment, it's going to be bad not to do things that way.

3838
06:36:56,350 --> 06:37:06,850
You know, it's just like an experiment to explore the possibility and the security implications and stuff like that.

3839
06:37:07,850 --> 06:37:16,350
And maybe to use the argument, like, if you can't tell, then philosophically, should anybody care?

3840
06:37:16,850 --> 06:37:20,350
If disclosed things are done that way or something.

3841
06:37:21,350 --> 06:37:29,850
But presumably, the mainline way to do it is to, you know,

3842
06:37:31,350 --> 06:37:40,850
either find consensus for the drivechain codes to enable drivechains and other things like it,

3843
06:37:41,850 --> 06:37:52,350
or to figure out a way to implement a drivechain variant using some existing or new opcodes that are added for other purposes,

3844
06:37:52,850 --> 06:37:56,350
like covenants, we were saying, might be able to do it, right?

3845
06:37:59,850 --> 06:38:04,350
Well, yes. I mean, I also said this at Scionic 3, when we were in that group.

3846
06:38:04,350 --> 06:38:11,850
I was like, well, theoretically, if the software were released,

3847
06:38:12,350 --> 06:38:17,850
then there would be no way of stopping miners from doing either a drivechain or an extension block.

3848
06:38:19,350 --> 06:38:23,850
And so I was like, mulling that over also, like, what does that mean exactly?

3849
06:38:24,850 --> 06:38:40,350
Um, well, wasn't, I mean, 1.4.8 and all that stuff, wasn't that related to this kind of concept?

3850
06:38:42,850 --> 06:38:51,350
Like, a user-activated soft fork was actually a sort of veto of a miner unilateral action, right?

3851
06:38:51,350 --> 06:38:56,850
Do this or else you'll fork yourself off the network when you do that thing, kind of thing, right?

3852
06:38:57,350 --> 06:39:00,850
Because it was public, and people didn't agree with it.

3853
06:39:02,350 --> 06:39:08,850
Yeah, I agree that, well, in that case, the miners, I think the miners kind of knew that they weren't doing the right thing, actually.

3854
06:39:09,350 --> 06:39:10,850
I wonder if you agree with that or not.

3855
06:39:11,350 --> 06:39:16,850
But I think that they kind of, like, knew that they didn't really feel that SegWit was bad for Bitcoin, right?

3856
06:39:17,850 --> 06:39:24,350
They were just holding it hostage to try and get this other thing that someone told them they should want, that they believed.

3857
06:39:24,850 --> 06:39:25,350
It seemed like.

3858
06:39:25,850 --> 06:39:27,350
That's my interpretation.

3859
06:39:27,850 --> 06:39:31,350
You know what I mean? Like, it wasn't like they were thinking, if we put SegWit,

3860
06:39:31,850 --> 06:39:35,350
then how interesting would it have been if instead they had said something like,

3861
06:39:35,850 --> 06:39:42,350
SegWit is a block size increase from one to four megabytes, and we don't want to do that or something.

3862
06:39:42,850 --> 06:39:43,350
That would be...

3863
06:39:43,850 --> 06:39:44,350
Yeah.

3864
06:39:44,350 --> 06:39:51,850
But they didn't actually have a belief about the, you know, like, they had like a common,

3865
06:39:52,350 --> 06:39:56,850
they had a conception of the public good, you know what I mean? Like, what is best for Bitcoin?

3866
06:39:57,350 --> 06:40:01,850
And they thought, they didn't really think SegWit is bad for Bitcoin.

3867
06:40:02,350 --> 06:40:07,850
They thought, we can hold SegWit hostage, if we just hold SegWit hostage for a short time,

3868
06:40:08,850 --> 06:40:14,350
soon we'll have SegWit and the quote two megabytes block size increase or whatever.

3869
06:40:14,850 --> 06:40:19,350
Yeah, for some reason, I mean, I don't think originally they cared either way.

3870
06:40:19,850 --> 06:40:23,350
They just wanted Bitcoin developers to figure something out.

3871
06:40:23,850 --> 06:40:32,350
But for some reason, it became fixated on, you know, it had to be a hard fork.

3872
06:40:32,850 --> 06:40:36,350
Like, they would have taken a two megabyte hard fork or a two megabyte soft fork.

3873
06:40:36,350 --> 06:40:40,850
They really wanted the hard fork for no logical reason, right?

3874
06:40:41,350 --> 06:40:43,850
I don't know why. I've tried to figure that out.

3875
06:40:44,350 --> 06:40:49,850
I think it's utterly perplexing, and I have tried very hard to figure out why that is.

3876
06:40:50,350 --> 06:40:54,850
I think you and I have talked about it too before, which is that maybe it had something to do with

3877
06:40:55,350 --> 06:40:56,850
what you just said about Gavin was saying.

3878
06:40:57,350 --> 06:41:00,850
Like, maybe like the way BitPay or someone, one of these people has set up,

3879
06:41:01,350 --> 06:41:02,850
it's like their software would work.

3880
06:41:02,850 --> 06:41:04,350
But that doesn't really make any sense, right?

3881
06:41:04,850 --> 06:41:10,350
Because surely they just run the Bitcoin node and then they have like RPC access to it.

3882
06:41:10,850 --> 06:41:14,350
So I don't know. I find that perplexing. I find it very strange.

3883
06:41:14,850 --> 06:41:16,350
But I've been trying to figure that too.

3884
06:41:16,850 --> 06:41:18,350
Why did they care so much about it being a hard fork?

3885
06:41:18,850 --> 06:41:22,350
The thing, and especially why did miners care about it being a hard fork?

3886
06:41:22,850 --> 06:41:27,350
Where their power is reduced like minus 99.9%.

3887
06:41:28,350 --> 06:41:36,850
As I was just explaining, with the soft fork they have an enormous ability to actually affect or disrupt the thing.

3888
06:41:37,350 --> 06:41:42,850
With the hard fork, it doesn't make sense to me personally. I don't know why.

3889
06:41:43,350 --> 06:41:44,850
I've tried to figure it out for a long time.

3890
06:41:45,350 --> 06:41:47,850
I find it one of the greatest mysteries in all of Bitcoin.

3891
06:41:48,350 --> 06:41:49,850
Why did they do that?

3892
06:41:50,350 --> 06:41:51,850
I mean, I don't think they originally cared.

3893
06:41:52,850 --> 06:41:55,350
I think it was like, you know, various...

3894
06:41:55,850 --> 06:42:04,350
Because the people that were proposing the forks were portraying it that they had lots of users and that it was good for Bitcoin.

3895
06:42:04,850 --> 06:42:08,350
And so they lobbied the miners to make it so.

3896
06:42:08,850 --> 06:42:13,350
So I think the miners were kind of playing along with these other guys,

3897
06:42:13,350 --> 06:42:25,850
kind of business-led, let's pivot Bitcoin into a bit more centralized sort of micropayments kind of system.

3898
06:42:26,350 --> 06:42:29,850
And it was easier for them because they didn't have to upgrade software.

3899
06:42:30,350 --> 06:42:31,850
And you can see it afterwards.

3900
06:42:32,350 --> 06:42:36,850
The companies that upgraded to SegWit and even...

3901
06:42:37,350 --> 06:42:40,850
The people that wanted the big blocks were the last to use them by SegWit.

3902
06:42:41,350 --> 06:42:42,850
Let's put it that way, right?

3903
06:42:44,350 --> 06:42:47,850
Well, I find it, as I've mentioned a couple of times,

3904
06:42:48,350 --> 06:42:52,850
I find it absolutely fascinating that in December 2015 at Scaling 2,

3905
06:42:53,350 --> 06:42:55,850
the miners seemed clearly not to care at all one bit.

3906
06:42:56,350 --> 06:43:01,850
Anyone can go and watch the miner stage or whatever from Scaling 2,

3907
06:43:02,350 --> 06:43:06,850
and the miners clearly have, first of all, no idea of what any of the issues are or what they're talking about,

3908
06:43:07,350 --> 06:43:08,850
but they're very innocent in a way.

3909
06:43:09,350 --> 06:43:11,850
And they also are very annoyed that no one is telling them what to do.

3910
06:43:11,850 --> 06:43:13,350
Someone literally says at some point,

3911
06:43:13,850 --> 06:43:16,350
they said, can someone just tell us what to do?

3912
06:43:16,850 --> 06:43:19,350
Someone literally says that like exact sentence.

3913
06:43:19,850 --> 06:43:22,350
And so that is a very peculiar thing.

3914
06:43:22,850 --> 06:43:24,350
I've wondered about that a lot.

3915
06:43:24,850 --> 06:43:30,350
And I actually, I think the only explanation is that the people pushing for a hard fork

3916
06:43:30,850 --> 06:43:32,350
didn't really know the difference between,

3917
06:43:32,850 --> 06:43:35,350
didn't know all the differences between this hard and soft fork.

3918
06:43:35,850 --> 06:43:38,350
Because I think if they had a more fully informed choice,

3919
06:43:38,350 --> 06:43:44,850
they would have gone with the soft fork extension block or whatever that JJ was doing from Perth, right?

3920
06:43:45,350 --> 06:43:49,850
That was like their one-shot KO of just instantly winning the block size block,

3921
06:43:50,350 --> 06:43:50,850
which they never took.

3922
06:43:51,350 --> 06:43:51,850
Baffling.

3923
06:43:52,350 --> 06:43:53,850
It was a baffling decision.

3924
06:43:54,350 --> 06:43:54,850
Right.

3925
06:43:55,350 --> 06:44:00,850
One of the things that sort of rapidly changed their minds about the desirability of a hard fork,

3926
06:44:01,850 --> 06:44:09,350
some not long after that was Ethereum actually had one.

3927
06:44:09,850 --> 06:44:12,350
You know, the Dow rollback.

3928
06:44:12,850 --> 06:44:17,350
And they thought that was really scary and didn't want to see that happen in Bitcoin.

3929
06:44:17,850 --> 06:44:18,350
Yeah.

3930
06:44:18,850 --> 06:44:23,350
That was minus 60% of the Ethereum price in like a single day or something funny like that.

3931
06:44:23,850 --> 06:44:25,350
And then the thing they remember,

3932
06:44:26,350 --> 06:44:28,850
had that way of sort of fixing it with a soft fork.

3933
06:44:29,350 --> 06:44:30,850
But that also broke.

3934
06:44:31,350 --> 06:44:32,850
So they were going to drain the attacker's money.

3935
06:44:33,350 --> 06:44:35,850
But then that also led to a fork.

3936
06:44:36,350 --> 06:44:40,850
They had a fun 30 days of just kind of chaotic nonsense.

3937
06:44:43,350 --> 06:44:43,850
You know, that was fun.

3938
06:44:44,350 --> 06:44:44,850
Slocket.

3939
06:44:45,350 --> 06:44:45,850
Oh, man.

3940
06:44:46,350 --> 06:44:46,850
Slocket.

3941
06:44:47,350 --> 06:44:47,850
Slocket.

3942
06:44:48,350 --> 06:44:48,850
The rest of the day.

3943
06:44:52,350 --> 06:44:53,850
The Ethereum bike lock.

3944
06:44:54,850 --> 06:44:56,350
Just babbling in so many ways.

3945
06:44:56,850 --> 06:44:58,350
Yeah, that was fun.

3946
06:44:58,850 --> 06:45:01,350
That was a fun month or whatever that was.

3947
06:45:01,850 --> 06:45:03,350
That was really weird.

3948
06:45:04,850 --> 06:45:10,350
And I think that was the Ethereum peak in terms of like ETH BTC ratio or something.

3949
06:45:10,850 --> 06:45:11,350
Something like that.

3950
06:45:11,850 --> 06:45:12,350
I don't know if that...

3951
06:45:12,850 --> 06:45:14,350
No one told me that.

3952
06:45:14,850 --> 06:45:17,350
I remember though the peak was a while ago.

3953
06:45:17,850 --> 06:45:19,350
And then it has never...

3954
06:45:19,850 --> 06:45:22,350
I think the peak might have happened like a few months after that.

3955
06:45:22,350 --> 06:45:23,850
But like close to it.

3956
06:45:24,350 --> 06:45:26,850
They got over the slocket.

3957
06:45:27,350 --> 06:45:27,850
The Dow.

3958
06:45:28,350 --> 06:45:31,850
Yeah, because after that was like when the bull market started to come around.

3959
06:45:32,350 --> 06:45:33,850
And the whole ICO started to come around.

3960
06:45:34,350 --> 06:45:35,850
And I think that's when the peak happened.

3961
06:45:36,350 --> 06:45:39,850
You know, actually, I think even though I just laughed at that.

3962
06:45:40,350 --> 06:45:45,850
I'm now going to tell a very unscientific just-so story and pretend like I...

3963
06:45:46,350 --> 06:45:49,850
What I'm thinking, the narrative that I could throw out there is that...

3964
06:45:49,850 --> 06:45:55,350
Because one thing I've always believed is that the reason why it was Ethereum and not some of these other...

3965
06:45:55,850 --> 06:45:59,350
Like member bit shares and remember whatever, NXT or something.

3966
06:45:59,850 --> 06:46:01,350
So like why Ethereum?

3967
06:46:01,850 --> 06:46:07,350
Ethereum kind of distinguished itself as being different from Bitcoin in many ways.

3968
06:46:07,850 --> 06:46:11,350
So it's kind of like a product differentiation thing.

3969
06:46:11,850 --> 06:46:14,350
Or people are trying to figure out what is the different thing.

3970
06:46:14,350 --> 06:46:23,850
And so you could argue that by doing the Dow hard fork, they set themselves apart.

3971
06:46:24,350 --> 06:46:27,850
And they said we are willing to be more centralized, more move fast, break things.

3972
06:46:28,350 --> 06:46:34,850
They kind of drew the polarity, the polarization of the BTC versus ETH thing.

3973
06:46:35,350 --> 06:46:38,850
And thus they captured what you might call the...

3974
06:46:39,350 --> 06:46:42,850
They captured the stage for like the single opposition party.

3975
06:46:42,850 --> 06:46:47,350
Like the leader of the opposition to Bitcoin.

3976
06:46:47,850 --> 06:46:50,350
I don't know. I don't think so.

3977
06:46:50,850 --> 06:46:55,350
I think that them just being different enough like from bit shares and things like that.

3978
06:46:55,850 --> 06:46:58,350
Just like totally different protocol had the EVM expressibility.

3979
06:46:58,850 --> 06:47:01,350
Like that was enough for moving.

3980
06:47:01,850 --> 06:47:05,350
And then like the ICO boom like in 2017, 2016.

3981
06:47:05,850 --> 06:47:10,350
And I think that that was enough for like whatever user demand for it.

3982
06:47:10,350 --> 06:47:14,850
I don't think like the DAO actually had like a positive effect for users.

3983
06:47:18,350 --> 06:47:20,850
Anyway, throw that theory out there.

3984
06:47:21,350 --> 06:47:23,850
Or whatever.

3985
06:47:24,350 --> 06:47:29,850
But it is interesting the way Ethereum has done many things the exact opposite of the way Bitcoin has done them.

3986
06:47:30,350 --> 06:47:34,850
And I don't know. Does that add up to being the number two coin?

3987
06:47:35,350 --> 06:47:37,850
I think they just spent more on marketing.

3988
06:47:38,850 --> 06:47:43,350
Than anyone else at the time.

3989
06:47:43,850 --> 06:47:45,350
Right.

3990
06:47:45,850 --> 06:47:48,350
I remember Dash had a whole marketing budget in there.

3991
06:47:48,850 --> 06:47:50,350
It was like in their blockchain.

3992
06:47:50,850 --> 06:47:53,350
Like 15% of the block reward goes to marketing.

3993
06:47:53,850 --> 06:47:56,350
And that came out and I was like that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my entire life.

3994
06:47:56,850 --> 06:47:59,350
And then it completely started to work because they were sponsoring all that stuff.

3995
06:47:59,850 --> 06:48:01,350
And you see them everywhere.

3996
06:48:01,850 --> 06:48:03,350
And all these people are talking about them.

3997
06:48:04,350 --> 06:48:05,850
I agree with Adam.

3998
06:48:06,350 --> 06:48:09,850
The marketing that Ethereum took with like the Ethereum conferences and like onboarding a bunch of developers.

3999
06:48:10,350 --> 06:48:11,850
That was probably the main thing.

4000
06:48:12,350 --> 06:48:13,850
Yeah, I kind of agree with Adam.

4001
06:48:14,350 --> 06:48:15,850
The marketing.

4002
06:48:16,350 --> 06:48:17,850
And I think maybe if you want to say Dash had marketing too.

4003
06:48:18,350 --> 06:48:19,850
It just wasn't good.

4004
06:48:20,350 --> 06:48:21,850
Yeah, it wasn't developer focused I guess.

4005
06:48:21,850 --> 06:48:23,350
Yeah.

4006
06:48:29,850 --> 06:48:34,350
Anyway, so could you implement.

4007
06:48:34,850 --> 06:48:38,350
I was finding the conversation on Twitter interesting earlier in the week.

4008
06:48:38,850 --> 06:48:45,350
About the limits of language expressibility.

4009
06:48:45,850 --> 06:48:48,350
Because I think people have taken the idea that.

4010
06:48:49,350 --> 06:48:54,850
You could or should reject specific opcodes.

4011
06:48:55,350 --> 06:48:57,850
If certain things were possible to implement with them.

4012
06:48:58,350 --> 06:49:01,850
And I just thought it's like designing a CPU.

4013
06:49:02,350 --> 06:49:05,850
So that you can implement Pac-Man button or chess or something.

4014
06:49:06,350 --> 06:49:09,850
Imagine trying to think like that at the opcode level.

4015
06:49:10,850 --> 06:49:21,350
Any programming beyond a certain level of expressibility is going to become equivalent.

4016
06:49:21,850 --> 06:49:24,350
And able to just implement things in a different way.

4017
06:49:24,850 --> 06:49:29,350
So I think that's not a good way to think about things.

4018
06:49:29,850 --> 06:49:35,350
Well, I think there is a theoretically possible way that I did in fact present about in 2016.

4019
06:49:36,350 --> 06:49:37,850
Which is that.

4020
06:49:38,350 --> 06:49:41,850
The way drivechain works is it's like the miners are like.

4021
06:49:42,350 --> 06:49:44,850
The sidechains have like these.

4022
06:49:45,350 --> 06:49:46,850
They're like these big categories.

4023
06:49:47,350 --> 06:49:48,850
And it's like human managed.

4024
06:49:49,350 --> 06:49:52,850
You could have something where.

4025
06:49:53,350 --> 06:49:55,850
It's general purpose at the lowest level.

4026
06:49:56,350 --> 06:49:58,850
Which of course the BIP300 sidechain is like.

4027
06:49:59,350 --> 06:50:00,850
Just like any Turing complete.

4028
06:50:01,350 --> 06:50:01,850
Like you know what I mean.

4029
06:50:02,350 --> 06:50:03,850
Like it's like you just any piece of software.

4030
06:50:03,850 --> 06:50:06,350
So it has infinite expressibility.

4031
06:50:06,850 --> 06:50:14,350
But actually because the drop out of the sidechains is done by miners.

4032
06:50:14,850 --> 06:50:19,350
The miners might only add them by category.

4033
06:50:19,850 --> 06:50:22,350
Like they'd say you have to have a set of privacy sidechain.

4034
06:50:22,850 --> 06:50:25,350
Or you have to have a assets sidechain.

4035
06:50:25,850 --> 06:50:28,350
And then it might come back in.

4036
06:50:28,850 --> 06:50:29,350
And it might even be the case.

4037
06:50:29,850 --> 06:50:32,350
But if there's general purpose sidechain like an east sidechain.

4038
06:50:32,350 --> 06:50:34,850
They might one day.

4039
06:50:35,350 --> 06:50:36,850
Pull the plug on that.

4040
06:50:37,350 --> 06:50:38,850
And say because it's too general.

4041
06:50:39,350 --> 06:50:40,850
And it allows things that are bad.

4042
06:50:41,350 --> 06:50:42,850
You have to undo the generality.

4043
06:50:43,350 --> 06:50:44,850
And you only have to make a.

4044
06:50:45,350 --> 06:50:46,850
You have to make an NFT sidechain.

4045
06:50:47,350 --> 06:50:48,850
And.

4046
06:50:49,350 --> 06:50:52,850
And so that's just a theoretical possibility that I.

4047
06:50:53,350 --> 06:50:54,850
I don't know how practical that really is.

4048
06:50:55,350 --> 06:50:56,850
Because.

4049
06:50:57,350 --> 06:50:58,850
But you could the miners could.

4050
06:50:59,350 --> 06:51:00,850
If there is something.

4051
06:51:00,850 --> 06:51:02,350
Problematic behavior.

4052
06:51:02,850 --> 06:51:03,350
Then actually the.

4053
06:51:03,850 --> 06:51:05,350
You could pull the plug on it.

4054
06:51:05,850 --> 06:51:07,350
At the sidechain level.

4055
06:51:07,850 --> 06:51:08,350
Yeah.

4056
06:51:08,850 --> 06:51:11,350
And then the sidechains themselves would.

4057
06:51:11,850 --> 06:51:15,350
They would know that they would only actually be added by miners.

4058
06:51:15,850 --> 06:51:18,350
They would only be not killed.

4059
06:51:18,850 --> 06:51:22,350
If they were not general purpose.

4060
06:51:22,850 --> 06:51:23,350
So it's kind of weird.

4061
06:51:23,850 --> 06:51:25,350
You have a general purpose ingredients.

4062
06:51:25,850 --> 06:51:28,350
Which is just like whatever the software could theoretically do.

4063
06:51:28,350 --> 06:51:29,850
But then if the result is bad.

4064
06:51:30,350 --> 06:51:31,850
Like you're held accountable to the results.

4065
06:51:32,350 --> 06:51:33,850
They must do.

4066
06:51:34,350 --> 06:51:35,850
Well I think.

4067
06:51:36,350 --> 06:51:37,850
I hope people would be.

4068
06:51:38,350 --> 06:51:39,850
More like permissionless innovation mindset.

4069
06:51:40,350 --> 06:51:41,850
For.

4070
06:51:42,350 --> 06:51:42,850
For a sidechain.

4071
06:51:43,350 --> 06:51:43,850
But I mean.

4072
06:51:44,350 --> 06:51:46,850
The original context they were thinking about.

4073
06:51:47,350 --> 06:51:48,850
Expressibility limits.

4074
06:51:49,350 --> 06:51:49,850
It's like you know.

4075
06:51:50,350 --> 06:51:51,850
In the covenant recursive versus not.

4076
06:51:52,350 --> 06:51:53,850
And you know some people have given.

4077
06:51:54,350 --> 06:51:55,850
Fairly convincing arguments.

4078
06:51:55,850 --> 06:51:57,350
But it doesn't make that much difference to safety.

4079
06:51:57,850 --> 06:52:00,350
Because you can have really deep.

4080
06:52:00,850 --> 06:52:02,350
Pre committed.

4081
06:52:02,850 --> 06:52:04,350
Non recursive.

4082
06:52:05,321 --> 06:52:20,521
Covenants. But you know. Then they are thinking. Well if they if they don't like sidechains. And you tell them that. You know a covenant could make us. Could be used to implement a sidechain either. Then like well maybe we don't want covenants either.

4083
06:52:21,401 --> 06:52:33,401
So they're sort of using. Really dislike them. I mean don't you think sometimes these are just people on the mailing list. Or on or on Twitter. Who they just really want to.

4084
06:52:33,721 --> 06:52:39,721
Say an impressive thing. And whether or not. It's good for Bitcoin. It's secondary to their cause.

4085
06:52:40,440 --> 06:52:41,321
No I mean it was.

4086
06:52:42,440 --> 06:52:48,120
The recursive covenant thing. I thought this is a very impressive point. But then I was like you investigated more. And you're like wait a minute.

4087
06:52:48,280 --> 06:52:48,760
Yeah.

4088
06:52:49,001 --> 06:52:52,361
It only seems impressive. It's not really impressive actually. It's just.

4089
06:52:52,920 --> 06:52:59,240
I mean I think it's like the concept of. You know what opcodes.

4090
06:53:01,960 --> 06:53:08,920
Like volunteer developers on Bitcoin. Are going to typically be. You know self motivated to.

4091
06:53:09,880 --> 06:53:10,361
You know.

4092
06:53:10,361 --> 06:53:10,681
Yeah.

4093
06:53:10,681 --> 06:53:21,401
To work on. You know test code. Etcetera. Are things that. Somebody has a use case for. You know. So like lightning.

4094
06:53:24,920 --> 06:53:31,960
Doing what it does. And requiring originally. Was it CLTV or like one of the time based things.

4095
06:53:32,361 --> 06:53:41,960
As an opcode rather than as a hype flag. Was like motivation enough for people to want to do that. Right.

4096
06:53:42,600 --> 06:53:50,441
And so. But this conversation is almost the opposite. Right. That there was something that didn't want it. So then they were thinking about.

4097
06:53:51,401 --> 06:53:51,880
Like.

4098
06:53:53,880 --> 06:54:00,041
Not wanting something else. Or. You know. Trying to restrict covenants so that they.

4099
06:54:01,160 --> 06:54:07,960
They do the applications. They do. I mean it's not really about what it can do. But it's about what it can't do. Right. So we don't like this thing. So.

4100
06:54:08,600 --> 06:54:13,321
We'll try to figure out when to do covenants. That makes it impossible to do that. But I was trying to explain to them that.

4101
06:54:14,281 --> 06:54:16,841
You know people have found this out before in other languages.

4102
06:54:16,841 --> 06:54:25,401
The limits of computability are really counterintuitive. And people will think. It's not possible to do that. For some reason.

4103
06:54:26,440 --> 06:54:31,800
For years and years. And then somebody will show. You know. They'll tell somebody else. Oh yeah. You can do it. And you know.

4104
06:54:32,281 --> 06:54:38,360
They had a key insight. And they make a working example. And it flips everybody's view. It's like. Well you can do it. There's a trick to it. Right.

4105
06:54:39,160 --> 06:54:47,641
So. You know. Like. Can Bitcoin do covenants today? It turns out not quite. But really close. Right. If it. If OP_CAT hadn't been disabled.

4106
06:54:49,000 --> 06:54:52,600
Very early on. Maybe it would have had covenants. There's several.

4107
06:54:53,401 --> 06:54:57,960
Approaches that. Almost. But not quite work. And maybe it's even possible. Like with.

4108
06:54:59,240 --> 06:55:03,561
You know. Really creative abuse of like signatures and different things. Right. So.

4109
06:55:04,921 --> 06:55:06,360
I think it's just not a good.

4110
06:55:07,321 --> 06:55:16,600
Approach to worry about. And just try to make. You know. Useful opcodes that work well with other opcodes. And composably.

4111
06:55:17,960 --> 06:55:23,720
And. You know. Can enable a range of things when combined with other opcodes. Whatever you write.

4112
06:55:23,720 --> 06:55:30,041
Does anyone else want to. Say anything. A lot of people. Asked to speak. And I. Added a bunch of people.

4113
06:55:32,041 --> 06:55:43,000
Yeah. I could. Thanks for adding us. I mean. This is related a little bit to. The drivechain conversation. But more about. I guess I'm ethos of the cyberpunks. And you know.

4114
06:55:43,561 --> 06:55:59,080
I was curious about what you guys thought about how we can get more people running nodes effectively and being active participants. And the network. I mean. I think that there is this interesting movement of people that want to have a bigger voice. Want to be a part of it. And you know. There's some different ways that we can do that.

4115
06:55:59,080 --> 06:56:02,540
you guys thought about how we can get more people running nodes effectively and being

4116
06:56:02,540 --> 06:56:04,580
active participants in the network.

4117
06:56:04,920 --> 06:56:09,600
I mean, I think that there is this interesting movement of people that want to have a

4118
06:56:09,600 --> 06:56:11,340
bigger voice, want to be a part of it.

4119
06:56:11,620 --> 06:56:16,740
you know, there's some different ways people kind of get in the door through, if it is,

4120
06:56:16,740 --> 06:56:19,840
you know, on the payment side of things, financially, that's all wonderful.

4121
06:56:20,200 --> 06:56:22,440
You know, yeah, inscription is good and bad.

4122
06:56:22,440 --> 06:56:26,940
I mean, have brought people in through kind of creation of art or inscribing different

4123
06:56:26,940 --> 06:56:28,840
things like we even made like

4124
06:56:29,081 --> 06:56:36,081
I mean. I think that there is this interesting movement of people that want to have a bigger voice. Want to be a part of it. And you know. There's some different ways that we can do that.

4125
06:56:36,081 --> 06:56:43,081
I mean. I think that there is this interesting movement of people that want to have a bigger voice. Want to be a part of it.

4126
06:56:43,081 --> 06:56:56,081
I mean. Historically what helped was, I think, Lightning. The way it was implemented and needed to be online. And how it became quite popular to run Lightning.

4127
06:56:57,081 --> 06:57:06,081
And I also think the UASF and the contentious fork caused more people to realize that running a full node was a defensive measure. You know. Not your keys. Not your coins. But also not your full node. Maybe not on the right network.

4128
06:57:06,081 --> 06:57:16,081
And I also think the UASF and the contentious fork caused more people to realize that running a full node was a defensive measure. You know. Not your keys. Not your coins. But also not your full node. Maybe not on the right network.

4129
06:57:16,081 --> 06:57:38,081
So. I don't know. In terms of encouraging people to run nodes. I think the other thing that's helped is there are multiple companies making dedicated nodes that are easier to set up and maintain. You know. Not everybody has a Linux system administrator capability. Right?

4130
06:57:38,081 --> 06:57:54,081
Yeah. Totally. For me personally I have a Mac and being able to have an SSD just made it a lot easier. And I guess the incentive to do it too has been fascinating to see. I guess art really speaks to people. So people having the chance.

4131
06:57:54,081 --> 06:58:20,081
I guess kind of like you were saying Paul. Like the marketing side has been really fascinating. Kind of cool to see that like right or wrong like the ordinal side of things has been like a marketing kind of for a different population of people on the Bitcoin side who want to experiment with art and do other things and are now. Yeah. Even learning about doing stuff like running nodes and learning how to be badass cypherpunks. So I think it's just really interesting and pretty cool to see.

4132
06:58:21,081 --> 06:58:44,081
Yeah. I have some ideas. So yeah it's true that every lightning node must be must have access to a full node. And the same way actually every drivechain sidechain must need to have access to a full node as well. So that's kind of direct. But in general the block size limit is key because it keeps running a node cheap.

4133
06:58:45,081 --> 06:59:08,081
So you have to keep focus on it cheap because a thousand a thousand new blocks come in every week. And so even at the one megabyte level that's one gigabyte. And now we're at whatever we are. You know who knows exactly what it is but 2.5 gigabytes per week. So it piles up and it has to fight against the increasing Internet speeds and things.

4134
06:59:09,081 --> 06:59:23,081
I have some other thoughts though which are that I mean one thing we talked about in the other chat is this CoinNews idea which is neither or it's not a it's not a soft fork or a hard fork or anything it's just cosmetic in the node.

4135
06:59:24,081 --> 06:59:44,081
I mean I think the node should do some things for people. So the node it tells you whether or not you're on the right Bitcoin network. But the node should also like the node should have a block explorer. So like we have this in DriveNet. If you download it we actually have in the in the full node it has a block explorer and it has like hash calculator.

4136
06:59:45,081 --> 07:00:04,081
It has stuff that like lets you figure out whether or not your wallet is working. It has the BIP39 wordless stuff. It has tools in there that I think that I use personally. So if I use them then maybe someone else will find them useful maybe not I don't know.

4137
07:00:05,081 --> 07:00:23,081
So I think that we should the node should have a bunch of stuff that people use. And I also think that the node could be possibly I'm open minded to a radical re-envisioning of the node. I'm sure everyone's going to panic and say that this is me attacking Bitcoin yet again.

4138
07:00:23,081 --> 07:00:39,081
But I think you could like download one piece of software that's very small. That's not a full node but it's something. And then that thing could like upgrade to an SPV node and then upgrade to a full node.

4139
07:00:39,081 --> 07:00:55,081
Like upgrade to a highly pruned full node. And so what I'm getting at is if you go to people on day one and you say you need to download 600 gigabytes they'll be like okay thanks nice to meet you or whatever and they'll just be like whatever.

4140
07:00:55,081 --> 07:01:09,081
But we want to ramp up the commitment. There's a lot of people who run nothing. They run no node at all zero. So we want to see if we can get them in for like 50 megabytes and then can we get them in for this.

4141
07:01:09,081 --> 07:01:29,081
We can give them a tiny piece of software that does some cool stuff for them that they actually like. And then we can maybe ramp it up. And I think that's the best chance that we are going to get at actually getting these people to.

4142
07:01:29,081 --> 07:01:55,081
I'm kind of surprised that so many people do run full nodes at all given the severe ramp up. So I'm thinking like all these people with zero nodes how do we get them to something. Other people don't necessarily like this approach though because they say this will stop people from ever becoming a full node. But I say a lot of people will never become a full node if you ask them this way. So it's hard to say who's right about that.

4143
07:01:55,081 --> 07:02:17,081
Yeah I think so much of it goes back to incentive. It's like what is it. And for me and I think like running a node like there's a big identity component too. We've seen this we're trying to earnestly create a little community that cares about the Cypherpunk values. And it's been very cool for people like it means something to them to run a node to be an active participant.

4144
07:02:17,081 --> 07:02:45,081
And I think I'm down if you want to like experiment a little bit with you know I think another campaign I'd talk to some of the folks with the Bitcoin dev meetup was we were looking at doing like a lightning kind of campaign. We kind of got a number of people running nodes but like we were thinking about lightning. But if you want to experiment I think that could be super cool. Like we need to have a way to mix these communities like we're all here to improve and advance Bitcoin however we can.

4145
07:02:46,081 --> 07:03:10,081
There was blockchain.info before they spent billions of dollars on blockchain.com or whatever. But blockchain.com used to be called blockchain.info. And there used to be someone cool there. I don't know who they were. If you know who they were contact me. But they had this thing where I'm sure that some people remember it.

4146
07:03:10,081 --> 07:03:34,081
Like you could go there and like the most recent transactions would like scroll by in a kind of like little fireplace thing. And it would like just and it would pop up and you would see oh here's a transaction. And I think it had like vaguely like the location or something. It had like the amount the TXID. And it was like here's one from Atlanta Georgia. Here's one from whatever. Something like that.

4147
07:03:34,081 --> 07:03:56,081
And it was just really cool to see honestly. So I also put that in the DriveNet. Our software node also does that where if people broadcast transactions they just kind of show up. You can see them in like a little box. It's kind of like the troll box or something. You can see them show up. And it shows you how much money the transaction is for and the TXID and when it was.

4148
07:03:56,081 --> 07:04:20,081
So you kind of see you feel kind of connected to the community that way which is of course exactly literally what the full node does. But it's also kind of cool to have something to look at. And it was kind of cool to look at at first because you would think of back in those days Bitcoin was very small. So you were like is this project going to. Does anyone like this project. Is this a scam. Am I being scammed by Bitcoin.

4149
07:04:21,081 --> 07:04:26,081
And so you could see it and you'd be like oh yeah these other transactions are here. It was kind of a neat little thing.

4150
07:04:27,081 --> 07:04:30,081
I like that. Where is that. Where can I see that.

4151
07:04:31,081 --> 07:04:56,081
Well if you download our software you can sort of see it. Our software defaults to reg test mode for easier testing so nothing will really be seen there. I think hopefully I'm not sure if you can try to find on Google like an old blockchain.info like front page or someone screenshot of it because it was pretty neat and I liked it. And then they found at some point they got rid of it which is I think a huge mistake.

4152
07:04:57,081 --> 07:04:58,081
Yeah I remember.

4153
07:04:59,081 --> 07:05:02,081
Yeah I was wondering where that went. I like blockchain.info.

4154
07:05:05,081 --> 07:05:14,081
That's interesting. Adam are there any like pieces of art or anything else in like the cypherpunks movement that's kind of caught your eye that you think would be cool to highlight.

4155
07:05:14,081 --> 07:05:43,081
Well something I was talking about earlier on is the like the hash of a block. I mean this is backup right. So there was this project you know people are always comparing fingerprints or hashes of like public keys to make sure that they're sending transactions to the right place or that they're looking at the right person.

4156
07:05:44,081 --> 07:05:54,081
And this guy called Raf Levine on the cypherpunks list had the idea to make them more visually easy to compare.

4157
07:05:55,081 --> 07:06:16,081
Now of course you know if you so he had this algorithm for converting hash output into an image. And of course it's difficult because you want to make sure that you can't create hash collisions and that's the case for hash functions.

4158
07:06:16,081 --> 07:06:30,081
But when it goes through a transformation to an image you need to make sure that it's not like easy in terms of work to find another hash that looks almost the same even though it's quite different.

4159
07:06:31,081 --> 07:06:41,081
So that is the kind of the new trick is you need to think of some kind of visual algorithm to transform it into like you know a certain resolution snowflake like pattern.

4160
07:06:42,081 --> 07:06:48,081
You know if you look at a snowflake under a microscope they're all like different interesting symmetrical crystalline patterns.

4161
07:06:48,081 --> 07:07:02,081
So yeah so I was thinking about that and you could use one of those visualizers on the Bitcoin blocks because you know there's a huge amount of work that goes into making a Bitcoin block.

4162
07:07:03,081 --> 07:07:11,081
So it's a thing of kind of mathematical and thermodynamic beauty but you can't see it right. It's a conceptual thing.

4163
07:07:11,081 --> 07:07:19,081
But if you had these snowflake transforms you could actually look at them and they're unique and expensive to make.

4164
07:07:20,081 --> 07:07:23,081
We have to find some way to sort of preserve that information right.

4165
07:07:23,081 --> 07:07:38,081
The uniqueness of the block hash and visually how many leading zeros it had all in a way that makes the images also very hard to make you know to collide to make them look almost the same right.

4166
07:07:39,081 --> 07:07:40,081
That's super cool.

4167
07:07:40,081 --> 07:07:42,081
I wonder if we could integrate that somehow.

4168
07:07:42,081 --> 07:07:43,081
I hope you don't mind.

4169
07:07:43,081 --> 07:07:44,081
I'm just going to pin this thing.

4170
07:07:44,081 --> 07:07:52,081
We just made this you know we took the manifesto and basically made the color change with block height you know the font of the color.

4171
07:07:52,081 --> 07:07:55,081
I wonder if we could like if a next step could be.

4172
07:07:56,081 --> 07:07:57,081
I'm sorry I'm not.

4173
07:07:57,081 --> 07:08:08,081
My training is actually as a physician and I kind of love blockchain Bitcoin since like 2015 and just kind of gradually leveling up my technical ability so I'm not following all of it on the tech side.

4174
07:08:08,081 --> 07:08:17,081
But conceptually I love the idea of kind of maybe the next iteration of a manifesto or something could incorporate this snowflake somehow.

4175
07:08:18,081 --> 07:08:20,081
I don't know if we could take the hash of the block.

4176
07:08:20,081 --> 07:08:23,081
Maybe Elock could link it together somehow.

4177
07:08:26,081 --> 07:08:28,081
I don't know Adam if that makes any sense.

4178
07:08:28,081 --> 07:08:41,081
I mean there are services, presumably they're still around, where you can pay a miner to include a message in the extra non-space.

4179
07:08:41,081 --> 07:08:47,081
So like a kind of useless part of the block that takes space anyway.

4180
07:08:48,081 --> 07:08:57,081
And so it's kind of like a bit of permanent graffiti in the small part of the block to do with mining.

4181
07:08:57,081 --> 07:09:00,081
The counter when you do the mining.

4182
07:09:00,081 --> 07:09:02,081
But those are kind of cool.

4183
07:09:03,081 --> 07:09:16,081
It's not like inscription so it's not like a gif or something but there's a chunk of bytes in there which is where the miners iterate and keep changing it as they're mining.

4184
07:09:16,081 --> 07:09:19,081
Each attempt to mine will use a different one right.

4185
07:09:19,081 --> 07:09:28,081
So it doesn't really cost anything in terms of efficiency or space or block size to put a small message in there.

4186
07:09:28,081 --> 07:09:30,081
So there are services that let you do that.

4187
07:09:31,081 --> 07:09:34,081
So I was reading about your HashCast stamps.

4188
07:09:34,081 --> 07:09:38,081
Did anyone ever make a visual representation of those hashes?

4189
07:09:39,081 --> 07:09:40,081
No.

4190
07:09:44,081 --> 07:09:47,081
Some people try to collect them.

4191
07:09:47,081 --> 07:09:54,081
They throw quite a bit of compute power at them like multiple machines and graphics card.

4192
07:09:55,081 --> 07:09:57,081
You do implementations.

4193
07:09:58,081 --> 07:10:01,081
Even people doing that while you could Bitcoin mine.

4194
07:10:01,081 --> 07:10:04,081
Like they would have mined quite a lot of Bitcoin instead of that stamp.

4195
07:10:04,081 --> 07:10:11,081
But anyway I put them on a web page because I thought they were kind of interesting artifacts.

4196
07:10:12,081 --> 07:10:18,081
But there were people doing that in parallel with the time when Bitcoin mining was happening.

4197
07:10:18,081 --> 07:10:19,081
Curious.

4198
07:10:20,081 --> 07:10:21,081
Very cool.

4199
07:10:21,081 --> 07:10:26,081
Thanks for the chance to just talk and better understand this.

4200
07:10:26,081 --> 07:10:34,081
I've been trying to learn more about drivechains and follow up with you as well just about seeing what we might be able to do with our community.

4201
07:10:34,081 --> 07:10:37,081
But I appreciate the opportunity to learn.

4202
07:10:37,081 --> 07:10:38,081
Yeah.

4203
07:10:38,081 --> 07:10:39,081
I better clock off.

4204
07:10:39,081 --> 07:10:40,081
Getting late in Europe.

4205
07:10:40,081 --> 07:10:42,081
But you guys can keep going.

4206
07:10:43,081 --> 07:10:44,081
Bye.

4207
07:10:45,081 --> 07:10:55,081
So for the drivechain would that like take activation like soft works from like node runners that are drivechain like running the drivechain?

4208
07:10:55,081 --> 07:10:56,081
No, I guess.

4209
07:10:59,081 --> 07:11:02,081
Well, BIP300 activates on L1.

4210
07:11:02,081 --> 07:11:04,081
And that's the only thing that's on L1.

4211
07:11:06,081 --> 07:11:08,081
So the sidechain is its own thing.

4212
07:11:10,081 --> 07:11:11,081
And it has a.

4213
07:11:12,081 --> 07:11:13,081
Well, that's not quite true.

4214
07:11:13,081 --> 07:11:14,081
Maybe I didn't explain it.

4215
07:11:14,081 --> 07:11:15,081
What were you?

4216
07:11:15,081 --> 07:11:16,081
What do you actually want to ask about?

4217
07:11:17,081 --> 07:11:21,081
Well, like we were talking about, like, the difference between like miners and node runners.

4218
07:11:21,081 --> 07:11:23,081
And I was like, well, that's not quite true.

4219
07:11:23,081 --> 07:11:24,081
Maybe I didn't explain it.

4220
07:11:24,081 --> 07:11:25,081
What were you?

4221
07:11:25,081 --> 07:11:26,081
What do you actually want to ask about?

4222
07:11:27,081 --> 07:11:31,081
Well, like we were talking about, like, the difference between like miners and node runners.

4223
07:11:32,081 --> 07:11:37,081
So like, would you need to like soft fork into the drivechain?

4224
07:11:37,081 --> 07:11:41,081
Or could you just run that on everyone else's nodes?

4225
07:11:41,081 --> 07:11:45,081
Like, would they know the difference between like a drivechain transaction or what have you?

4226
07:11:47,081 --> 07:11:53,081
Well, I still don't really know what you are trying to ask about.

4227
07:11:54,081 --> 07:11:55,081
Do you mean that?

4228
07:11:57,081 --> 07:11:58,081
Like.

4229
07:12:00,081 --> 07:12:03,081
Drivechain itself is a BIP300 and it has yet to activate.

4230
07:12:04,081 --> 07:12:08,081
And then individual sidechains also activate on L1.

4231
07:12:09,081 --> 07:12:12,081
But the sidechains themselves don't live there.

4232
07:12:12,081 --> 07:12:13,081
They're like lightning nodes.

4233
07:12:14,081 --> 07:12:19,081
And so that's like, you know, LND versus C lightning or something.

4234
07:12:20,081 --> 07:12:27,081
So I guess my question is, do you need like a change to like nodes to be able to support the sidechain?

4235
07:12:28,081 --> 07:12:29,081
Like.

4236
07:12:30,081 --> 07:12:31,081
Oh, well, yeah.

4237
07:12:31,081 --> 07:12:33,081
Ideally, everyone.

4238
07:12:33,081 --> 07:12:43,081
Ideally, the 300 idea will get merged into like the next version of Bitcoin, which is supposed to be version 26.

4239
07:12:44,081 --> 07:12:45,081
And then.

4240
07:12:47,081 --> 07:12:53,081
And then everyone would upgrade to that, and that would include activation parameters for BIP300.

4241
07:12:53,081 --> 07:12:55,081
And it's not that everyone has to upgrade to that.

4242
07:12:56,081 --> 07:12:58,081
But, you know, this is the ideal situation.

4243
07:12:59,081 --> 07:13:02,081
So I suppose it.

4244
07:13:03,081 --> 07:13:08,081
But I'm not sure to what extent it actually requires most other people to upgrade.

4245
07:13:08,081 --> 07:13:10,081
I think it's ambiguous.

4246
07:13:11,081 --> 07:13:13,081
But, yeah, the more people who could.

4247
07:13:15,081 --> 07:13:20,081
It helps the idea if people are supportive of it.

4248
07:13:20,081 --> 07:13:21,081
So people.

4249
07:13:22,081 --> 07:13:23,081
I guess tweet about it.

4250
07:13:23,081 --> 07:13:26,081
We have a page where we have people on Twitter.

4251
07:13:27,081 --> 07:13:31,081
We have it's good if you combat the FUD.

4252
07:13:32,081 --> 07:13:35,081
And so if people say things that you can either.

4253
07:13:39,081 --> 07:13:45,081
Educate people or send them to this space where we we let anyone come up.

4254
07:13:47,081 --> 07:13:48,081
Even the haters.

4255
07:13:52,081 --> 07:13:53,081
So, yeah, we do that.

4256
07:13:53,081 --> 07:13:54,081
So.

4257
07:13:55,081 --> 07:13:57,081
So we.

4258
07:13:58,081 --> 07:13:59,081
So, you know, I think.

4259
07:13:59,081 --> 07:14:03,081
But in general, the idea is we don't want with BIP300.

4260
07:14:03,081 --> 07:14:08,081
We don't want to, like, force people to do something they don't want to do.

4261
07:14:08,081 --> 07:14:13,081
Instead, we want to just try to educate people and get them excited about.

4262
07:14:15,081 --> 07:14:16,081
But this is.

4263
07:14:17,081 --> 07:14:18,081
It is.

4264
07:14:18,081 --> 07:14:23,081
We just spent a bunch of time talking about whether or not a soft fork is actually a mandatory or optional.

4265
07:14:23,081 --> 07:14:24,081
Change.

4266
07:14:25,081 --> 07:14:27,081
I kind of still think it's an optional change to some extent.

4267
07:14:29,081 --> 07:14:32,081
We just spent two different spaces talking about that.

4268
07:14:33,081 --> 07:14:36,081
And many other people have completely different opinions about that.

4269
07:14:36,081 --> 07:14:37,081
And.

4270
07:14:38,081 --> 07:14:40,081
I had a back and I and Luke Cash Jr.

4271
07:14:40,081 --> 07:14:41,081
as many opinions.

4272
07:14:42,081 --> 07:14:47,081
But, yeah, in the sense that there are many new versions, new version of Bitcoin Core that comes out every once in a while.

4273
07:14:48,081 --> 07:14:49,081
So.

4274
07:14:53,081 --> 07:15:02,081
The ideal thing would be to for me to open this pull request to the next version of Bitcoin Core and then have a new version of Bitcoin Core.

4275
07:15:03,081 --> 07:15:12,081
The ideal thing would be to for me to open this pull request to the next version of Bitcoin Core and then have it be merged.

4276
07:15:12,081 --> 07:15:19,081
But I think there's a bit of a chicken and egg problem where people will probably they would hesitate to merge anything.

4277
07:15:21,081 --> 07:15:31,081
Unless they think there is a reason, unless there are people who want it, because just in the name of keeping the code as easy to manage as possible.

4278
07:15:33,081 --> 07:15:35,081
They will not want to merge anything.

4279
07:15:37,081 --> 07:15:38,081
Excuse me.

4280
07:15:38,081 --> 07:15:42,081
They will not want to merge anything unless there is demand for it.

4281
07:15:44,081 --> 07:15:47,081
Of course, there cannot literally be any demand for it until after it activates.

4282
07:15:47,081 --> 07:15:48,081
But you know what I mean?

4283
07:15:48,081 --> 07:15:52,081
Like they want to get an idea that they're actually doing something that people like.

4284
07:15:53,081 --> 07:15:54,081
So I don't know.

4285
07:15:54,081 --> 07:15:55,081
Maybe that answers your question.

4286
07:15:55,081 --> 07:16:03,081
What about like running that having people experiment with running the software before it's merged to core?

4287
07:16:04,081 --> 07:16:05,081
Yeah, we have that.

4288
07:16:05,081 --> 07:16:07,081
That's what I call a drive net.

4289
07:16:07,081 --> 07:16:14,081
You go to drivechain.info slash releases or I think layer2labs.com has.

4290
07:16:14,081 --> 07:16:19,081
I don't know if it has the latest version, but I will make sure that it does.

4291
07:16:20,081 --> 07:16:21,081
Make sure that it does.

4292
07:16:22,081 --> 07:16:26,081
But I have data drivechain.info slash releases.

4293
07:16:27,081 --> 07:16:34,081
And yeah, and we will try to make the version better all the time.

4294
07:16:35,081 --> 07:16:37,081
So you can run that and that's just with play money.

4295
07:16:38,081 --> 07:16:42,081
And it will, it'll, that's like a version of Bitcoin Core that has BIP300 in it.

4296
07:16:43,081 --> 07:16:47,081
And you can click on all the buttons and see for yourself and you can mine blocks as much as you want.

4297
07:16:48,081 --> 07:16:51,081
You have your own little play blockchain.

4298
07:16:51,081 --> 07:16:52,081
Also so rich.

4299
07:16:52,081 --> 07:16:54,081
But in every other way, exactly.

4300
07:16:54,081 --> 07:16:55,081
Yeah, exactly.

4301
07:16:56,081 --> 07:16:58,081
In every other way it's the same.

4302
07:16:59,081 --> 07:17:02,081
So you can click all the little buttons and things and see what happens.

4303
07:17:03,081 --> 07:17:08,081
So I think I also should end the space soon.

4304
07:17:09,081 --> 07:17:18,081
But if there are any pressing questions or comments, then feel free to ask.

4305
07:17:18,081 --> 07:17:19,081
I was going to say it's good to see Crown again.

4306
07:17:19,081 --> 07:17:23,081
I remember being in like Clubhouse, like spaces with them like way back in the day.

4307
07:17:23,081 --> 07:17:26,161
there are any pressing questions or comments,

4308
07:17:27,841 --> 07:17:33,841
then feel free to ask or speak

4309
07:17:33,841 --> 07:17:37,401
or whatever. As I say, good to see Crown again.

4310
07:17:37,521 --> 07:17:39,501
remember being in like

4311
07:17:39,670 --> 07:17:43,930
Clubhouse, spaces within like way back in the day.

4312
07:17:50,870 --> 07:17:52,410
Hey man, I'm just making chicken.

4313
07:17:57,640 --> 07:18:01,440
that doesn't really sound like anyone has anything else I say so

4314
07:18:03,460 --> 07:18:06,280
successful space that one can move on to the next cool space

4315
07:18:08,520 --> 07:18:11,200
and that's doing more than anything Thanks.

4316
07:18:11,620 --> 07:18:12,300
No, not at the moment.

4317
07:18:12,949 --> 07:18:15,549
I appreciate you having me up.

4318
07:18:16,809 --> 07:18:21,889
problem. I'll learn a little bit more at Drivechain, maybe have some more cogent

4319
07:18:21,889 --> 07:18:22,569
arguments.

4320
07:18:24,209 --> 07:18:25,029
Oh, okay, great.

4321
07:18:25,589 --> 07:18:26,589
Well, that's good.

4322
07:18:28,689 --> 07:18:29,038
Okay, well

4323
07:18:29,118 --> 07:18:30,598
cool. Well, thanks everyone.

4324
07:18:32,698 --> 07:18:33,518
See you later.

4325
07:18:33,778 --> 07:18:34,578
Bitcoin -ing.